Renewable Energy & Technologies Of The Future

[AvantHiatus]

You could just build a couple hundred plants and gradually decommission the old ones as they are replaced with wind/solar/hydro.

Supposedely most modern nuclear plants require 50-70 years to decommission completely, which includes transporting and storing all the fuel rods. Nuclear Power is highly reliant on coolant systems and the initial build up costs make it a bad economic investment. As well as major disasters involving the loss of control can cause nuclear power plants to melt down and leak radiation.

 

Fukushima should be enough to convince you that nuclear power is not worth it. We need something that is automatic and safe for the environment.

[Jonger]

Supposedely most modern nuclear plants require 50-70 years to decommission completely, which includes transporting and storing all the fuel rods. Nuclear Power is highly reliant on coolant systems and the initial build up costs make it a bad economic investment. As well as major disasters involving the loss of electricity can cause nuclear power plants to melt down and leak radiation.

 

Fukushima should be enough to convince you that nuclear power is not worth it. We need something that is automatic and safe for the environment.

 

Well, than prepare for 550ppm co2.

 

There is nothing else that will fill the gap in the meanwhile.

 

Are you interested in finding a solution or not? Most anti-nuclear people I run across are Luddites and enviro-nutballs. Fukushima was the result of poor regulation and building next to a tsunami prone area. There are over 100 plants in the United States and many more worldwide that are proven safe.

[AvantHiatus]

Well, than prepare for 550ppm co2.

 

There is nothing else that will fill the gap in the meanwhile.

 

Are you interested in finding a solution or not? Most anti-nuclear people I run across are Luddites and enviro-nutballs. Fukushima was the result of poor regulation and building next to a tsunami prone area. There are over 100 plants in the United States and many more worldwide that are proven safe.

You have to prepare for the unexpected. Imagine if we could no longer run the nuclear power plants or there was a massive war. There would be worldwide chernobyl everywhere, not to sound sensationalist.

 

There are better alternatives out there, there are just too many idiots and corporate pigs to get anything of substance going. Also, I think you underestimate how dangerous radiation is.

 

Btw, a 550 ppm world is safer than a world contaminated with massive amounts of radiation.

 

However, that's not the main reason to abandon nuclear, we've just reached a point where the opportunity cost is too far gone against it due to a culmination of emerging economic problems, expansion of the natural gas sector, and the availability of wind and solar on a usable scale. Carbon capture and storage is also gaining ground.

 

Also since a large portion of emitted CO2 comes from automobiles, going nuclear will not eliminate all carbon emissions.

[nflwxman]

You have to prepare for the unexpected. Imagine if we could no longer run the nuclear power plants or there was a massive war. There would be worldwide chernobyl everywhere, not to sound sensationalist.

 

There are better alternatives out there, there are just too many idiots and corporate pigs to get anything of substance going. Also, I think you underestimate how dangerous radiation is.

 

Btw, a 550 ppm world is safer than a world contaminated with massive amounts of radiation.

 

However, that's not the main reason to abandon nuclear, we've just reached a point where the opportunity cost is too far gone against it due to a culmination of emerging economic problems, expansion of the natural gas sector, and the availability of wind and solar on a usable scale. Carbon capture and storage is also gaining ground.

 

 

I agree with Jonger in that nuclear has to be a short term solution in the meantime while wind and solar ramp up (it will take decades to teach 25% of the US energy source being renewable).  That being said, nuclear power plants often take a decade or longer to  design and build and have a tremendous up front cost.  Financing is hard to acquire for NP for that reason.  Also, the cost curve of nuclear energy has not changed much (inflation adjusted) in the last decade or so while wind and solar continue to decline in cost. So no solution is truly ideal.

[chrisf97212]

... in the last decade or so while wind and solar continue to decline in cost. So no solution is truly ideal.

 

Without a feasible energy storage solution, there's only so much wind and solar can do.  Oregon is experimenting with pumping water uphill into a reservoir.  I'd like to see the feasibility of producing and storing hydrogen, to be used in fuel cells at a later time.

[FloridaJohn]

Fukushima should be enough to convince you that nuclear power is not worth it. We need something that is automatic and safe for the environment.

 

You mean like coal, oil, or natural gas?

 

How many people have died from nuclear power generation?

[AvantHiatus]

You mean like coal, oil, or natural gas?

 

How many people have died from nuclear power generation?

