|
If it's about efficiency, the free market is much more able to deliver those solutions than any central planner, and it will be that way as long as resources are scarce and the planners are less knowledgeable than everyone else added together (very often the case)
So the first thing I question is that for anyone who is unsatisfied with the infrastructure laid out by a state, why not blame first and foremost the statist which 1-planned it, and 2- prohibited the market from laying competing infrastructure that may have been more efficient otherwise?
Its funny that if one were to die in a restaurant from food poisoning or slipping and falling on their neck, the first one to blame would be the restaurant owner; the manager. But in the case of public infrastructure, we blame intermediates, the weather, the people themselves, and the state goes impune... hundreds of thousands die on public roads every year, and who do people blame? Drunk drivers... and that's that. Funny that.
|
On August 06 2010 08:07 crate wrote:
Well I'm just posting the information I've seen. If you have sources saying it's more, and those sources are right--ok, it's more. I've not seen them, and the sources I have seen put the death toll pretty low and the harm from radiation release also quite reasonable.
Regardless an accident of the same type is not possible in the types of nuclear plants the US uses (the biggest contributor was the positive void coefficient of reactivity, which basically means that as the core heats up reactivity goes up as well. All US plants afaik are the opposite and thus partially self-regulating) and the worst commercial US nuclear accident (TMI) killed no one directly, almost certainly did not do anything to the public, and as far as I know didn't harm the operators either. The SL-1 incident (you can read about it in "Proving the Principle" which I linked above) killed the three people in the core and did seriously expose emergency response crews to radiation, but I don't believe anyone outside the structure was seriously exposed to radiation. I'm not aware of any other US fatalities linked to nuclear reactors.
As for reprocessing, we have enough fuel to last without reproccessing and without breeder reactors for a couple hundred years I think, and breeder reactors can generate electricity while converting more U-238--or thorium, though I don't think the US has any thorium-based reactors--to fuel than they burn U-235 (I'm not familiar with what processing if any is needed for breeder reactors to use their bred fuel though).
If you're not agreeing with coal (or other fossil fuels, presumably), and you're not saying nuclear is good either ... what should we use? No one is going to start living without electricity. Solar and wind have many problems that I see as making them inadequate as a primary power source (Rockwell covers them on his site, and I have heard the same stuff from other sources). I'm not aware of any other possibilities for large-scale electricity generation for an entire nation.
It's kinda late and I'm going to try to make a better informed answer tomorrow but for now:
This seems to be the source in english http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf (well at least the numbers are similiar, weird how my initial numbers were different although from the same organisation)
With unsustainable I meant more the mass production of toxic waste which will be on earth as long as humans are. I have to look some numbers up on this but even in the process of handling the waste you get all kind of problems.
At the moment we can neither abandon coal nore nuclear plants and you are right that the regenerative plants have problems of their own. I would suggest to keep the existing conservative plants while expanding alternative ones and most importantly find ways to reduce the consumption.
Obviously I have no easy answer how to make the people use lesser electricity but I don't see another solution in the long run.
|
I'll look over the report. My quick browsing suggests that it's mostly in-line with the WHO report I linked before (some emergency workers probably seriously harmed, a slight increase in mortality among the nearby population, obviously the same 30/31 direct deaths). Clearly bad, clearly a disaster, but the disaster itself was most likely less harmful overall than the evacuations and response to it. (Certainly at TMI this was the case, caused by a lack of reliable information and a lack of communications because of overwhelmed phone lines, but the industry has learned from TMI).
edit: And I personally have confidence in the US commercial nuclear industry and the engineering behind it. I don't forsee a Chernobyl-scale disaster happening in the US. I don't think another TMI (as in, a large-scale core meltdown) is likely either. The nuclear navy has run hundreds of subs and some carriers with pretty much a flawless record and those reactors obviously have to survive in conditions more extreme than commercial plants do. The commerical nuclear industry in the US has a great record.
Personally I think that actually significantly reducing consumption will be largely a futile effort. It's just plain cheaper to consume and produce more electricity than it is to use less in the first place, and this won't change in the forseeable future (particularly with nukes, since like I said we have, counting U-238 that we can turn into fuel via breeder reactors, millions of years of fuel--and to boot the main cost of the plants is building them, not operating. The price of nuclear energy isn't likely to rise significantly as far as I can see. Fossil fuel energy may well grow more expensive though). Reducing consumption is certainly a noble goal, but I think we have to be realistic here, and I don't think people are going to accept either of the two ways to use significantly less energy (either not using as much stuff that uses energy in the first place--less driving, less air conditioning, less appliance use, etc.; or paying more to live the same way. Certainly to an extent it is better to pay for more efficient refrigerators and air-conditioning systems and the like, but you do hit a definite wall there before you've "solved" the problem without getting very costly).
