We're not doing enough to find alternative fuels.

As for Deepwater, nuclear regulations are hugely tighter than oil regulations, precisely because the cost of failure is higher. For Japan, they got hit by a friggen 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami and they have, so far, largely contained the incident. Yes, radiation releases and all that, but so far no one except clean-up crew has actually been harmed by it, and it's an older plant (both in terms of design and construction) as well. It's an example of the success of nuclear safety, not a failure.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I'd like to mention that about 10% of the US's power today is produced in nuclear plants using fuel distilled from Soviet nukes as part of a disarmament agreement (Megatons to Megawatts Program). As of September 2010, approximately 16,000 warheads' worth of former bomb fuel was consumed in this manner.

edited 31st Mar '11 12:54:04 PM by Pykrete

One of my concerns is storage of energy in things like solar power (be it thermal, ground-based PV or geosynch PV) - they all have a period where they are not producing power or not producing it at the same rate as before... and that's usually night time/earth shadow when we are more likely to be wanting the power.

One solution is to store it in batteries. The problem there being we're going to need a giga-fuckton or four of batteries which will require replacement and recycling every 25 years or so (based on some of the best deep-cycle batteries on the market at present).

OK, battery tech will improve and change those figures but it still means a shitload of storage - especially if a significant number of people also switch to battery-electric personal E Vs.

And although the batteries can be rendered down and recycled for their elements/compounds, growing demand may make for scarcity of the raw materials and/or serious ecological impact locating and extracting said raw materials.

So some very efficient (energy-wise) alternatives to batteries would need to be sought.

One idea I've heard mooted is to use the solar/wind/tide/whatever generator to drive something that "stores" the energy in a different way, such as closed-circuit hydro - pumping water into a reservoir to be used like conventional hydro generation as required. Of course this brings in accumulating inefficiencies and also brings in the problem of where these hydro reservoirs are going to be sited.

Due to where I live, I have surprisingly few illusions about how big the hydro reservoirs need to be to get the pressure head required to generate hydroelectric power for a population of a mere four million (and we supplement our hydro with coal and wind).

Now add the same capacity again to catch said water and store it ready to be pumped back into the header reservoir.

Another possibility is a global power grid of geosynch PV or thermal, beaming power to Earth by MASER and relying on the fact that at any given time a certain percentage of the power stations will be in full sunlight.

Of course, that makes for other interesting problems.

edited 31st Mar '11 1:42:23 PM by Wolf1066

There's plenty of ways to store energy that can be used to run an alternative generator.

Some rather imaginative solutions are already in use. Like drilling a hole into an underground cavity and filling the hole with super-compressed air when the generator is working and the using that air to run a generator when the plant is off. How efficient is this in terms of energy loss? Well, it seems that 85% of the energy stored can be collected, so the energy loss is at 15%.

Another way that's already being used is using a container of some kind of salt, which is heated by excess solar energy until the salt melts. When the sun goes down, the liquid salt is run through a generator, where it boils the water that runs the turbine. This method saves 93% of the energy input, so only 7% of the energy produced is lost in storage.

Another way to store seasonal energy is to lead the excess energy into supraconductive coils. The magnetic field produced is able to store the energy with minimal loss. This method is also already in use, and it's very effective: only 5% of the energy input is lost.

I'm getting this from the Finnish edition of Science Illustrated (3/2011), in case anyone's wondering where these are from.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Cheers Best.

I've only recently started seriously researching renewable/sustainable energy, predominantly with respect to personal household level.

All of these were solutions that were invented to make up for the down time of solar or wind power plants, in most cases for pretty huge plants. At household level, I don't know if any affordable solutions are available.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

@Eric: First, what Native Jovian and Pykrete said.

Second, did you read my links? Miss the part where we'd have less weaponizable material if we used these reactors because we'd be burning former weapons and waste for fuel? Or the part where you can make do with just uranium resources? And where did this idea of Fallout levels of responsibility with nuclear come from?

