Sustainable Energy, USA and worldwide

They say the USA are one of the most polluting, environmentally-thoughtless countries in the world. And, while there may be some truth to that, they're also a pioneer country where citizen and private initiatives have grasped not just the day, but the morrow as well.

This thread is to discuss advances, progress, growth, history, and established realities of sustainable energy, especially wind farms and solar panels.

Let the awesomeness begin!

First of all, let me talk to you about one project that personally gets me fired up, and that's DESERTEC. Here's the idea: build solar and wind plants in countries with huge friggin deserts and solid supplies of wind, in order to both develop these regions, induce peace through electrical interdependency, and feed Europe's crescent needs (they want to be 100% sustainable by 2050!). So, yeah, I think this might be a great opportunity for technology transfer, market opening, poverty alleviation, and so on. But that's just my personal favourite: there's so many more going on all around the planet! It's amazing!

That's an interesting project. I think we could certainly do a lot better.

My view on energy is we definitely need to encourage sustainable energy, but the way we've been doing it in the US is all wrong. Ethanol/Corn subsidies has been an massive fuck-up from beginning to end. It actually takes more energy/oil to produce the Ethanol than it saves, and it's done bad, bad things to the corn market.

I'd like to see more overall research grants for energy-conserving/alternative energy sources.

My big Single-Issue Wonk when it comes to clean energy is Nuclear Power. I really, really think it gets a bad rap, both from the Democrats and Republicans. Sadly, the hippy-democrat really isn't a stereotype, especially in New England, where they're constantly trying to close down a Vermont Nuclear Energy plant, Vermont Yankee, for reasons that come down to unreasonable, Luddite fear, and a severe case of NIMBY.

The Republicans have been bought and paid for by Coal and Oil companies, so you don't see any nuclear support there. It's annoying from both sides. I'd love to see a concentrated effort for more efficient, safer, more common nuclear power.

edited 9th Apr '13 2:35:48 PM by Drtentacles

I can relate to that feel about nuclear power, although I am not as informed as I'd like to.

Pretty recently a nuclear station (the only one to be precise) was closed in Quebec because the new government didn't like it.

Not sure what to think about that. I mean, sure, living beside it must be unnerving, but I can't help but feel like it was a knee-jerk reaction from the government.

Relevant.

And ethanol has fucked up more than just the corn market — we're using a dramatic chunk of all our arable land just to prop up oil.

edited 9th Apr '13 2:40:30 PM by Pykrete

A lot of Nuclear fear comes down to places like Three-Mile and Chernobyl. In the first case, the people in charge were lax, and in the second, they deliberate de-actived the safety measures, and said basically "How high can this thing go?"

Add to that antiquated tech, and you've got a recipe for disasters. Nuclear plants are pretty damn safe if you have decent safety measures, up to date equipment, and don't place them in the path of vengeful storm gods (Fukishima)

I'm waiting for the day Hydrogen becomes a viable petrol alternative.

Well then Doc, what about the places in America in the path of vengeful Earthquake/Tornadoes/Storm gods? How much safer would nuclear reactors here in america be than Fukishima?

That's the only sticking point. I'm certainly in favor of putting them in places that don't have heavy storms. Not all of US is a disaster zone.

I think (though I'll admit I need to do more reading) that it's possible to make Reactors damn near Apocalypse proof. Fukishima had it's problem because it's safety measures failed. Hopefully, they've figured out a way to correct that. It's a process, and it shouldn't be stopped because of some roadblocks, especially since it's one of the easiest, most reliable, and most efficient ways to producing power.

I got a lot of arguments against nuclear power. Apparently, doing it with Thorium rather than Uranium would be much cheaper, easier, safer, and with residues that are a lot easier to handle, but governments focused on uranium because they were interested in making nukes. I'm sure Iran would be in a lot less trouble if their nuclear plants were thorium-based.

Additionally, there's a lot of political effort to publicize nuclear energy: the amount of energy supplied to the country is overestimated through Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics, they're given subsidies for the sake of keeping them up.

And, of course, a lot of effort is expended to keep the spiceuranium flowing.

Now, opponents of nukes can get irrational, but choosing those types as the image of the opposition is a bit like straw-manning.

