Discussion About Anti-Nuclear Energy/Arms Protest
- Thread starter circle-5
- Start date
- Status
circle-5 said:
Chernobl, Fukushima Daiichi...define "irrational."
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 618
People fear what they do not understand. Hundreds of people die horrible deaths in coal mines, year after year. Countless more die from the millions of tons of pollutants that get spewed into the air by coal-burning power plants. But nobody has an irrational fear of coal. Uneducated masses understand coal.cluttonfred said:
Nuclear energy, on the other hand, is clean, safe and plentiful, when properly managed by a responsible government. France has generated upwards of 75% of its electricity from nuclear power for decades, without a single death or leak of radiation. They run a smart policy of using mostly identical plants (an old Westinghouse design) and well-trained operators. The world is not ready for personal, portable nuclear power plants (though it would be cool) but the left-wing, pathologically anti-nuclear brainwashing by a politically-motivated activist minority is a detriment to progress.
Nobody died at Fukushima. Nobody died at Three Mile Island. Chernobyl was the only exception in the 60+ years of this industry, a product of abysmal Soviet-era design, bad management and disregard for safety that could be found in most of their industries, including aviation (no offense to our Russian members).
In an era of dumbing-down of the student body (now more focused on diversity and self-esteem than real education), the Press is largely responsible for this fear-mongering. Rarely is anything good ever said about nuclear energy anymore. It's almost easy to believe that each plant is nothing more than an atomic bomb waiting to blow up.
In fact, nuclear energy is our only hope -- especially nuclear fusion. Global warming, pollution and finite oil reserves are real concerns. Renewable energy will never account for more than a tiny fraction of our needs, even if we blanket the country with windmills. But the press will never tell you that. Even your typical Birkenstock-wearing, tree-hugging electric car owners have a mental block that prevents them from connecting the dots to realize that every green, planet-saving e-vehicle is, in fact, a coal-powered masquerade with a highly toxic battery on board.
So yes, if you need energy (and most people do), then nuclear should be embraced and developed, not feared. A very similar condition exists with aviation. A Learjet crashed a few days ago, right here in Santa Monica. The immediate, knee-jerk reaction of the media was to encourage the shutting-down of the airport, which has already happened to hundreds of small airports all over the country. Thousands of people die in car accidents, year-round, but there is no battle-cry to close the roads. The only reason is people's irrational fear of flying.
I could go on, but then it would begin to sound like I'm opinionated.
Attachments
Sorry, I'm certainly no Luddite and I am not opposed to nuclear power in principle, but I don't agree that your points show that the fear of nuclear power is irrational. By it's nature, nuclear power creates deadly radiation, which can be contained but presents a real threat, and radioactive byproducts passed on to future generations to monitor and keep secure. Nuclear power seems like a "green" solution--energy without air pollution--but in the long term it creates a host of very difficult problems.
France is a perfect example--and I know because I have spend many years there and own a home not far from a nuclear plant. 100 years ago France was about to be the setting for much of WWI, 50 years ago France was still recovering politically and economically from WWII. Who is to say what the political situation may be in France in 50 years, or 100 years, or 200 years? Who can guarantee that the nuclear waste will be monitored for the CENTURIES that much of it will remain dangerous? While the French generally accept nuclear power and are not opposed to having one nearby, the attitude toward nuclear was storage facilities is very different.
Your image of a flaming, smoking wind turbine is certainly ironic, but I quite sure that even 1,000,000 wind turbines won't burden future generations with monitoring deadly byproducts of their energy production.
France is a perfect example--and I know because I have spend many years there and own a home not far from a nuclear plant. 100 years ago France was about to be the setting for much of WWI, 50 years ago France was still recovering politically and economically from WWII. Who is to say what the political situation may be in France in 50 years, or 100 years, or 200 years? Who can guarantee that the nuclear waste will be monitored for the CENTURIES that much of it will remain dangerous? While the French generally accept nuclear power and are not opposed to having one nearby, the attitude toward nuclear was storage facilities is very different.