Producing cheap electricity right now means either fossil fuels or nuclear (or maybe hydroelectric, I'm not informed on that too much--but that's obviously geographically limited so not a nationwide solution, at least for the US) and all the information I have points to nukes being much more environmentally-friendly.
|
Build more SCVs, mine more minerals, build more supply depots.
|
Last time I looked from Earth, the United States is quite green compared to many spots on the planet. Isn't it also true that there are many more trees here now than when the country began?
The planet will take care of itself. We can certainly be more efficient, better stewards, etc. but it will be a gradual evolution towards better habits--not an overnight change imposed by centralized power. Nor should it be.
|
A consistent subway system in major US cities would be great. I've been to places like Hong Kong, London, and Paris which all have nice subway systems, but there just isn't that much of that in America. I mean, New York has it, but I haven't been to any city on the West Coast which has a subway system. There's a pretty decent bus system around here in San Diego, but for a lot of trips there is really no option but to drive, or to suffer a long and costly bus ride which takes 4-5 times longer than driving(and that is if you are lucky)
|
as 0neder said, the planet will be fine. humans and the earth will adapt to low water/food/energy either by population decrease through some measure or that good old fashioned human ingenuity through some miracle discovery. just sit back and take it as it comes.
|
On August 06 2010 09:48 Roe wrote:
as 0neder said, the planet will be fine. humans and the earth will adapt to low water/food/energy either by population decrease through some measure or that good old fashioned human ingenuity through some miracle discovery. just sit back and take it as it comes.
No because its better to reduce consumption than to die...
|
You can say a lot about nuclear energy and instead of me rambling on and say something semi-stupid im gonna go and reapeat what others have said before me, and can say it in a more proffesional way:
Nuclear-Nuclear: Exposing the myths
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions.
Exposing the myths 1: Nuclear power is economical and cost effective
The full costs of nuclear power have been seriously underestimated by all countries which have the technology, and it is only recently that the true costs have begun to come to light. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning and provision for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, resulting in a massive drain upon economies. This drain will continue for many years to come as the expensive and dangerous task of nuclear decommissioning gets underway.
Privatisation and liberalisation of the market in the UK, has led to the true costs of nuclear power being exposed. It has become clear that nuclear power cannot exist in a competitive energy market without significant subsidy from Government. This process is now being followed around the world with investors being unwilling to accept the high cost and risks associated with nuclear power. Moreover, if fully comprehensive insurance was required to cover all of the risks of nuclear accidents, the cost of electricity from nuclear power would increase many times from the present level.
Reactor decommissioning costs also remain a major uncertainty. In the UK, for example, the cost of dealing with the unwanted debris of the nuclear industry is officially estimated at about US$70 billion. Of this, just US$22 billion is covered in secure funding arrangements, with the remaining US$48 billion (almost 70%) likely to be paid for by taxpayers. The nuclear industry's claim that, "In most countries, the full costs of waste management and plant decommissioning will be funded from reserves accumulated from current revenues" [1] is clearly untrue.
Countries, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, are continuing to build new nuclear plants even though it has been shown that investment in energy efficiency measures is the quickest and safest way to tackle their energy crises. For example, the nuclear power plants proposed to replace the remaining reactors at Chernobyl have consistently been shown not to be the least-cost option.
Also, in terms of cost-effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions, nuclear power fairs very poorly. In 1995, after a year-long, exhaustive review of the case for nuclear power, the UK Government concluded that nuclear power is one of the least cost-effective ways in which to cut CO2 emissions. In the USA improving electricity efficiency is nearly seven times more cost effective than nuclear power for obtaining emissions reductions [2].
Nuclear power one of the least effective and most expensive ways in which to tackle climate change.
Exposing the myths 2: Nuclear power does not produce CO2
Nuclear power is not greenhouse friendly. While electricity generated from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.
According to calculations by the Öko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany [4]. The results from other international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions.
Exposing the myths 3: Nuclear power is safe
Problems of security, safety and environmental impact have been perennial issues for the nuclear industry. Many countries have decided against the development of nuclear power on these grounds, but radioactive contamination is no respector of national borders and nuclear power plants threaten the health and well-being of all surrounding nations and environments. There is also the very serious problems of nuclear proliferation and trafficking.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) view is that if nuclear power were to be used extensively to tackle climate change, "The security threat ... would be colossal".
