Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[TimG]

Gotcha. So now that you realize that if you applied the same litmus test (no production per kwh subsidies) that you insist on applying to wind and solar that you also have to dismiss the nuclear industry

Try again. I have always said I have no problems with R&D spending. During the phase nuclear was clearly in the R&D phase during the 50s and 60s.

Solar and wind have moved way beyond that. One company (Vesta) has installed 41,000 wind turbines world wide. There is over 20GW (yes giga) of solar PV installed world wide - that is 100 million 200W panels. These are mature technology production numbers. In fact there are many technologies which will never reach those levels of production. You are being deliberately obtuse when you claim that solar and wind are not mature and deserving of support at this time. Certainly not at the levels be KWh being handed out.

Edited November 24, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

...mature technology production numbers.

speaking of which, you dismissed the 2007 disparity in global subsidies ($600-billion a year in favour of fossil-fuel subsidies) as a disparity caused by despot leaders/countries. Of course, your own linked WSJ article detailing the U.S. centric analysis from EIA offers up this gem showing the actual U.S. subsidy dollars that fossil-fuels receive. Despots too?

ya, ya... spare me the "per/kwh" spiel. It's just another of your favoured dodges intended to ignore the significant direct subsidies to fossil-fuel producers and the even more significant subsidies to consumers intended to keep costs artificially lower… notwithstanding how fossil-fuel subsidies counter sustainable development goals while leading to higher consumption/waste potentials. Even today, significant dollar subsidy amounts for the maturest of the mature... of course, you'll never actually comment as to why those fossil-fuel subsidies are still needed - hey?

[TimG]

your own linked WSJ article detailing the U.S. centric analysis from EIA offers up this gem showing the actual U.S. subsidy dollars that fossil-fuels receive.

I never said fossil fuels subsidies did not exist. I said that

1) The amount per KWh is tiny

2) The could be taken away and it would have little impact on FF usage.

Even today, significant dollar subsidy amounts for the maturest of the mature... of course, you'll never actually comment as to why those fossil-fuel subsidies are still needed - hey?

Of course you forget that fossil fuels also generate billions in taxes and royalities. Factor those in and you will see fossil fuels receive no net subsidies in the US that would affect consumer behavoir. IOW, you argument that FF subsidies encourage their use is a complete strawman.

OTOH, Ontario is running up its public debt to give consumers rebates on the grossly expensive wind power which is also subdizing. It is quite sick.

Edited November 24, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

ya, ya... TimG's IEA "strawman" (drawing distinction between direct versus (consumer) consumption subsidies)

IEA urges G20 to end fossil-fuel subsidies

“Fossil-fuel subsidies result in an economically inefficient allocation of resources and market distortions, while often failing to meet their intended objectives,” said the agency in its World Energy Report released Tuesday. Reducing those subsidies would have a “dramatic effect” on global demand.

The IEA focuses primarily on government efforts to shelter their populations from the full market price of energy through measures that subsidize consumption. However, countries also subsidize production of fossil fuels, with one recent study pegging Canada’s support for crude oil production at $2.8-billion (Canadian), and environmental groups are urging the federal and provincial governments to end their support for the oil industry.

It is estimated, however, that support for renewable energy is only about 60 per cent of the amount provided to fossil-fuel producers. And it urged governments to rebalance their support for cleaner energy sources, such as renewable and nuclear, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

[dre]

Try again. I have always said I have no problems with R&D spending. During the phase nuclear was clearly in the R&D phase during the 50s and 60s.

Solar and wind have moved way beyond that. One company (Vesta) has installed 41,000 wind turbines world wide. There is over 20GW (yes giga) of solar PV installed world wide - that is 100 million 200W panels. These are mature technology production numbers. In fact there are many technologies which will never reach those levels of production. You are being deliberately obtuse when you claim that solar and wind are not mature and deserving of support at this time. Certainly not at the levels be KWh being handed out.

The nuclear industry is still recieving subsidies today.

Solar and wind have moved way beyond that

No not even close. Not when you consider capitalization. Those 20 GW of solar PV youre talking about? Almost all of that was built in the last couple of years. In the year 2000 there was less than 2 gigs. In 2005 there was about 5 Gigs. The reason new installation spiked is because there has been a steady string of breakthroughs in the industry that have drastically reduced cost and increased efficience. These breakthroughs are coming fast because the technology is still in the heavy R&D phase. R&D spending is still resulting in major breakthroughs which is how you determine an inudstry is still not mature.