Your image of a flaming, smoking wind turbine is certainly ironic, but I quite sure that even 1,000,000 wind turbines won't burden future generations with monitoring deadly byproducts of their energy production.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,720
- Reaction score
- 1,219
cluttonfred said:
Anything can be deadly in large amounts. With Fukushima a lot of the reported radiation release incidents are either low, or will be low when they reach the Pacific and get diluted. There is also a lot of fear-mongering from self-promoters: "Spent Fuel Pools are Extinction-Level Events!", "There is a cancer epidemic in Fukushima", "There was a nuclear explosion at Fukushima", etc. No, no, and no.
cluttonfred said:
The waste soon gets to a stage where it can actually be air-cooled, so monitoring is not as stringent a requirement as some make out. Also, it the GenIV plants get built, then some have the capacity to 'burn
waste', lessening the burden even more. If they don't get built, then vitrification and deep repositories are an option.
However, one common theme in the criticism that nuclear waste takes too long a time to become radiologically non-hazardous is that we should not leave the waste there for our descendants to deal with. Often this is coupled with the assumption that civilization has been lost. Well, if civilization has been lost - then we've failed our descendents much more than just bequeathing some areas where nuclear waste is stored. If civilization still exists, then they will likely know about the waste and be able to deal with it - if it needs dealt with at all.
cluttonfred said:
Better than burdening future generations with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's what's happening in Japan now.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
- Reaction score
- 9,552
guys, sorry
But your far off topic here !
This about US Nuclear Missile project, not about nuclear accident and nuclear waste management.
We have other area in this forum for to discuss that topic.
But your far off topic here !
This about US Nuclear Missile project, not about nuclear accident and nuclear waste management.
We have other area in this forum for to discuss that topic.
- Joined
- 29 September 2006
- Messages
- 1,720
- Reaction score
- 1,219
Michel Van said:
True. Maybe some accommodating moderator could move the relevant parts to the Bar?
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,987
- Reaction score
- 11,286
cluttonfred said:
^----- This post would be a good start. Are you terrified to drive down the road? Why not? DOZENS of times the number of all people killed in nuclear accidents die in automobile accidents every day.
- Joined
- 3 June 2011
- Messages
- 17,987
- Reaction score
- 11,286
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
My take;
1) There is no other non-carbon, low emission/no emission technology that will/would/could come remotely close to fulfilling our energy needs in the foreseeable future then NUCLEAR energy
2) Those opposed to nuclear energy are MOSTLY Luddite alarmists opposed to economic progress
3) Windmills are a blight on the land/sea and responsible for the slaughter of millions of bats and birds and should be BANNED
1) There is no other non-carbon, low emission/no emission technology that will/would/could come remotely close to fulfilling our energy needs in the foreseeable future then NUCLEAR energy
2) Those opposed to nuclear energy are MOSTLY Luddite alarmists opposed to economic progress
3) Windmills are a blight on the land/sea and responsible for the slaughter of millions of bats and birds and should be BANNED
I drove past this yesterday and it was quite the sight to behold. Is there any point to pursuing nuclear now that this exists?
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-arizona-solar-hours-sun.html
sublight is back said:
Yes. Unless solar power plants are wasting power production capability during the day, they don't work worth a damn at night. Or during thunderstorms. Or during snowstorms. Or dust storms. Or just cloudy days. Or at high latitudes. Nor do solar powered submarines, aircraft carriers or cruisers work well at all.
bobbymike said:
It seems that not only do rich northeastern politically connected American liberals agree with you, so do (at least some) Brits:
We've got our view back! Delight as four wind turbines in the Yorkshire Dales become the first in Britain to be torn down
Orionblamblam said:
You didn't read the article linked by Sublight then. It's about a solar power plant that can keep delivering power to the grid for several hours after sundown. So the problem is being worked on. And we already have systems in place that can store large amounts of power for later use (pumped storage stations).
No single technology is going to be the answer. We'll need all of them.
Avimimus
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 15 December 2007
- Messages
- 2,338
- Reaction score
- 724
Cons:
- Produces difficult to dispose of waste products
- Requires other power-plants or constant excess capacity in order to handle peak loads (relatively non-throttlable)
- The possibility of melting a hole through the earth's crust (although designs can help with this)
- The initial supply of fuel is non-renewable (although designs can help with this)
- Eases the process of refining weapons grade materials
- Vulnerable to natural disasters (re: Japan)
- Vulnerable to terrorist attack
Pros:
- No direct carbon dioxide release
- Prices can be competitive with hydrocarbon based power sources
- Can produce nifty 'exclusion zones'
What am I missing?