Just one month after The Economist, a British magazine, had declared in its lead article that the technology was "as safe as a chocolate factory" (1986), there followed a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl. The accident caused an immediate threat to the lives of 130,000 people living within a 30 kilometre radius who had to be evacuated (and who have been permanently relocated) and 300-400 million people in 15 nations were put at risk of radiation exposure. Forecasts of additional cancer deaths attributable to the Chernobyl accident range from 5,000 to 75,000 and beyond. The nuclear industry argues that the problems in the former Soviet Union are different to those in developed countries, but the United States itself had a serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. Whilst the new European Pressurised Reactor and the fusion programmes are being promoted as offering safer operation, no form of nuclear power technology is totally without risk of a major accident. With public opinion strongly set against nuclear power, it would be far better to invest in renewable forms of energy which have widespread public support. The development of new nuclear technology would mean spending huge amounts of money going down another nuclear road, with the prospect of finding the same type of problems and public opposition.
Recent in-depth studies in the United States challenge the claim that exposure to low-level doses of radiation is safe. The health and safety of employees, local communities and the contamination of the environment are genuine risks. A recent study (completed August 1997) funded by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, examined the health and mortality of 14,095 workers from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The study found "strong evidence of a positive association between low-level radiation and cancer mortality" [5]. As of 1990, 26.9% of deaths were due to cancer.
The exposure risk to workers in the uranium mining industry is also great.
Exposing the myths 4: Nuclear power is sustainable
Nuclear power plants produce extremely long-lived toxic wastes, for which there is no safe means of disposal. The only independent scrutiny of a Government waste management safety case [NIREX in the UK] led to the cancellation of the proposed test site for nuclear waste disposal. As disposal is not scientifically credible, there is no option other than interim storage of radioactive wastes. This means that the legacy of radioactive wastes will have to be passed on to the next generation. Producing long-lived radioactive wastes, with no solution for their disposal, leaving a deadly legacy for many future generations to come is contrary to the principle of sustainability, as laid out in Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit.
In 1976 the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution warned that it is, "irresponsible and morally wrong to commit future generations to the consequences of fission power on a massive scale unless it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that at least one method exists for the safe isolation of these wastes for the indefinite future"[6]. Over twenty years on, still no such method has been found. Nuclear waste management policies are in disarray and there is growing public opposition to the transport and storage of nuclear waste - as has been demonstrated by the scenes at Gorleben, Germany.
Under no circumstances can nuclear power be considered to be sustainable.
Exposing the myths 5: Nuclear power can provide an endless source of energy
With the virtual demise of the Fast Breeder research programme and no foreseeable commercial development of fusion reactors, the belief that nuclear power can supply an endless source of energy is fast disappearing. The Japanese Monju Fast Breeder reactor has been inactive since a serious accident in December 1995, whilst the French Superphoenix and the breeder reactor programmes in the UK have been permanently closed.
Diminishing uranium supplies and the failure of the breeder reactor programmes mean that nuclear power will not be able to make a long-term contribution to meeting the world’s energy needs.
Exposing the myths 6: Nuclear power makes a vital contribution to energy supply
The assertion by the nuclear industry that, "It is essential that nuclear generating capacity is maintained if emissions from power generation are to be successfully limited over the next 10 to 15 year and beyond" [7] is fundamentally untrue. Emissions can be cut without building more nuclear power plant. In October 1997, the US Department of Energy released a report in which they concluded that the US could cut CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 with no net cost to the economy. Shell has forecast that renewables could meet up to 50% of the world’s energy demand by 2060 [8]. Nuclear power only supplies 17% of world electricity supply at present.
Nuclear power is seeing its role in the world's energy mix diminish. Since 1986, according to the IAEA, only three nuclear power stations have been ordered annually. In Europe fourteen out of fifteen European nations have no plans to develop nuclear power; the majority of the countries within the European Union have, "little desire to launch, or to re-invigorate, nuclear power programs" [9]; and nearly half of the EU countries are nuclear free and others are planning to decrease or phase out nuclear power completely. It is clear that the vast sums of money being spent on research and development and on subsidising the industry are in total disproportion to the contribution nuclear power is likely to make to Europe’s energy supply in the coming decades.