The ironic aspect is that the effects of nuclear radiation exposure are not felt immediately and cannot be easily examined and identified until years later. Radiation exposure indirectly causes health problems overtime. This is why you cannot trace the root causes of diseases like cancer and diabetes as they are cumulative diseases.

 

People are still dieing from the Chernobyl disaster, which ultimately looks to have killed around 40k people.

 

Very bad question to ask and how does carbon fuels have anything to do with health and environmental management? Air soot and pollution has been greatly reduced in America but still remains problematic in China and other countries.

 

No one here is suggesting that we keep using coal, etc. It's just that the short-term cost of building nuclear power plants to replace carbon is too great, and after 50 years we will no longer need nuclear so in the end it would just be a huge waste.

[SVT450R]

The ironic thing is that the effects of nuclear radiation exposure are not felt immediately and cannot be easily examined until years later. Radiation indirectly causes health problems overtime. This why you cannot trace the root causes of diseases like cancer and diabetes as they are cumulative.

 

Very bad question to ask and how does carbon fuels have anything to do with health and environmental management? Air soot and pollution has been greatly reduced in America but still remains problematic in China and other countries.

 

No one here is suggesting that we keep using coal, etc. It's just that the short-term cost of building nuclear power plants to replace carbon is too great, and after 50 years we will no longer need nuclear so in the end it would just be a huge waste.

From what i am aware of there has not been any radiation leaks in the US since the first reactors built.  I would also have to disagree that we will no longer be using nuclear in 50 years no real reason not to.

[AvantHiatus]

From what i am aware of there has not been any radiation leaks in the US since the first reactors built.  I would also have to disagree that we will no longer be using nuclear in 50 years no real reason not to.

Well, I don't know what your getting at. There are clearly more cons than pros regarding nuclear energy. A good portion of the massive investment needed to start up new plants could be used for R&D and new "green" cities.

 

I'm not one of these people like James Hansen who believes the Earth is going to implode into a fiery abyss if we don't immediately cut emissions but we should really abandon carbon and we do not need nuclear to do this.

[FloridaJohn]

People are still dieing from the Chernobyl disaster, which ultimately looks to have killed around 40k people

 

Source, please.

[AvantHiatus]

Source, please.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/04/chernobyl_death_toll_how_many_cancer_cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html

[SVT450R]

Well, I don't know what your getting at. There are clearly more cons than pros regarding nuclear energy. A good portion of the massive investment needed to start up new plants could be used for R&D and new "green" cities.

 

I'm not one of these people like James Hansen who believes the Earth is going to implode into a fiery abyss if we don't immediately cut emissions but we should really abandon carbon and we do not need nuclear to do this.

I did a little research and found out about Three mile island incident with small amount of radiation leakage just wanted to point that out.  I feel that nuclear could be a possible relief until we can meet all requirements needed with renewables.  As technology advances everything involved in nuclear will advance in all variables becoming more efficient and safer.  It speaks volumes that since the 50s to date 439 nuclear power plants are active in 31 countries and have only had 2 major disasters.

[AvantHiatus]

I did a little research and found out about Three mile island incident with small amount of radiation leakage just wanted to point that out.  I feel that nuclear could be a possible relief until we can meet all requirements needed with renewables.  As technology advances everything involved in nuclear will advance in all variables becoming more efficient and safer.  It speaks volumes that since the 50s to date 439 nuclear power plants are active in 31 countries and have only had 2 major disasters.

I read somewhere that the complete meltdown of a single facility can kill upwards of over 2 billion people and damage the environment permanently. Do not know if this is true or accurate but perhaps the risk is once again too great even if nuclear plants seem safe and reliable. One could also argue that a complete meltdown can be stopped and is unlikely.

 

It's alot easier to decommission 439 facilities than 1000+ needed to replace carbon fuels.

[nflwxman]

Without a feasible energy storage solution, there's only so much wind and solar can do.  Oregon is experimenting with pumping water uphill into a reservoir.  I'd like to see the feasibility of producing and storing hydrogen, to be used in fuel cells at a later time.

large scale storage is on it's way.  Many companies are testing it now.  In the meantime, grid operators have made reasonable headway finds ways to fit the growing wind portfolio in their territories.  It's worked out reasonably well so far- though the crap propaganda out there muddles that truth.

[FloridaJohn]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/04/chernobyl_death_toll_how_many_cancer_cases_are_caused_by_low_level_radiation.html

 

Thanks, very interesting. But what I take from that article is that some deaths fall below the level of natural deaths by the same disease or cancer, so it is impossible to come to a final number. Even your 40k number is "less than 1 percent of the cancer mortality expected in the affected population."