- Produces difficult to dispose of waste products
- Requires other power-plants or constant excess capacity in order to handle peak loads (relatively non-throttlable)
- The possibility of melting a hole through the earth's crust (although designs can help with this)
- The initial supply of fuel is non-renewable (although designs can help with this)
- Eases the process of refining weapons grade materials
- Vulnerable to natural disasters (re: Japan)
- Vulnerable to terrorist attack
Pros:
- No direct carbon dioxide release
- Prices can be competitive with hydrocarbon based power sources
- Can produce nifty 'exclusion zones'
What am I missing?
tiikki
Why I really should change my personal text?
First of all. I'm a PhD student in particle physics and I do have some radiation safety training (permission in radiation related work in Finland and access permissions to radiation areas in CERN).
The fear of radiation effects is out of proportion when compared to real effects of radiation. Yes, it can be dangerous when not handled correctly, but not as dangerous as it is presented in the media.
Here is good data about effects of leaks of radioactive material from Chernobyl and Fukushima: http://www.unscear.org/
But to nuclear energy:
Cons:
- upfront cost
- political price due to lies about it's dangers
Pros:
- newer powerplants (breeder etc.) can use spent fuel from old plants as their fuel (this has been done in research power plants for decades, end of cold war made uranium too cheap for commercial use of this technology)
- practically CO2 free
- scalable
- safe (no fatalities related to radiation etc. from Fukushima) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-tsunami-idUSTRE79J0B420111020
- can be made load following (CANDU in Canada and French stations)
- plentiful fuel from "spent" pools, known uranium deposits and for thorium situation is even better
- waste from breeder reactors is dangerous only for short period of time and amount of it is minimal per produced energy.
The fear of radiation effects is out of proportion when compared to real effects of radiation. Yes, it can be dangerous when not handled correctly, but not as dangerous as it is presented in the media.
Here is good data about effects of leaks of radioactive material from Chernobyl and Fukushima: http://www.unscear.org/
But to nuclear energy:
Cons:
- upfront cost
- political price due to lies about it's dangers
Pros:
- newer powerplants (breeder etc.) can use spent fuel from old plants as their fuel (this has been done in research power plants for decades, end of cold war made uranium too cheap for commercial use of this technology)
- practically CO2 free
- scalable
- safe (no fatalities related to radiation etc. from Fukushima) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-japan-nuclear-tsunami-idUSTRE79J0B420111020
- can be made load following (CANDU in Canada and French stations)
- plentiful fuel from "spent" pools, known uranium deposits and for thorium situation is even better
- waste from breeder reactors is dangerous only for short period of time and amount of it is minimal per produced energy.
Hobbes said:
The one who didn't read is *you.* Attend: "Unless solar power plants are wasting power production capability during the day, they don't work worth a damn at night." The only way a solar plant can continue to work at night is by "sequestering" some of the solar energy into a storage medium during the day... in this case, in the form of heat. This is energy that is *not* being turned into electricity during the day. Which means that the plants maximum actual energy output is only a fraction of what it should be.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
sublight is back said:
Look at all the land used for the energy produced, yet a few oil or gas well sites are considered 'a blight' on the land. Energy density of wind and solar compared to nuclear and carbon based energy sources, for lack of a better word, is pathetic.
I'm all for R&D but wind and solar are not ready for prime time and have resulted in massive taxpayer funded subsidies, crony capitalism, failed bankrupt companies and higher costs for consumers (effecting poorer citizens) with little tangible benefits. In the US the biggest benefits seem to have been accumulated to political contributors and insiders.
Energy being stored is energy not being produced. So if half the potential output is being used to store energy for later use, in order to achieve any particular maximum electrical output, the plant needs to be twice the size. And these things are *already* pretty vast:
Solana is composed of about 3 200 parabolic trough mirrors spread out over 7.8 square kilometers (3 square miles), with 280 megawatts of total generating capacity.
Compare that with the S6G reactors used on Los Angeles class subs, rated at 165 megawatts. Two such reactors would provide more power, 24/7, rain, snow or shine, on a vastly smaller footprint. Or compare with conventional commercial powerplants, which can provide an order of a magnitude more power on a fraction of the footprint
Solana is composed of about 3 200 parabolic trough mirrors spread out over 7.8 square kilometers (3 square miles), with 280 megawatts of total generating capacity.