I have always said I have no problems with R&D spending.

We arent talking about R&D spending when it comes to nuclear... we are talking about per KWH production subsidies that the nuclear industry enjoyed for DECADES.

Solar and wind will get a similar deal (although nowhere near as sweet as nuclear industry which has never even screwed a single nut onto a bolt without public money in its entire history). R&D will be subsided for roughly another decade, or until the designs are somewhat stable (were close with wind but not solar). After that there will be at least another decade of subsidized production.

deserving of support at this time. Certainly not at the levels be KWh being handed out

Sorry. Investment in R&D will not stop until the price becomes unresponsive to that investment. As long as theres still breakthroughs, and as long as the price is still coming down they will be the recipient of both private and public investment as they SHOULD be.

Certainly not at the levels be KWh being handed out

End energy subsidies then and level the playing field if you want to get new technologies off the public dime faster. As it is youre expecting them to compete with industries like nuclear that have recieved 50 billion dollars in subsidies over the last few decades.

Call for an end of ALL types of energy subsidy instead of just targeting certain tech and I might be more sypathetic.

Types of energy subsidies are:

Direct financial transfers - grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.

Preferential tax treatments - rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.

Trade restrictions - quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.

Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost - direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.

Regulation of the energy sector - demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.

Failure to impose external costs - environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[2]

Depletion Allowance - allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil,gas,minerals).

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[dre]

I never said fossil fuels subsidies did not exist. I said that

1) The amount per KWh is tiny

2) The could be taken away and it would have little impact on FF usage.

Of course you forget that fossil fuels also generate billions in taxes and royalities. Factor those in and you will see fossil fuels receive no net subsidies in the US that would affect consumer behavoir. IOW, you argument that FF subsidies encourage their use is a complete strawman.

OTOH, Ontario is running up its public debt to give consumers rebates on the grossly expensive wind power which is also subdizing. It is quite sick.

Of course you forget that fossil fuels also generate billions in taxes and royalities. Factor those in and you will see fossil fuels receive no net subsidies in the US that would affect consumer behavoir.

The fossil fuel industry gets so much help from the government you would never even be able to start adding it up, and ALL subsidies effect consumer behavior.

And energy subsidies are comprised of far more than just direct transfers... Its ALL these things.

Types of energy subsidies are:

Direct financial transfers - grants to producers; grants to consumers; low-interest or preferential loans to producers.

Preferential tax treatments - rebates or exemption on royalties, duties, producer levies and tariffs; tax credit; accelerated depreciation allowances on energy supply equipment.

Trade restrictions - quota, technical restrictions and trade embargoes.

Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost - direct investment in energy infrastructure; public research and development.

Regulation of the energy sector - demand guarantees and mandated deployment rates; price controls; market-access restrictions; preferential planning consent and controls over access to resources.

Failure to impose external costs - environmental externality costs; energy security risks and price volatility costs.[2]

Depletion Allowance - allows a deduction from gross income of up to ~27% for the depletion of exhaustible resources (oil,gas,minerals).

[dre]

Heres some more on the Nuclear industry... an industry created and funded almost completely by public money

Research

In the US alone the government spent more than 50 billion dollars on research for the nuclear industry between 1959 and 2000. The government did the pure research, they developed and tested early plant designs then once the technology worked they litearlly HANDED it to the private sector.

Enrichment

Up until 1993, the department of energy absorbed the full cost of uranium enrichment and fuel processing. After that USEC (another government funded entity) took over. The public paid tens of billions of dollars and now is stuck with billions of dollars more in liabilities and cleanup costs.

Hidden insurance subsidies

Between 1959, and 1988 the Government capped the liability for damages caused by accidents at 600 million per accident. According to the EIA this saved the nuclear industry almost 30 billion dollars in insurance costs that they would have incurred if they had to buy insurance on the open market without the governments liability cap.

Fuel Reprocessing

Again... the nuclear industry wants the tax payer to pick up the tab. A lot of this activity has happened at the Argonne National Laboratory where they separate plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods. Most of the activity is now moved to the Savannah River site in South Carolina where the public will pay almost 350 million dollars per year on things like processing fuel rods and waste. I think theyre building fuel production facilities there now with tax dollars.