EDIT: Also, a followup by Monbiot on the double standards against nuclear. That, that is an even-handed take on things.

edited 31st Mar '11 6:14:58 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Yes, like I've been saying, uranium wouldn't last us two years as a total fossil fuel replacement, the ONLY way earth's fission fuel supply would be a viable substitute is through breeding, and the only way a breeder can do that is to transmute whatever fuel it gets into plutonium and suck it dry as slow as possible.

As the link in my last post notes, basically every part of an IFR's fuel, even the actinides used to “contaminate” breeder plutonium, are perfectly suitable for bombs, though that isn't even necessary: One of the dangers posed by IFRs is that unlike conventional reactors, they can literally turn into atomic bombs from accidental cooling failure! This is hardly more comforting in light of the nonstop fires and failures in breeders to date (1.5MB PDF.)

Also, the nuclear industry is enormously corrupt, which if you'll recall is exactly what caused the latest bugaboo. This means the job of oversight has instead fallen on anti-nuclear protesters, simple little jobs like noticing that reactors have been installed backward.

@Native Jovian: It's not a strawman if they propose it themselves.

It's actually the exact opposite, that's why the power company wants you to recharge your EV at night.

One way to radically decrease battery requirements is to separate electrolyte storage (I.E.: battery acid) from the actual cells of the battery, meaning that instead of having tons of giant batteries, you have a little tiny battery hooked up to cheap and durable vats or tanks to store the electrolyte thus produced/consumed. It's sometimes called a “flow battery,” A.K.A. fuel cell.

As I noted before, the more EVs there are, the more “peak-y” power supply can be, since their batteries act as an enormous distributed buffer. The same goes for any other grid-connected consumer product that stores large amounts of energy, like geothermal heat pumps.

That's not an idea, it's an extremely common practice dating back to the earliest days of the electrical industry and accounting for 3-5% of the grid today, though it's only 70-85% efficient.

This can also substitute in large part for a home's air conditioner, water heater, furnace, refrigerator, oven and so on. Aside from molten metal, other substances like water and oil can be used to “bank” heat and cold from day to night and summer to winter, though in the opposite direction such systems can even be scaled up for heavy industry. Since the thermal reservoir is generally located underground for insulation, it's called a geothermal heat pump.

Eric,

edited 31st Mar '11 6:58:00 PM by EricDVH

@Eric

Yeah, I'm aware of the disparity in electricity use during the day and the night but I was thinking more in terms of needing to store the electricity generated during daylight hours as we still use electricity after nightfall but PV solar won't be generating electricity at that time.

Mind you, I suppose here in NZ we could use solar during the day (on a national scale) and our existing hydro power would be more than enough to smooth out any troughs due to inclement weather and see us through the night even if every household was charging up an EV - after all, it's been supplying most of our daytime and night time needs for quite some time so if solar took over a sizeable chunk of the daytime requirements it'd free up a lot of energy for increased night time consumption (E Vs).

Has anyone mentioned yet that solar cells have a short lifespan, and are made using highly toxic chemicals?

Solar really is NOT the way to go.

My other signature is a Gundam.

Photovoltaic cells are not the only means of harnessing solar energy.

Pretty sure nothing feasibly fits that description. And who put it forward as a total replacement, anyways? I'm pretty sure nobody did.

Also, funnily enough, this very source you cited says there is plenty of uranium to use in traditional reactors! I hope you weren't reading just to find what you wanted.

It also looks like the problem with the breeder reactors proposed is that they were all sodium cooled and designed to breed weapons grade plutonium (pu-239), neither of which was the best choice. It's not like there aren't alternatives, however-helium cooled, designed to breed uranium-233 (which is much more difficult to use in weapons), etc.

Plus, on top of that, breeder reactors are only one of a multitude of other types of reactors available/being designed, some of which (pebble bed, helium cooled, salt cooled), are many times safer than breeder reactors.