Compare that with the S6G reactors used on Los Angeles class subs, rated at 165 megawatts. Two such reactors would provide more power, 24/7, rain, snow or shine, on a vastly smaller footprint. Or compare with conventional commercial powerplants, which can provide an order of a magnitude more power on a fraction of the footprint
Avimimus said:
We can start off with several of the "Cons" listed which "miss" being based on facts
Usually the "biggest" stated drawback to Nuclear Power Plants is the amount of "waste" they create, and the difficulty of storage and handling of this waste. In actuality the "waste" still contains a large amount of viable "fuel" as well as the "waste" products themselves all contained in the "spent" fuel rods. Most nations then take the "spent" fuel rods and "reprocess" them into new fuel rods and seperate the actual "waste" product (which includes Plutonium) which is stored and monitored. (Mostly because of the Plutonium) The United States does NOT reprocess its fuel rods which is why we have such a high volume of "used" rods being stored on-site at each nuclear power plant. Instead the US government decided to build a "repository" site for storing all "spent" fuel rods produced from each plant in a single site for the purposes of storage and monitoring. If the waste is vitrified and casked there is no chance of a "leak" developing, however since fuel rods are made up of numerous "pellets" in each rod there is more of a chance of those pellets getting loose. Therefore the storage and monitoring needs of fuel rods themselves is much higher and more difficult (and more expensive) than for waste from "reprocessing" is. The most often cited "danger" with the long term waste storage of either type is water infiltration of the storage site as water will eventually break down the casking and even the vitrified waste if contact is maintained long enough.
So most "long-term" storage sites are in areas where water-infiltration risk is low even though the required contact time is measured in centuries for the casking alone.
Actual "disposal" would be pretty straight forward if one wanted to do so, (this is not often considered for high-level waste simply because the possiblity is very high that the "waste" products will be useful for industrial or other purposes at a later date) and would consist of settling the waste casks into deep drilled hole set up in continental "sub-duction" zones, where they would "eventually" be recycled through the deep magma.
The biggest "issue" of storage of the "waste" in an "accessable" area is the notion that our "decendents" will have forgotten what we buried and dig the stuff up without any way of knowing the danger. If we were to give less focus on the ability to access the waste at some future date and actually "dispose" of it the "danger" of such a scenerio happening is almost zero.
As noted newer reactor designs can be built which actually "burn" up the majority of the wastes in a similar manner to suggested "breeder" reactors. (See below) Also many of the proposed Thorium design reactors can "burn" high level waste as well.
Actually Nuclear Power plants run at "peak" most of the time and send excess power through the grid rather than using "peaking" plants. They ARE "throttable" though and can easily handle adjustments during operation though not as "fast" as some other power plants (coal or gas for example) they need far less "peaking" assistance than solar or wind power does and they don't have the power fluctuations that those types of power do.
Not a credible issue with any nuclear power plant. Once the core "melts" at all fissioning stops and all that is left is the latent heat in the core. The dreaded "China Syndrome" is a myth and can't happen, this is especially true with Western reactor designs though the newer Russian (non-Soviet) designs come very close. This is why despite the constant rhetoric claimed about the Fukushima "melted" reactor cores (ie: "They melted down so no one knows where they are or what their status is") the cores are still sitting quitly in their containment buildings inside their core casings. They didn't (and by design could not) ever get hot enough to melt through the floor of the containment building let alone the "Earth's crust." (Similarly the FULL melt down that took place at TMI never breached containment despite the fear-mongering. TMI actually proved that despite all human and most mechanical failures a Western design reactor COULD not in fact breach containment, which is why "I" personnally have never considered it a "disaster" but a proof of design success
)True for the most part though as you note "design" (reprocessing for the most part) helps greatly. "Breeder" reactor design would also greatly extend the "fuel" life though it too has some serious "waste" issues in the end phase. (Since it pretty much "breeds" the fuel till it is almost all plutonium)
Plutonium mostly, "other" weapons grade materials are not produced in reactors for the most part but through industrial processing of the base materials. Anyone who worries about the use of reactor wastes as the basis for a "dirty-bomb" is overthinking the issue since "low-to-medium" level radioactive waste is much more "available" and easier to obtain, harder to clean up, more difficult to detect and more 'damaging' over time.
Japan actually shows the opposite effect: Radiation and public danger were very minimul DESPITE the scope of the disaster. Well designed reactors don't put the public at high risk.
Often "cited" but not backed up by any data that I am aware of. Crash a fully loaded and fueled aircraft into the reactor containment building? (The most often cited "attack" I've seen) The containment collapses around the reactor, which was "scrammed" (Shut down and emergency cooled) as soon as the aircraft crossed into the "no-fly" zone. No major issues. The plane can't "punch-through" the containment even if it was loaded full of High Explosives because the containment building is DESIGNED to collapse rather than break open. (You will often hear that the hydrogen explosions at TMI and Fukushima "blew open" the containment buildings but this isn't true. What blew out was sets of vents designed to allow such explosions to be vented rather than stressing the containment building structure itself)
All true though I'd add the following:
- No air pollution or release of dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere from vent stacks.