The USA have some truly amazing amounts of space, sun, and wind. And, honestly, if they started homegrowing their energy, I couldn't be happier. Both because the world would be better off, and because they wouldn't have reason to spend so much effort in the Middle East.

One of the reasons Europe is so keen to move to renewables is dependency on Russian gas. The Russian government, though the "privatized" Russian oligopolies, is trying to buy Europe's energy plants from under it. Leverage is being gained, and people are getting scared.

I have no objection to using Thorium.

Do you have any information/articles on the second point? Everything I've read says that it could do a lot toward replacing Oil and coal.

Not right now. I'm gathering info, though; I do intend to make this (sustainable energy) my bread'n'butter, after all, so I need to have a fair & balanced opinion.

edited 9th Apr '13 3:07:59 PM by TheHandle

Good, I'm curious. Not accusing you, I'd like to be informed, as nuclear power is one of my pet causes.

Like, FOX fair & balanced, or actually fair and balanced?

Regarding nuclear energy: The fact there has been one major meltdown (Chernobyl) not caused by natural disaster does appeal to me. Soviet management of anything was bad, so I don't think Chernobyl should really be used as an example of why we shouldn't use it, just of what happens if it fails.

It would definitely fill in the gaps between now and wind power's maximum potential being met.

I think nuclear's efficiency is hyped. But I don't really have a problem with its safety.

That's the joke; that I actually mean it when I say that.

I live in a small country, only about three million people. They can't take a Fukushima-scale disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Here's the whole Wiki article on the disaster. It looks like it was, at least in part, a very statistically unlikely combination of natural disasters, and internal conditions. Furthermore, it looks like it could have been severely mitigated if the people in charge of the plant hadn't been more concerned with preserving the reactor for future use than averting the crisis.

We've also got this.

Also, this

Yes, I'm lazy, and quote-dumping.

edited 9th Apr '13 3:40:25 PM by Drtentacles

Dangit, I need to find that old thread where I brought up links regarding 4th gen integrated fast breeder reactors. Even if we get everything working just with solar and wind, we should open those plants to use up our existing waste - fast breeders can consume spent nuclear fuel and eat over 95% of it, leaving behind fast-decaying waste that is only dangerous for hundreds of years rather than tens of thousands. (It is admittedly a lot more radioactive, but again, there's a lot less of it.)

The one piece of data that always throws people who are against nuclear power is that a coal plant tends to throw out a ton of radiation as well. Yes, a nuclear plant can be really dangerous if handled incorrectly with a phenomenal amount of bad luck, but a ton of engineering goes into making them safe, that coal and oil plants lacked for most of their use. If anything, the fact that Chernobyl happened near the beginning of commercial nuclear power is a good thing (to a degree) as it shows what can happen in a bad situation, so the engineers work on making that situation as unlikely as possible, which has a side effect of making more minor problems unlikely as well.

There are a massive amount of annual deaths from coal mining and pollution.

Yeah, it really is saying something that the collective death toll of nuclear power in the entire history of its existence is less than the annual one for mining the coal alone.

Technically the most dangerous form of energy by death toll is hydroelectric, but almost all of that is from a burst dam in China that was positioned right over a huge city (because China).

edited 9th Apr '13 4:18:23 PM by Pykrete

Happy news from Ontario, although we are blessed with a lot of hydroelectric opportunity (with possible issues for wildlife).

Didn't Japan go all knee-jerk and turn off all the nuclear reactors or something?

All but two, yes.

Alternative energy has some promise to varying degrees but some are proving to have nasty catches.

Wind turbines for example have proven to be detrimental a number of flying animals from bats to eagles.

Solar power has potential but it is space intensive and a little bit expensive.

Nuclear power we already know the issues with it.

Speaking of Nuclear reactor designs has anyone considered the pebble bed reactors?

edited 9th Apr '13 6:06:03 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Mirrors in a desert? The space is there for the taking!

And, well, wind turbines have a rate of lethality to birds, but as long as they aren't constructed near the habitats of really endangered species, most of them can handle the pressure.

Well, Japan always had a taboo about nukes...

edited 9th Apr '13 4:43:23 PM by TheHandle