With a limited amount of funding available for research and development, reallocation of funds from nuclear power and towards renewable energy and energy efficiency would reduce the costs of these technologies, making them even more competitive. However, funds are still being wasted on nuclear power programmes, which are opposed by most people, are more expensive than other alternatives and require a long development time.
It is a myth that "Nuclear power is the only fully developed non-fossil fuel electricity generating option with the potential for large-scale expansion" [7]. Nuclear power plants take 10 years to build. Over the next 12 years the European Union is aiming for 10,000MW of wind power and 10,000MW of biomass to be developed. This is a just part of the solution and is equivalent to about 15 nuclear power plant.
Conclusions
Under no circumstances can nuclear power be considered to be a solution to climate change:
It is one of the most expensive ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The nuclear industry does contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. No proven strategies exist for the permanent safe storage of nuclear waste.
Nuclear power poses a very real health risk.
Nuclear power is uneconomic, unsustainable and unsafe.
source:
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/kyotonuc.htm
|
On August 06 2010 05:31 thedeadhaji wrote:
Over the last month or so, I've been thinking of similar things on a personal level. My personal conclusion is that we simply produce and consume unnecessarily. Much of what we produce and consume are designed only to take our minds off the drudgery that life has become for many of us. Transportation is a huge area in terms of energy efficiency, but I'm pretty sure "making useless shit" is also a pretty big one as well.
Of course, the day consumerism dies in the united states is the day the country goes kaput.
Why don't you care about important environmental issues like Water Fluoridation and Corexit being dumped in the Gulf of Mexico?
You can either decrease your standard of living or increase your health and keep your personal freedoms. I would prefer the later.
|
On August 06 2010 06:23 Jibba wrote:
Nuclear waste disposal is a national security concern. The current options are that we ship it across the country on trains (which are notoriously unsecure) to be buried, or we could follow the model of many European countries where the waste is reprocessed, in which case we're spending extra money and each plant would be storing weapons grade plutonium. They're still working on better methods for reprocessing in the National Labs.
Even if it's a slim chance, it's still a legitimate concern and it's a politically impossible concern on top of that.
You'd be hard-pressed to make anything weapon-grade from the nuclear waste produced by contemporary reactors.
As for reprocessing, storing weapons-grade plutonium at a nuclear reactor - that would be one of the more secure places in the world to store it.
Nuclear waste disposal is not a problem. We understand very well how to deal with it - dig a deep hole in an arid, rocky place, pile in the waste, pour it over with glass and concrete. It decays on it's own, and unless you've buried it in a hydrologically active area, you're not going to contaminate anything.
In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
That number is meaningless without context. The question is, how much less CO2 does it emit, compared to burning coal - which is the main source of energy for the United States.
It may cost 34g of CO2/KWH with nuclear power... But it costs us 480g of CO2/KWH to burn coal - which is still the #1 source of energy in the United States.
Improving energy efficiency can only go so far - it's a great short-term gain, but in the long-term, we need to change where the electricity comes from.
|
On August 06 2010 10:33 exeexe wrote:
You can say a lot about nuclear energy and instead of me rambling on and say something semi-stupid im gonna go and reapeat what others have said before me, and can say it in a more proffesional way:
Exposing the myths 1: Nuclear power is economical and cost effective
The full costs of nuclear power have been seriously underestimated by all countries which have the technology, and it is only recently that the true costs have begun to come to light. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning and provision for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, resulting in a massive drain upon economies.
A lot of this is that we treat nuclear waste with (at least Ted Rockwell claims this, I'm actually no expert on radiation dosage and the like) unnecessarily strict and unique regulations.
Moreover, if fully comprehensive insurance was required to cover all of the risks of nuclear accidents, the cost of electricity from nuclear power would increase many times from the present level.
If this happens, this is the government just shutting down the industry for little reason. (More on this below). The potential deadliness of nuclear power plants is no higher than other power plants. Hydroelectric dams could potentially kill thousands or tens of thousands. Coal plants have killed thousands. Commercial nuclear power has killed however many people have died from Chernobyl (SL-1 was for the US military. Like I said I'm not aware of any other deaths). Or so a quick google search says (http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm for example. I've already linked Rockwell's site. You can find more).
The simple fact is that nuclear plants are not any more unsafe than fossil fuel plants as far as I can see. Requiring excessive insurance for an industry that has proven it doesn't need it? I don't see why that should happen (which is what this article is talking about).