- Scale-able
- No requirements for "peaking" type supplemental power sources, or large scale Energy storage facilties to handle "off-peak" or transient power loads.
Randy
Hobbes said:
The issue here is that it actually IS "wasting" because that power is not going out to the grid but is instead being "stored" for later use as to be turned BACK into power. There is a loss and this is an issue with both Wind and Solar. With almost any other power plant "storage" is in the form of the power provider be it water, air, fuel or what have you. In this way the need for "more" power during any period is met with simply "opening up the throttle" a bit which is almost impossible in the case of solar or wind power to do.
In the cited article you would have to double the storage capacity as well as the amount of energy being 'stored' during the day to reach a full "night" cycle and that does not take into consideration any "peaking" power demands during that period either. This is going to significantly drive up both the area needed and the cost of the facility. In this case some method of "storage" without causing a drain on the overall system is needed to make the system more viable in direct comparision to other power systems and currently there is no such systems.
There have been experiments where solar panels (especially concentrating solar cell systems) that have had "exhaust" flow turbines placed in the cooling air flow to tap off energy from the heated air being circulated through the system by convection. The power recovery is usally quite low but as the energy if "free" during the power cycle it avoids the losses of pulling the power from the main cycle. (Stirling cycle power has been tried as well, while these don't provide a "lot" of power they tend to extend the stored energy available for the "night" cycle of the system)
Randy
Orionblamblam said:
Comparision wise, TMI occupies about 382 acres or about 0.597 square miles of territory and the single reactor produces @829MW. In otherwords almost 3 times the energy in about a 5th of the area. (Double the output at least if they ever get a reactor back in TMI-1)
Nuclear power plants biggest "issue" is access to cooling water for waste heat removal. This can be a major "sticking" point out west:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=26970736
Randy
RanulfC said:
With conventional steam turbine power plants (nuclear, coal, oil), you need offsite power storage because the plant needs hours to adjust to a different power level. With nuclear, throttling back runs the risk of poisoning the pile with an excess of isotopes that will later hinder the reaction, so nuclear plants are generally run at full power all the time.
Offsite storage for these plants takes the form of pumped storage (where possible). In other places, the base load plants have to be accompanied by inefficient but fast-reacting power plants that use gas turbines. If you look at power storage as waste, there's plenty of waste to be found in conventional power generation.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
Hobbes said:
Much more efficient than wind power that needs a 'duplicate' gas or coal fired plant 'at equal output' to the wind power to be produced for those times when, ya know, there is no wind.
I remember laughing at one internet article from a guy who monitors wind farms in Europe commenting on the times several Spanish wind farms were producing 'negative' energy (and that's not to be confused with the 'exotic' material that supposedly inhabits our Universe)
.
Mat Parry
ACCESS: Secret
- Joined
- 25 January 2011
- Messages
- 416
- Reaction score
- 27
No doubt CO2 emissions will be an unpopular argument, however for arguments sake lets assume we agree that releasing CO2 to the atmosphere is generally a bad idea
take a mundane example like doing laundry
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Those emissons figures above include mining of fuel (uranium or coal) transport & processing of both fuels and the emissions released in building the power plants along with the legacy of powerplant operations (and this is where fossil fuels cannot compete). Yes centrifuges required to enrich uranium are quite thirsty (I only have to travel a few miles from my home to see the power lines feeding the URENCO plant at Capenhurst), But ancient stars have done most of the work and the energy released is vastly more than is required to process nuclear fuel.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]If you have stuck with me so far then my point is this, it is very difficlut to find the same kind of cradle to grave figures for wind turbines and solar plants. How much energy (aka CO2 emissions) is required to manufactur[/font]e, transport and build turbines and solar plants? you won't easily find the numbers and I suspect these sustainable energy sources also lose when compared to nuclear. However I am happy to be proved wrong!
take a mundane example like doing laundry
- If you buy a typical european washing machine and plumb it into your villa in the south of france, the electricity required to do one wash load at 40oC results in 80g of CO2 being released to the environment.