 

The number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident appears to be only 40 people.

 

I think if you will look into it a little bit, you will find that nuclear power generation is currently the safest form of power generation. It also has the added bonus of not producing any greenhouse gasses in the production of said power.

 

A non-fossil fuel future is going to rely, at least in part, on an increase in nuclear power. There are a lot of newer designs that mitigate the risk factors associated with Chernobyl or Fuskishima type accidents.

[SVT450R]

I read somewhere that the complete meltdown of a single facility can kill upwards of over 2 billion people and damage the environment permanently. Do not know if this is true or accurate but perhaps the risk is once again too great even if nuclear plants seem safe and reliable. One could also argue that a complete meltdown can be stopped and is unlikely.

 

It's alot easier to decommission 439 facilities than 1000+ needed to replace carbon fuels.

That number seems bogus to be honest i don't see how 2 billion people would be effected.  Here in the US a meltdown i would believe is almost impossible as there are multiple backups and safe guards to keep an incident like that from happening.  I think it's already in the books so to say that the 439 number of plants will double in 50 years.  I do believe fusion will replace nuclear in the long haul.

[hazwoper]

9 states currently get over 10% of their power from wind energy with 2 states getting over 20% of their energy from wind.  Just this year at one point Colorado recieved 60% of its power in 1 hour from wind (not sure of the day or time).

 

The DOE plan for 20% wind by 2030 is now in sight and very attainable.  They would like to see 35% wind by 2050.

[chubbs]

Nuclear in not economic in US. Only a few are planned in SE and ratepayers there will be crying if they are ever built.

[vortmax]

I think the folks focusing on storage have it right...and not from lithium. There needs to be better & safer storage tech developed that is sustainable long-term (lithium is not). Think about it, if we had battery tech today that could store 10x more energy (with the same charging time), it would be a complete game-changer. In the meantime, other techs for collection would be matured and the best ones eventually win-out.

 

Regarding collection, I think solar is the obvious long-term solution as the sun isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's the most reliable energy source in the solar system . For solar to work, however, we'll need much better batteries.

 

Just my humble opinion...

[Jonger]

I think the folks focusing on storage have it right...and not from lithium. There needs to be better & safer storage tech developed that is sustainable long-term (lithium is not). Think about it, if we had battery tech today that could store 10x more energy (with the same charging time), it would be a complete game-changer. In the meantime, other techs for collection would be matured and the best ones eventually win-out.

 

Regarding collection, I think solar is the obvious long-term solution as the sun isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's the most reliable energy source in the solar system . For solar to work, however, we'll need much better batteries.

 

Just my humble opinion...

Battery tech is developing rapidly, but don't count hydrogen fuel cells out either, Toyota is putting its money on fuel cells combined with batteries for transportation.

[salbers]

Will be interesting to see if LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions), a transmutation of hydrogen and nickel, gets somewhere in the mix.

[dabize]

Solar - especially rooftop solar looks to be the game changer to me............if the game is to be changed.  This allows the average person to drive an end run around the interests of Shell Oil et. al. and therefore might actually work.

 

If existing hybrid car (60 mpg) and plugin hybrid technology can't solve the daily transportation problem, then fuel cells won't.

 

There is some hope here ........ when the KSA goes into solar big time, you know that common sense isn't quite dead yet.

 

However, if we rely on most governments and the "intelligence" of the people to make us change our ways in a larger way, we'll be in pretty bad shape 50 years from now.

 

One final bit of technology that looks to get used (given the realities of human nature) if all else fails is the good ol' thermonuclear bomb.

 

I'm guessing that when much of Florida and Bangladesh become uninhabitable and we lose most of Midwestern food production (this could easily happen by 2050) the knock-on events will make most high tech approaches to fixing AGW impractical.

 

But lobbing 10 megaton bombs (which we still have thousands of ) at Ellsmere Island or Severnaya Zemlya until we drop Arctic temps enough to stave off GIS melting is something we CAN (and I fear may have to) do.

 

Talk about a depressing NYD thought........

[Hambone]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/25/2353231/july-25-news-worldwide-coal-use-carbon-pollution-projected-to-increase-50-percent-by-2040/

 

Does anyone really believe this is a situation that can be fixed by reducing US emissions?  The Chinese are raising a generation of kids living in Beijing and Shanghai who have never seen a sunny day.