Storage

The nuclear industry ALSO wants the tax payer to pay to store depleted material. For thousands of years Yucca mountain almost cost 10's of billions to the taxpayer and any other schemes will need to be publically funded. A private investor will laugh in your face if you tell him he has to keep absorbing costs for thousands of years after his plant is even closed. In the 90's the government was spending 250 million per year just PLANNING how they might deal with material storage.

Decommissioning

Nuclear plants are licensed typically for 40 years. Only a handfull of plants have had to be shut down so far and the cost can be between 250 and 400 million. The problem is that the nuclear industry doesnt have all this money! Taxpayers are already partially on the hook because the government bailed out the industry by reducing the tax rate on its decommissioning trust funds from 34% to 20%. The public is likely to be on the hook for 10's of billions of dollars in decommissioning costs as well, because the money just isnt there. The plants have not even made enough profit to eventually pay for their closure!

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Heres some more on the Nuclear industry... an industry created and funded almost completely by public money

Research

In the US alone the government spent more than 50 billion dollars on research for the nuclear industry between 1959 and 2000. The government did the pure research, they developed and tested early plant designs then once the technology worked they litearlly HANDED it to the private sector.

Enrichment

Up until 1993, the department of energy absorbed the full cost of uranium enrichment and fuel processing. After that USEC (another government funded entity) took over. The public paid tens of billions of dollars and now is stuck with billions of dollars more in liabilities and cleanup costs.

Hidden insurance subsidies

Between 1959, and 1988 the Government capped the liability for damages caused by accidents at 600 million per accident. According to the EIA this saved the nuclear industry almost 30 billion dollars in insurance costs that they would have incurred if they had to buy insurance on the open market without the governments liability cap.

Fuel Reprocessing

Again... the nuclear industry wants the tax payer to pick up the tab. A lot of this activity has happened at the Argonne National Laboratory where they separate plutonium and uranium from spent fuel rods. Most of the activity is now moved to the Savannah River site in South Carolina where the public will pay almost 350 million dollars per year on things like processing fuel rods and waste. I think theyre building fuel production facilities there now with tax dollars.

Storage

The nuclear industry ALSO wants the tax payer to pay to store depleted material. For thousands of years Yucca mountain almost cost 10's of billions to the taxpayer and any other schemes will need to be publically funded. A private investor will laugh in your face if you tell him he has to keep absorbing costs for thousands of years after his plant is even closed. In the 90's the government was spending 250 million per year just PLANNING how they might deal with material storage.

Decommissioning

Nuclear plants are licensed typically for 40 years. Only a handfull of plants have had to be shut down so far and the cost can be between 250 and 400 million. The problem is that the nuclear industry doesnt have all this money! Taxpayers are already partially on the hook because the government bailed out the industry by reducing the tax rate on its decommissioning trust funds from 34% to 20%. The public is likely to be on the hook for 10's of billions of dollars in decommissioning costs as well, because the money just isnt there. The plants have not even made enough profit to eventually pay for their closure!

Yeah well a lot of the problem is the immense costs faced by the nuclear industry due to the gargantuan maze of bureaucracy that they have to go through to actually build something. Billions of dollars go just into getting approval for a nuclear facility. If the government is gonna impose such momentous barriers to entry and restrict the operations of nuclear energy companies to the point that they have no more freedom from the government than if they were just another government department, I don't see anything wrong with them helping with some of the life cycle costs. In any case, at least nuclear actually has the capability to produce useful amounts of energy without covering half the country in solar panels and wind turbines.

[dre]

Yeah well a lot of the problem is the immense costs faced by the nuclear industry due to the gargantuan maze of bureaucracy that they have to go through to actually build something. Billions of dollars go just into getting approval for a nuclear facility. If the government is gonna impose such momentous barriers to entry and restrict the operations of nuclear energy companies to the point that they have no more freedom from the government than if they were just another government department, I don't see anything wrong with them helping with some of the life cycle costs. In any case, at least nuclear actually has the capability to produce useful amounts of energy without covering half the country in solar panels and wind turbines.