- If you take that same washing machine to South Africa, the same 40oC[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif] wash will release 850g CO2 to the environmen[/font][font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]t[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Those emissons figures above include mining of fuel (uranium or coal) transport & processing of both fuels and the emissions released in building the power plants along with the legacy of powerplant operations (and this is where fossil fuels cannot compete). Yes centrifuges required to enrich uranium are quite thirsty (I only have to travel a few miles from my home to see the power lines feeding the URENCO plant at Capenhurst), But ancient stars have done most of the work and the energy released is vastly more than is required to process nuclear fuel.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]If you have stuck with me so far then my point is this, it is very difficlut to find the same kind of cradle to grave figures for wind turbines and solar plants. How much energy (aka CO2 emissions) is required to manufactur[/font]e, transport and build turbines and solar plants? you won't easily find the numbers and I suspect these sustainable energy sources also lose when compared to nuclear. However I am happy to be proved wrong!
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Messages
- 1,154
- Reaction score
- 618
Mat Parry said:
Not by me! The arguments against nuclear energy are typically more emotional than logical. Bowing to political pressure from its "Green" party, Germany will close out ALL of its nuclear power plants by 2022, despite having had zero incidents in its history. I put "Green" in quotes, because all these megawatts will have to be generated by burning obscene amounts of coal which, as Mat illustrated so convincingly, is far, far worse for the environment.
The irrational fear of nuclear energy continues to destroy the planet, pushed by the few who loudly claim to be saving it.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,175
Orionblamblam said:
You also have to adjust for when the sun is not at its peak, when the panels aren't totally clean (which reduces their "generating" capacity), the energy required to keep them clean and the efficiency of the conversion from sunlight to electricity. In other words, just because 100 watts/ sq meter at high noon in the desert is shining on the panels, that doesn't mean you've got 100 watts of electricity; it's substantially less (taking it through a heat interstage makes it even worse). Then you also have to allow for those other considerations I just mentioned.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,175
bobbymike said:Hobbes said:
Much more efficient than wind power that needs a 'duplicate' gas or coal fired plant 'at equal output' to the wind power to be produced for those times when, ya know, there is no wind.
I remember laughing at one internet article from a guy who monitors wind farms in Europe commenting on the times several Spanish wind farms were producing 'negative' energy (and that's not to be confused with the 'exotic' material that supposedly inhabits our Universe)
Another couple of considerations regarding comparison with "green" energy. Historically, conventional energy plants' (including nuclear) power rating is based on base load. In other words, the amount of sustained energy they can deliver any time they're asked. "Green" solutions tend to refer to peak capacity. That is, what's the maximum amount of energy they can produce for an instant, when everything is working right and all conditions are optimum, for however long that lasts. It is not an "on-demand" figure. Most comparisons in the genreal press do not explain this difference in definitions between the two types.
There's more smoke and mirrors in how "availability" is defined. For a nuke plant it's the percentage of time it could deliver its rated power on demand. So, if you call for rated power and 5% of the time the plant can't deliver (and yes downtime for maintenance is counted), it's availability is 95%. For wind, it's been the percentage of time it could deliver its rated power on demand if the wind is blowing, from the optimum direction and within the windmill's usable speed range (for mechanical reasons, wind turbines have a maximum speed at which they can turn., If the wind is blowing faster than that they have to be braked).
To take an extreme example, if a fully operational wind turbine was placed inside a sealed vault buried five miles underground it's availability would be reported at 100%!
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
F-14D said:bobbymike said:Hobbes said:
Much more efficient than wind power that needs a 'duplicate' gas or coal fired plant 'at equal output' to the wind power to be produced for those times when, ya know, there is no wind.
I remember laughing at one internet article from a guy who monitors wind farms in Europe commenting on the times several Spanish wind farms were producing 'negative' energy (and that's not to be confused with the 'exotic' material that supposedly inhabits our Universe)
Another couple of considerations regarding comparison with "green" energy. Historically, conventional energy plants' (including nuclear) power rating is based on base load. In other words, the amount of sustained energy they can deliver any time they're asked. "Green" solutions tend to refer to peak capacity. That is, what's the maximum amount of energy they can produce for an instant, when everything is working right and all conditions are optimum, for however long that lasts. It is not an "on-demand" figure. Most comparisons in the genreal press do not explain this difference in definitions between the two types.
