Envtl. optimism

I remain fairly calm about the promises of nuclear power. We know somethings work and others don't:

• standard nuclear power plants - have worked great for the Navy and France. Without a standard configuration or design that can be optimized over time, we're constantly introducing new designs with previously undetected risks. Then there is the problem of location, location, location . . .
• nuclear waste fuel - reprocessing to extract fissionable material is good but risky. But I don't think anyone has figured out how to transmutate the long-lived, biologically active isotopes to something less toxic. This is a hard problem.
• fusion - has been just as wildly successful as fuel-cells. As attractive as hydrogen is for energy, its secrets remain always '10 years away.'

I'll go out on a limb and postulate the only safe nuclear fusion is about 93 million miles away. We're getting better at converting it to useable power sources. So my thinking is over the long span of history, we're going to get more 'bang per buck' there . . . if we can keep the dang fossil fuel folks from outlawing it.

In terms of equality of life or standard of living, I'm going to suggest that the industrialized countries historically followed similar patterns and outcomes. But China has done something remarkable about shortening the path. They still have to deal with the consequences (i.e., the recent smog crisis in Northern China) BUT our species is pretty clever over time. The Brits, Californians, and others have figured out that economic activity that leads to deadly air is not the way to go.

I have been impressed with some of the 'low tech' solutions including 'light pipes' in Argentina to illuminate non-electrified housing. Around the lower latitudes we can find solar hot water heaters in residential areas. What I'm suggesting is the poorer nations and peoples of the world are also of our species. As the Internet brings information down to the 'grass roots', they will have to find their own way. But it is pure hubris for a Christie to assert it is his way or eternal poverty . . . egotistical hubris at that . . . the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Individually we are here for a little while which as we age seems shorter and shorter. But a little reflection and the progress our species makes is truly remarkable. Sure, we'll make mistakes and some will never understand what is going on around them . . . but they don't have to. So while we're here, try not to 'screw it up' and enjoy the ride.

Bob Wilson

 

In 1971 I wrote a high school report about global warming. In it, I said by Year 2000 polar ice caps would melt the coastal areas would be catastrophically flooded. The only solution, I said, was nuclear power. Of course I was not an expert, I was just reciting what the text books said.

To me the Japan tsunami disaster points out why the "nuclear as savior" argument is flawed. The guy above is trying to salvage victory from the jaws of defeat. You can see the way Germany went, folks like Al Gore, Amory Lovins, etc. do not see nuclear as the solution.

I posted earlier the study that said world economy will double by 2050, and energy use will go up 30% by then. This is not the 5x rates mentioned above. Unfort I lost my reference.

To me the world energy picture has changed a whole lot in the last 5-10 years, and one of the big changes is the recognition that full-out on nuclear is not the solution. Seems to me we have a lot of folks in the world wedded to their old ideas, refusing to accept the changes happening around us. To some extent, fear of global warming is being exploited as a tool to justify going back to the old thinking (stop using fossil fuels and go to zero carbon future with nukes).

 

I'm optimistic that life will survive, despite our best efforts to turn it into money. Life takes enough chances that something is almost guaranteed to survive any calamity, and serve as the seed for a new start.

Massive increases in human population, or in nuclear power, is crazy talk.

 

Apparently there was some lively debate about nuclear at the recent World Nuclear Assoc. meeting in London...here is one bloggers account of the debate:

ENVIRONMENTAL CAFE: Double nuclear by 2040 says Exxon

 

'Just' doubling by 2050 represents a compound growth rate of less than 1.9% per year. That is terribly poor, substantially slower than any single decade since the Depression and World War II.

I would consider that a social disaster, a complete failure to lift those living in Third World conditions.

 

• North Korea
• Iran
• Texas . . .

Bob Wilson

 

If we simply look at north america, of course we don't need to double nuclear by 2040. In Europe the amount of nuclear will decrease by 2040. But when you look at china and India, and the rapid increase in electricity there, then a doubling of nuclear by 2020, may sound better than the amount of new coal plants they are thinking about. The key will be if we can get safer and cheaper nuclear designs done by 2025 that can then be rolled out by the Chinese and Indian governments. I don't know the answer to that. For Japan if this technology exists, perhaps they can replace current nuclear plants with safer ones, going back to the amount of nuclear power generated in 2010.