So basically you're focusing on what we've already proven doesn't work, rather than the rather dizzying array of possibilities that haven't yet been ruled out.

As far as nuclear explosions: that same guy you linked as raising the concern points out that something like that happening in a reactor is pretty unlikely for a number of reasons.

And finally, the corruption: Not inherent to nuclear reactors, sorry. Unless you can prove there's some property of nuclear reactors that makes them more prone to corruption than other fuel sources, that's not really an argument against them. I mean, look at the corruption in fossil fuel industries. It seems like we have to deal with some big fuckup of theirs almost twice a year.

Ultimately, when it gets down to it, I would much rather have all "renewable" sources rather than fuel burning sources, but it just ain't there yet. The energy density is just too low, compared to current stuff. The useful locations are limited. The efficiency is, iirc, crap, to put it lightly. I'd like solutions starting now, because we have an alarming skill to push things off until "tomorrow." Nuclear power is one such thing that is ready now to grab a larger portion of the energy demand. Old plants should be decommissioned, and their energy production needs to be replaced by something. Why not newer, safer nuclear plants?

edited 1st Apr '11 2:04:58 AM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Global warming and peak fossils is who put forward the request for a replacement, peak uranium is who rendered all nuclear other than breeders a total waste of time, so discussing anything other than breeders is too. The IPFM breeder report's uranium comments? Yes, I noticed them, I also noticed the fact they completely agreed with my own conclusions reserves will hold out at or near present levels of uranium consumption only. That “pretty unlikely” IFR-to-bomb danger is part of what caused German experts to axe their own program, though part of my gist was that what _might_ happen by accident _will_ happen through organized sabotage, and if “proliferation resistant” breeder fuel doesn't even need to be stolen to be turned into a bomb, calling their plutonium proliferation resistant is baldly absurd.

That brings up one of the big problems with nuclear, and the reason why corruption and incompetence is worse with nuclear, because when something bad happens, due to screwups on every occasion to date, it is VERY VERY BAD INDEED. Nuclear is the most dangerous invention, ever, period. If we don't HAVE to use it, common sense indicates we shouldn't, and there is indeed no practical benefit whatsoever.

The simple matter is that sustainables are ready, and the amount of land (and sea) required is easily available, both for solar and wind, every dollar spent on them is a solid investment that takes us one step closer to sustainability pretty much as fast as the money is allocated.

@Wolf 1066: Here's how I see things working, wind and solar (plus localized sources like tidal for coastal areas such as the island nation of New Zealand, or geothermal for volcanic areas like Iceland) provide power in their typical peaked fashion, which just so happens to often coincide with current peak demand anyway; various systems such as stationary hydrogen fuel cell installations will provide grid storage for off-peak baseload; and rechargeable systems like vehicles will tend to “fill up” mainly when electricity is cheapest, namely whenever it's sunny or windy. All of this is augmented by the massive energy savings of technologies like electric transportation, centralized/solar lighting, and geothermal/solar heating/cooling.

No fuel (fossil or nuclear) to buy or exhaust, no dams silting up, no soil depletion from overfarming, no exotic materials, no technology that hasn't been on the market for decades, no worries.

@Commando Dude: Though I personally feel PV isn't yet superior to thermal solar for grid-connected power, I have to note that PV panels have long had 20-year warranties, and work fine for over 30, long enough for them to pay back 2-3 times over. Also, while PV (as with all electronics) does indeed require numerous exotic and dangerous materials and manufacturing techniques for new units, and PV is too durable for there to be any significant waste now, research indicate that PV panels are very recyclable, and in fact one of the PV industry's main sources of raw material is recycled electronics.

Eric,

edited 1st Apr '11 7:28:26 AM by EricDVH

"Most dangerous" by what standard? How many people have been killed by nuclear as opposed to other fuels? How much of a danger does it pose to the climate?