Exposing the myths 2: Nuclear power does not produce CO2
Nuclear power is not greenhouse friendly. While electricity generated from nuclear power entails no direct emissions of CO2, the nuclear fuel cycle does release CO2 during mining, fuel enrichment and plant construction. Uranium mining is one of the most CO2 intensive industrial operations and as demand for uranium grows CO2 emissions are expected to rise as core grades decline.
According to calculations by the Öko-Institute, 34 grams of CO2 are emitted per generated kWh in Germany [4]. The results from other international research studies show much higher figures - up to 60 grams of CO2 per kWh. In total, a nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tonnes (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tonnes (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
What are the comparable numbers for fossil fuel plants? Remember to count any CO2 production from mining coal, or drilling for natural gas, etc., since this does for nuclear.
Renewable energy has fewer emissions, but it's vastly more expensive and has not been proven to be able to scale up to power a country, while nuclear has (France is ~80% nuclear).
Exposing the myths 3: Nuclear power is safe
Just one month after The Economist, a British magazine, had declared in its lead article that the technology was "as safe as a chocolate factory" (1986), there followed a catastrophic nuclear accident at Chernobyl.
I've already talked about this, read above. It was bad, sure, but stuff just as bad has happened with other power plants:
To date, the largest number of noticeable deaths from coal burning was in an air pollution incident (London, 1952) where there were 3500 extra deaths in one week.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
I'm not going to debate about whether Chernobyl killed 3500; I'm not qualified to do that.
The nuclear industry argues that the problems in the former Soviet Union are different to those in developed countries, but the United States itself had a serious accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.
Which killed no one and did not release dangerous amounts of radiation to the public.
With public opinion strongly set against nuclear power,
Rockwell claims that surveys show that the American public favors nuclear. I'm not claiming to know which is right though.
Recent in-depth studies in the United States challenge the claim that exposure to low-level doses of radiation is safe.
Recent studies also claim that low-level radiation is essential for life and reducing background exposure lowers life expectancy (Rockwell claims this, I linked to a study in another topic (the one about mattresses)).
edit: One example that a quick Google search found: http://www.atomicinsights.com/Guests/AGC_06-11-06.pdf
BBC news report on this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3554422.stm
The exposure risk to workers in the uranium mining industry is also great.
Coal mining is pretty dangerous too. Less so than it was 50 years ago (in the US, at least: China still finds it cheaper to operate unsafely and just pay off families for deaths), but still dangerous and we use a much larger volume and mass of coal than we do uranium (of course, coal is I believe more common too). Oil drilling killed a fair few people in the Gulf this year I hear.
Exposing the myths 4: Nuclear power is sustainable
Nuclear power plants produce extremely long-lived toxic wastes, for which there is no safe means of disposal.
Coal plants put more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear plants! They expel them into the air, mostly.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste (there are other sources about this. Google should help).
Exposing the myths 5: Nuclear power can provide an endless source of energy
With the virtual demise of the Fast Breeder research programme and no foreseeable commercial development of fusion reactors, the belief that nuclear power can supply an endless source of energy is fast disappearing. The Japanese Monju Fast Breeder reactor has been inactive since a serious accident in December 1995, whilst the French Superphoenix and the breeder reactor programmes in the UK have been permanently closed.
Diminishing uranium supplies and the failure of the breeder reactor programmes mean that nuclear power will not be able to make a long-term contribution to meeting the world’s energy needs.
It's not inexhaustible, but we have the technology to make breeder reactors, and we have enough uranium already for thousands of years. The truly renewable technologies have not proven to be useable. Coal and natural gas won't last us as long.
Is nuclear perfect? No. Do I see a better option? No.
The article is making few demonstrably false claims. It is very misleading however, because it focuses only on the faults of nuclear plants, while conveniently ignoring comparison to fossil fuel plants.
|
lol you are not supposed to compare nuclear power with coalpower. What you are to do instead is to compare nuclear technology with other non co2-emitting powerplants. Thats the purpose with the article anyways.
|
On August 06 2010 11:44 exeexe wrote:
lol you are not supposed to compare nuclear power with coalpower. What you to do instead is to compare nuclear technology with other non co2-emitting powerplants.
Well, give me some examples of existing "non co2-emitting powerplants" that are actually, right now, a viable option for producing the majority of our electricity. My understanding is that there aren't any, that our options are essentially one or more of the following:
1) Fossil fuels
2) Nuclear
3) Stop using electricity
The public will not choose option 3.