 

 

Conclusion:

 

"In the latest International Energy Outlook, EIA is forecasting that China will be the major contributor to energy demand, coal consumption and production, and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions through 2040. China is also projected to be the largest economy in the world by 2017. The country has clearly taken steps to ensure that it has the energy needed to fuel its economic growth. And, despite the interests of the developed world in wanting China to use renewable fuels, it will be dependent on coal for a long, long time, emitting a third of the world’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in 2040, according to the EIA."

 

 

 

 

[TerryM]

dabize

So nice to read  post of your's after such a long time!

Rooftop solar coupled with a pair of plugin vehicle might hold the answer for true independence from the grid & the gas pump. I don't believe even widespread adoption will save us from our fate, but it certainly could save enough money individually to allow us to spend our waning years in something approaching luxury.

Here in Southern Ontario the possibilities of micro hydro-electric are huge. Old low head dams that once diverted streams and rivers to power mills could be utilized with minimal costs once regulatory objections were overcome. The problem as I see it is that FF producers are barring the way to progress.

Terry

[WE GOT HIM]

That number seems bogus to be honest i don't see how 2 billion people would be effected.  Here in the US a meltdown i would believe is almost impossible as there are multiple backups and safe guards to keep an incident like that from happening.  I think it's already in the books so to say that the 439 number of plants will double in 50 years.  I do believe fusion will replace nuclear in the long haul.

I'm not so sure, sometimes you have to think out of the box. All it would take is a man made attack on a few reactors and you could do irreparable damage to a large section of the country. If Fukushima taught us one thing it is that we shouldn't mess with something so deadly that we cant fully control.

[WE GOT HIM]

Thanks, very interesting. But what I take from that article is that some deaths fall below the level of natural deaths by the same disease or cancer, so it is impossible to come to a final number. Even your 40k number is "less than 1 percent of the cancer mortality expected in the affected population."

 

The number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident appears to be only 40 people.

 

I think if you will look into it a little bit, you will find that nuclear power generation is currently the safest form of power generation. It also has the added bonus of not producing any greenhouse gasses in the production of said power.

 

A non-fossil fuel future is going to rely, at least in part, on an increase in nuclear power. There are a lot of newer designs that mitigate the risk factors associated with Chernobyl or Fuskishima type accidents.

This is a really interesting topic for me. My GFs mother and her mother's sister who lived 300 miles till 1993 from Chernobyl were both diagnosed with rare cancers this year. I mean there is no way to prove it was related but they never had cancer in the family before. So I guess we can never be sure what the real death toll is. Ether way it cant be good for you.

[ASU2014]

BEIJING — The Beijing government put in place emergency measures on Wednesday to try to combat thick smog that has encased the city, which the Communist Party has hailed as a showcase capital, in brown and gray soot. The measures include temporarily shutting down more than 100 factories and ordering one-third of government vehicles off the streets, according to official news reports.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/asia/beijing-takes-emergency-steps-to-fight-smog.html?_r=0

[Jonger]

BEIJING — The Beijing government put in place emergency measures on Wednesday to try to combat thick smog that has encased the city, which the Communist Party has hailed as a showcase capital, in brown and gray soot. The measures include temporarily shutting down more than 100 factories and ordering one-third of government vehicles off the streets, according to official news reports.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/world/asia/beijing-takes-emergency-steps-to-fight-smog.html?_r=0

 

The smog is a local problem, but this local problem might end up cutting carbon emissions overall. CO2 is a colorless, tasteless gas a 400ppm, but smog is brutal and impossible to ignore.

[SVT450R]

I'm not so sure, sometimes you have to think out of the box. All it would take is a man made attack on a few reactors and you could do irreparable damage to a large section of the country. If Fukushima taught us one thing it is that we shouldn't mess with something so deadly that we cant fully control.

That would be the worst case scenario but highly unlikely here in the US that would probably be considered an Act of War.  It's also why we have large security around nuclear power plants to deter things like this from happening it would have to be a size able group of people to attempt to take on the highly trained security forces and a reactor can be put into emergency shutdown within seconds.  The reactors them selves are able to withstand a direct hit from an airplane as like 911 type attack.  It really comes down to location and the country and it's protocols etc.

[SVT450R]

About a month ago their was an article about Beijing that they were combating smog by removing illegal barbecues it's hard to take them seriously if they think that helps much.