You can't look at it in a vacuum. Nuclear has risks and costs, that's true. But what are the alternatives? Fossil fuels are damaging to the environment. Renewables have issues with consistent supply and environmental problems of their own. Nuclear isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's a viable alternative that can be used to balance the problems with other fuels.

Renewables aren't all sunshine and roses themselves, you know. They have issues just like everything else. Here's a quote from a different post on the blog Radical Taoist linked earlier. "The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for both storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50 or 70% perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nukes, while beyond that point, nukes have smaller impacts than renewables. "

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

^^ You forgot to include a smart grid for load balancing and better efficiency.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

That is basically happening anyway, what with normal maintenance replacing old equipment. About the only thing I could wish for regarding the grid is a switch to DC from wall plug to powerplant, owing to the massive decrease in device cost and inefficiency that would result. Most of the grid is already HVDC over long distances though, so it's really just the last few miles.

By the standard that a couple pounds of coal can't turn into a fine dust that renders miles of land uninhabitable overnight, or be made into a device to wipe a city off the planet in the blink of an eye, or do the same thing to the entire species if it catches on. You know, worst case scenario? That's what “most dangerous” means.

The alternatives have impacts, yes, but they are far smaller in every way, watt-for-watt, especially if they're sited with any degree of sanity. Solar installations on disturbed or developed land, wind on agricultural land, and both at sea. It literally boils down to that cartoon Taoist linked at the start of this argument with NIMBY guy, big fat woop.

Compare that to nuclear, which has the waste (largely “low-level” stuff that no reactor can use,) the mining of fuel and its fallout, and the occasional humanitarian crisis whenever an “oopsie” happens. Oh yeah, and it'll only offset 2-8 years or so of global fossil fuel demand before it's exhausted. At best, nuclear is simply another one of those excuses to sit on our hands you complained of.

What gall, just because people aren't dropping dead this moment from acute radiation poisoning he is secure in his mind that millions of lives won't be cut short by the most agonizing death most people today can experience. Radiation in Japan has spread everywhere, reaching unsafe levels even in Tokyo tapwater, and current evacuations were insufficient.

I also notice he's completely fact-free on describing actual drawbacks, instead burning the strawmen of hydro abd off-grid power, while grasping at the backward conclusion that consequences would be proportionally worse as things scale up. Plus his claims about UK energy needs are ridiculous, continental grid hookup and all other energy sources aside, their offshore wind alone could sate current consumption three times over.

Eric,

edited 1st Apr '11 4:02:43 PM by EricDVH

One thing I really like about the Obama administration is that they're trying really hard to promote alternative energy sources.

They even announced a goal of cutting foreign oil reliance by one third in the next decade.

Of course, that will all go straight to hell if we get a Republican president in 2012.

Why I am afraid of fences.

^ Might I ask how he intends to do that? Does that mean we can tap the oil shale of the Western Slope of the Colorado Rockies (more oil there in those rocks than Libya) or the tar sands of the Dakotas (more oil there than Kuwait), or maybe we can open up the Economic Exclusionary Zone of the Gulf Of Mexico and Atlantic Coast to exploration? (More oil in those two basins than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq combined.)

Eric DVH: You are using a biased source, the fact you use to back your statement is now dismissed.
Currently there are no reason to "evacuate", the water is dangerous for newborn if consumed in large amounts and the ocean will be clean in a month due the isotops halflife of 8 days.

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.

I was thinking he'd do it by promoting energy efficiency rather than finding more oil.

edited 1st Apr '11 6:58:52 PM by GuyInWhite

Why I am afraid of fences.

Sipping from US strategic oil reserves is silly, especially since people buy another car every 4 years on average, and 10% (1.1MB PDF) every 2 years, so electrifying most of the American auto fleet wouldn't be very difficult or time-consuming.