Perhaps efficiency makes this much slower growth of electricity provide much better and sustainable progress. If you build a green home with geothermal heat pump, passive solar, active solar, and rain water catch irrigation, the power and water footprint is much smaller.

I don't know what this means.

 

I hunch Bob's thinking of places with third world conditions, and taking a jab at Texas.

 

Well then it makes about as much sense as this
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fweigel%2F2013%2F10%2F24%2Fobamacare_website_hearing_frank_pallone_calls_it_a_monkey_court.html&ei=pU1sUsiaC4bg2gWWrIH4DA&usg=AFQjCNGcnz_ib4i4446oXqytBjH9SUAukw&sig2=esDN1OEZ4_hz5u236bqM0g&bvm=bv.55123115,d.b2I

Which reflect poorly on the speaker.

There are lots of things to make fun of Texas about. Some because they are funny, some to make a point. When it comes to energy efficiency improvements and growing renewables "what starts here changes the world" to borrow from one of the UT taglines.

 

I don't see any particular reason that nuclear is faster to deploy than solar. One is invited to look at the current growth rate for both for example. Nuclear is a limited resource, and unless one is talking about fusion, it would at most put off the day of solar for a century or so. Why not skip the problems and just go to solar now?

 

Germany is hinting they will soon abandon their renewable energy gambit.
They've begun to realize you cant maintain a competitive manufacturing economy with overpriced energy.
The answer is thorium nukes.
There seems to be an economic impediment hindering its implementation not technical.
My guess is the big corporate nukes dont want the competition.
And they own Obama and Congress.

 

Germany Sends Clear Signal That It Will Slam The Brakes On Renewables…”Saving Industrial Jobs More Important!”

 

I don't quite get the picture. Do you think solar is easy?

Massive grid updates are needed for a significant percentage of solar. Germany is now reonciling now at about 5%. Nuclear at around 20% in the US seems fine except for 5 plants. It is more expensive to deploy today than natural gas and wind. If you need to get rid of coal in 20 years, natural gas, wind, and nuclear are the way it needs to be in the US. If you want to replace coal in 40 years, I agree, that solar is a much better choice than new nuclear. Its a matter of speed. Land/cost/grid improvements take time. We can look at spain and germany for these.

For China and India, nuclear is simply going to part of the mix.

 

Solar and wind can never replace continuous sources of energy economically.

 

Solar is hugely easier on the grid than nuclear, and in fact makes stressed grids *better*. Our local Electric company just spent multiple hundreds of thousand of dollars subsidizing solar just so that they wouldn't have to put another line in. Massive desert solar may require some new high voltage lines, but any new nuke plant will require some as well. But how long do you think it takes to put up high voltage lines? 20 years?

Unsupported assertion. Do you even have a reason?

What is keeping every house in America (with solar access) from putting solar up next year? How long did it take to build the last Nuke plant in the U.S.? The last ground breaking for a plant occurred in 1974! Some of those are STILL not built yet. 39 years is not what I would call speedy. Plus, they are just too expensive even with massive government subsidies.

 

It is a bit confusing. On the right, are the various finite resources Each circle's area represents the total available energy from each resource (absent is hydrogen fusion). On the left, each circle represents the ANNUAL energy available from renewable resources. On the extreme left are circles for consumption (2009, and 2050). Numbers are in TeraWatts, and TeraWatts/year.

 

Many people on this list could probably take out a loan, put up a solar electric system, and reduce their (monthly) electrical costs. Why aren't they doing that?

Germany got their solar industry going by putting in a feed-in-tariff law. We could do the same thing, but given the massive drop in solar prices, we could do it for a lot less. Possibly near parity with existing electric rates (i.e. no cost in consumer rates or taxes). Adding a tax on carbon and water vapor, would make solar the most cost effective power source in most places. Putting everyone on a time-of-use rate system tied to actual costs will do much of the load balancing. Then we will need to do some serious storage systems.

Other ideas?

 

The energy consumption for 2050 of 28 TW seemed directionally consistent with the numbers I saw.