There's more smoke and mirrors in how "availability" is defined. For a nuke plant it's the percentage of time it could deliver its rated power on demand. So, if you call for rated power and 5% of the time the plant can't deliver (and yes downtime for maintenance is counted), it's availability is 95%. For wind, it's been the percentage of time it could deliver its rated power on demand if the wind is blowing, from the optimum direction and within the windmill's usable speed range (for mechanical reasons, wind turbines have a maximum speed at which they can turn., If the wind is blowing faster than that they have to be braked).
To take an extreme example, if a fully operational wind turbine was placed inside a sealed vault buried five miles underground it's availability would be reported at 100%!
Thanks F-14D, more information showing wind energy is a total crock.
RanulfC said:
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,837
- Reaction score
- 4,574
In 1981, Dutch engineer LW Lievense proposed using the dikes of the never-finished Markerwaard polder as a buffer to store excess power generated by wind turbines. Excess power would be used to pump water into the buffer, which would be allowed to flow out through generators if power demand exceeded power supplied by the turbines. Essentially, hydro power for a country devoid of mountains. For various reasons the proposal was not proceeded with. One reason was the risk of Amsterdam flooding in case the buffer's dikes were breached.
In 2007, a new scheme was proposed by consultancy company KEMA:
It's not impossible to reconcile base load considerations with wind or solar power, but solutions are likely to require time and heaps of money.
In 2007, a new scheme was proposed by consultancy company KEMA:
It's not impossible to reconcile base load considerations with wind or solar power, but solutions are likely to require time and heaps of money.
bobbymike said:Hobbes said:
Much more efficient than wind power that needs a 'duplicate' gas or coal fired plant 'at equal output' to the wind power to be produced for those times when, ya know, there is no wind.
I remember laughing at one internet article from a guy who monitors wind farms in Europe commenting on the times several Spanish wind farms were producing 'negative' energy (and that's not to be confused with the 'exotic' material that supposedly inhabits our Universe)
For fossil fuel plants, efficiency is paramount because any fuel not converted to electric power is in effect, thrown away. For solar and wind, a basically infinite amount of fuel is available so efficiency isn't that critical anymore. As long as the solar array on my roof provides enough electricity to satisfy my power demands at a price that can compete with fossil fuels, I don't care if the array takes up 30%, 50% or 100% of my roof.
As for additional generating capacity to be used when there's no wind and/or solar; we already have plants to satisfy peak demand. Inefficient gas turbines, remember? Each kWh that those plants don't have to produce is 2 kWh worth of fuel that can be used somewhere else.
Every technology used to produce power has its challenges. Countries with many nuclear powerplants sometimes have such an excess of power available at night that energy spot prices go negative. Fossil fuel plants supply power to the grid in vast blocks, add one plant and suddenly you have 1 GW extra to sell so you have to throttle back other providers (and you better have providers that you can throttle back).
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,601
- Reaction score
- 7,283
The problem is not your roof but the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of square KM needed to power ONE city like Los Angeles or NY and you would still need backup power plants anyway. Besides the blight and ugliness of wind and solar the millions of bats and birds killed every year as well.Hobbes said:bobbymike said:Hobbes said:
Much more efficient than wind power that needs a 'duplicate' gas or coal fired plant 'at equal output' to the wind power to be produced for those times when, ya know, there is no wind.
I remember laughing at one internet article from a guy who monitors wind farms in Europe commenting on the times several Spanish wind farms were producing 'negative' energy (and that's not to be confused with the 'exotic' material that supposedly inhabits our Universe)
For fossil fuel plants, efficiency is paramount because any fuel not converted to electric power is in effect, thrown away. For solar and wind, a basically infinite amount of fuel is available so efficiency isn't that critical anymore. As long as the solar array on my roof provides enough electricity to satisfy my power demands at a price that can compete with fossil fuels, I don't care if the array takes up 30%, 50% or 100% of my roof.
As for additional generating capacity to be used when there's no wind and/or solar; we already have plants to satisfy peak demand. Inefficient gas turbines, remember? Each kWh that those plants don't have to produce is 2 kWh worth of fuel that can be used somewhere else.
Every technology used to produce power has its challenges. Countries with many nuclear powerplants sometimes have such an excess of power available at night that energy spot prices go negative. Fossil fuel plants supply power to the grid in vast blocks, add one plant and suddenly you have 1 GW extra to sell so you have to throttle back other providers (and you better have providers that you can throttle back).