@del diablo: When I said “his claims about UK energy needs are ridiculous,” I didn't mean that I disputed his statistics on UK offshore wind. What I meant was that he didn't even mention it (even in the density post linked before,) and then went on to summarily dismiss all ONshore power with the absurd assertion that expansion of the grid is “rejected by most” environmentalists. That is a classic strawman, pure and simple.

Civilization wouldn't work without a centralized infrastructure? Stop the presses, what a story!

At this point data is too sparse to estimate the ultimate death toll from the current disaster in Japan, but the technical situation is already worse than TMI, and a meltdown is still a definite possibility.

Eric,

If you'll notice it says ownership, not how long the vehicle remains in service. That's a significant difference.

It would be significantly difficult to build the number of factories on a rapid scale to electrify the fleet.

Fight smart, not fair.

I agree that if a natural disaster would result in nuclear catastrophe every time, there would be no way you could justify the risk involved.

But this was one of the fifth largest recorded earthquakes in mankind's history, that was accompanied by an enormous tsunami, that hit a plant built nearly half a century ago, which was scheduled to be decommissioned in mere months. Stating that this precedent condemns all nuclear plants, and all the designs that mankind now has available for nuclear plants, is flat out unreasonable.

If you really want to insist that everything that possibly can go wrong will go wrong for a nuclear plant, then we might as well figure that dams are waiting to burst at the most minuscule provocation, or that every attempt at drilling for geothermal plants will result in large earthquakes, or that every last windmill we put up will end with its blades violently blown off into people or property.

Everyone understands that there are sometimes accidents that you just can't plan for, but when you actually start citing such astronomically small probabilities as the primary defense against any one choice, then why not assume that everything is poised to blow up in the most destructive way it theoretically can? It's not as though there aren't other suitable arguments against nuclear power.

...

And Eric, the UN has so far been able to confirm no more than fifteen deaths, aside from the on-site emergency workers, related to radiation from Chernobyl. The estimates of further affliction from cancer that was generally agreed upon both by UNSCEAR and the IAEA was around 6,000 individuals. However since the estimate is based on the development of thyroid caner, the projected death rate is a smaller 500 individuals.

I agree that even this many is too much, but I hope when you said that millions of lives could be cut short thanks to the disaster in Japan, it was hyperbole. Iodine tablets are available to the populace, attempts to remove people from areas where the drinking water might be contaminated have been made, and the radiation is still minuscule compared to the releases from Chernobyl. Even if you were using hyperbole, it's not exactly helping your credibility of understanding how the risks from radiation actually work.

When windmills go, they tend to take the tower with them. I'll post an example just because I think the explosion is cool.

Fight smart, not fair.

About as dangerous as a tree. Heh, that reminds me of when Bush was trying to foment hysteria over forest fires, and that the only way for people to protect themselves was mass clearcutting.

Most vehicles are about 10 years old, and 4-8% were junked last year. Even so, this means any sort of serious electrification effort would work pretty fast, especially if turnover were accelerated by more incentives. Remember that EVs contain no new technology, just motors and batteries.

@Toodle: It's true that nuclear installations aren't constantly exploding, and a huge natural disaster lead to the latest one, but why have there been so few nuclear incidents? Yes, the industry is regulated and safety codes are hypothetically very strict, but much of the thanks goes to the fact that there are few nuclear installations, that anti-nuclear activists mercilessly hound them, and to sheer dumb luck. If nuclear was common, if it was politically popular, if the industry became fat and lazy, and especially if the kind of safety apologism flying around now were tolerated, I have no doubt nuclear disasters would become a part of everyday life.

Also, disasters weren't the only argument I was using against nuclear, just one of the more damning ones compared to every single alternative.

Looking over some more detailed figures, while the UNSCEAR figures are far from uncontested, you're right that my saying “millions” was an unfair exaggeration, especially assuming they decide to pack it in now instead of trying to save the reactor, risking further contamination by meltdown breach and explosive destruction of the nearby fuel/waste storage.

Eric,

edited 2nd Apr '11 12:57:49 AM by EricDVH