Comparing nuclear to wind, solar, and the like is mostly pointless, because that's not what it's competing with. It's competing with fossil fuels.
|
No we should not only focus on only 1 technology, because obiously it will be hard for one brand of technology to cover our basic needs. (read "basic needs" does for example not include aircondition lol). But if we get a broad mix of different technologies, then the sunpanels can supply power when the windmills doesnt get any wind and etc.
But the 3 major power plants i had in mind was sun, water and wind, but there are proberbly more. If they combined cant fill out your demand for power then its your problem and not a problem for the technology.
Its also pointless to compare nuclear power to coalpower because obiously nuclear power wins huge. So therefore nuclear power is competing with non co2 emitting power plants as something has to replace todays system.
|
Solar, hydro, and wind likely cannot scale up to, alone, meet the electricity demands of the US and certainly not cheaply (as we use up the best land areas the cost will rise and both solar and wind use vastly more land area per megawatt-hour than nuclear or fossil fuels; nuclear and fossil fuel energy don't have this problem other than transporting the fuel). In addition, solar and wind are highly variable (wind turbine output goes as the cube of the wind speed), and there is no way to store large amounts of energy on the grid, so you get wasted energy and need to do much more work to make sure the variation doesn't cause outages. Wind is, in many places, strongest at times of low demand (at night, in the spring and fall); the best spots for solar production tend to be in the desert which means longer transmission distances and more lost to transmission; hydro is equally geographically-limited.
Right now the US gets something like 8% of its energy from hydro, wind, and solar combined (source is Rockwell's report: http://tedrockwell.typepad.com/files/factsreport2010apr.pdf).
There is no way the US is going to cut to using about 20-30% of the electricity it currently does (this would be my uninformed guess at the likely stable amount of electricity wind + solar + hydro could generate), so the current wind/solar/hydro technology we have is not a solution. There is certainly no evidence that solar/wind/hydro combined is enough to power a country alone.
If you have evidence that this is a viable solution, by all means link me to it. Everything I know about solar and wind points to it not being a viable option for generating the majority or even a large portion of the US's electricity.
|
On August 06 2010 12:02 crate wrote:
In addition, solar and wind are highly variable (wind turbine output goes as the cube of the wind speed), and there is no way to store large amounts of energy on the grid,
You know what i have always wondered why people continue to say this. Why cant we build towers whos job is to lift some heavy object up in the air. That will store energy and if we have
energy in > energy out (of the entire grid) --> we raise the weight
and
energy out > energy in --> we lower the weight
Just make enough of these towers and problem is solved.
|
On August 06 2010 12:08 exeexe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2010 12:02 crate wrote:
In addition, solar and wind are highly variable (wind turbine output goes as the cube of the wind speed), and there is no way to store large amounts of energy on the grid, You know what i have always wondered why people continue to say this. Why cant we build towers whos job is to lift some heavy object up in the air. That will store energy and if we have energy in > energy out (of the entire grid) --> we raise the weight and energy out > energy in --> we lower the weight Just make enough of these towers and problem is solved.
I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying we don't have it. There was some company working on flywheels to store energy (Rockwell mentioned it in his report), which is the same basic idea as your suggestion. They don't story very much energy (less than a megawatt-hour) and are costly. I don't think scaling this up to store the variable energy from a largely solar or wind system would be economical, but I'm not an expert.
Regardless you will lose some energy in the process, you don't have 100% efficient engines. I don't know what the actual efficiency would be, but I think converting mechanical -> electrical (and vice-versa) is pretty efficient.
|
yeah like this :D
![[image loading]](http://i34.tinypic.com/2n8v95d.jpg)
On August 06 2010 12:13 crate wrote:
Regardless you will lose some energy in the process, you don't have 100% efficient engines. I don't know what the actual efficiency would be, but I think converting mechanical -> electrical (and vice-versa) is pretty efficient.
yeah its magnetic plus friction. The generator should be placed on the same axel as the wheel the weight is rolling on. So the generator has to be on top of the tower, hopefully the tower can withstand the combined weight of it all.
|
i don't drive, and i haven't gotten my L. if i ever drive anything it will be a motorcycle for gas efficiency and fun. sitting in a box on wheels doesn't seem that great to me.
of course i live in a city where this is feasible.
an interesting fact is that in a lot of euro and asia cities way more people drive small motorcycles because of gas and space efficiency than in the americas.
the amount of people i see sitting alone on the road in their pickup truck\minivan is just silly, even in my city which is barely a city.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