Negative prices and extra energy to sell seem like better problems then negative 'energy', high prices and brownouts when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,837
- Reaction score
- 4,574
Your case rests on the assumption that wind and solar energy plants are now, and always will be, incompatible with society's need for a constant power supply. The Gila Bend project shows one interesting direction for creating a constant power supply from solar energy plants. KEMA's 'inverse offshore pump accumulation station' proposes a 1,500 MW / 20 GWh facility which would go some way in mitigating variable wind speeds. I strongly suspect more plans are being considered for energy storage, who knows what the future will bring.
What's more important: every single KWh generated by wind turbines or solar plants is one KWh you don't need to burn any gas/oil/coal for, or consume any fission fuel. With fossil and fission fuels finite commodities, fuel prices have only one way to go. Up. That alone is what makes solar plants and wind turbines economically interesting.
Until nuclear fusion is cracked (if that ever happens), nuclear reactors rely on another finite resource, for which ultimately an alternative must be found. Even if fusion is eventually successful, solar energy plants and wind turbines are here to stay.
I am worried about the mass slaughter of birds and bats by wind turbines, but in the case of turbine parks at sea, these can be positioned well out of the way of birds' migratory routes. With much of the world's population concentrated fairly close to the sea, power transmission should not be much of an issue.
What's more important: every single KWh generated by wind turbines or solar plants is one KWh you don't need to burn any gas/oil/coal for, or consume any fission fuel. With fossil and fission fuels finite commodities, fuel prices have only one way to go. Up. That alone is what makes solar plants and wind turbines economically interesting.
Until nuclear fusion is cracked (if that ever happens), nuclear reactors rely on another finite resource, for which ultimately an alternative must be found. Even if fusion is eventually successful, solar energy plants and wind turbines are here to stay.
I am worried about the mass slaughter of birds and bats by wind turbines, but in the case of turbine parks at sea, these can be positioned well out of the way of birds' migratory routes. With much of the world's population concentrated fairly close to the sea, power transmission should not be much of an issue.
Hobbes said:
Except... the less efficient, the more square footage is needed. And each square foot equates to additional cost, in terms of acquisition, upkeep (the difference between shoveling three feet of snow off 30% of your roof and 100% of your roof just might be important to you) and replacement.
I expect that sooner or later PV arrays of moderate efficiency will be as cheap as wallpaper. But even then, maintenance will remain an issue.
Arjen said:
Except, "six hours after the sun goes away" *isn't* constant. There are large and important parts of the world that need lots of power where the sun goes away for weeks at a stretch. Ever been to the Pacific Northwest? I understand much of Britain, for example, tends to get kinda damp as well.
Uranium and thorium are available in *seawater* in quantities adequate to support human civilization for millenia. And unlike solar, nuclear power will allow human civilization to *leave* Earth and exploit a whole universe full of resources.
Sure. Nobody is arguing that those need to go away. The issue is the belief that wind and solar will somehow provide *all* of our energy needs in a magically clean way. Wind and solar farms can provide a lot of power, and everything that takes a nickel away from the likes of Saudi Arabia is a positive good. But while there might be nuclear powered ships and airplanes, I really doubt there'll be a solar powered jetliner anytime soon.
I am worried about the mass slaughter of birds and bats by wind turbines, but in the case of turbine parks at sea, these can be positioned well out of the way of birds' migratory routes. With much of the world's population concentrated fairly close to the sea, power transmission should not be much of an issue.
- Joined
- 6 November 2010
- Messages
- 4,837
- Reaction score
- 4,574
The world's energy hunger being what it is, those reserves are likely to be used too. Some effort will have to be sunk in getting it out of the sea, which inevitably translates into cost. For some applications, wind turbines and solar energy plants will give fission plants a run for their money.Orionblamblam said:
By the way, if you want to go to the stars, wouldn't it be nice to keep the
Never claimed that.Orionblamblam said:
Quite so.Orionblamblam said:
Something to consider: some radioactive waste needs to be locked away for longer than we have written history. As cluttonfred/Matthew stated in an earlier post:
cluttonfred said:
bobbymike said:
No, that's not the problem. Nobody was suggesting we need to supply all of LA's power from solar panels only. Los Angeles has a huge roof area. Cover all of it in solar panels and you'll make a significant dent in the amount of fuel needed to power the city. Again, notice how the supply curve of a solar panel nicely tracks the demand curve of AC.
NY is less conducive to solar power due to all the highrise buildings (high power demand per m^2 of roof area).
Not that old saw again. Statistics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power
And IMO solar panels look better than the usual roofing materials.
- Status