In any case, at least nuclear actually has the capability to produce useful amounts of energy without covering half the country in solar panels and wind turbines.

Sounds good but the implication is false. Solar PV could provide power to almost every lowrise building in the US with todays technology without doing anything at all besides utilizing existing roof area. You dont have to "cover half the country" to generate usefull ammounts of energy. And in the case of things like parabolic trough plants or power towers they work best in the uninhabited desert anyways.

The problem with wind and solar right now is still COST. Its not any kind of technoligical or logistical barriers. You could hire a provider to outfit out home to produce all its own energy RIGHT NOW. Today. The problem is that its still too expensive, but the costs have been coming down fast, and based on trends over the last couple of decades solar PV will reach "grid parity" pretty soon because its getting cheaper and FF and Nuclear are increasing in price.

Until that happens though most people wont be buying solar panels, and if it doesnt happen they never will. If thats the case then so be it.

And the bottom line is we dont need solar or wind to "REPLACE" existing sources. NatGas is still economical... we can build clean coal plants... we can keep using the hyrdoelectric resources we are using now. In the medium term emerging technologies just need to play a contructive part while they develop. And even though I listed a bunch of problems with nuclear energy I think that will play a big part too and I think we should build modern plants. The problems with nuclear can be solved with technology, and I have no problem with the public contributing.

Yeah well a lot of the problem is the immense costs faced by the nuclear industry due to the gargantuan maze of bureaucracy that they have to go through

Thats partially fair and I would try to reduce that burden where we can. But the bottom line is that public pays most of those costs anyways. In additional to all those subsidies and hidden subsidies I mentioned developers also want "loan guarantees" or they wont build plants.

But to be honest I think you have a real point there. I certainly think we can make safe nuclear energy today and my guess is a lot of that regulatory framework is obsolete.

I say build em! Build and invest in nuclear plants, build and invest in clean coal, build an invest in wind, build and invest in solar, build and invest in natgas and invest in lots of pure research as well. There is probably no other single sector more worthy of investment. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and volatility in our current system is already an impediment to economic growth around the globe, and a source of conflict and all kinds of externalities.

The minutia of it is almost besides the point. And picking certain technologies is besides the point as well. Its really a question of priorities.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre

[Bonam]

Sounds good but the implication is false. Solar PV could provide power to almost every lowrise building in the US with todays technology without doing anything at all besides utilizing existing roof area. You dont have to "cover half the country" to generate usefull ammounts of energy. And in the case of things like parabolic trough plants or power towers they work best in the uninhabited desert anyways.

Cover half the country is obviously an illustrative metaphor, somewhat exaggerated. Nevertheless, to provide power for the US would take an immense amount of area. The US uses about 3.5 TW of power on average. Economically viable solar cells for commercial use are ~16% efficient. Solar radiation availability in the US is on average ~3 kWh/m^2/day, that's about 125 W/m^2 (that's taking into account night, seasons, and weather), it is even lower in Canada obviously. At 16% efficiency, that's ~20 W/m^2. Taking into account further losses in energy transmission and energy storage (for use of energy at night), you'd be down in the ~15 W/m^2 range. So you would need 200-250 billion square meters of solar cells to power the US. That's an area about 500km by 500km, which is ENORMOUS, bigger than most US states in fact.

I say build em! Build and invest in nuclear plants, build and invest in clean coal, build an invest in wind, build and invest in solar, build and invest in natgas and invest in lots of pure research as well. There is probably no other single sector more worthy of investment. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy and volatility in our current system is already an impediment to economic growth around the globe, and a source of conflict.

Look, I agree in principle. Just build more of everything til everyone is happy and we live in utopia. Unfortunately, our resources are limited, and choices have to be made which projects and technologies to invest more in. Personally, I'd rather see more money going to nuclear. Whether solar or wind are viable or not, you cannot argue with the million-fold energy and power density advantages of nuclear energy sources.

Edited November 24, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Those are all pilot projects used to test plant designs. Modern plants based on those advances are just starting construction now. The last two SEGS plants built are actually quite successfull and turn a good profit. Shitty example to back up the caricature of solar as a failed technology. A number of new plants will be finished over the next few years.

The failure is your understanding of the development history and power production of such facilities going back decades, contrary to your false claims above.

[TimG]

Sounds good but the implication is false. Solar PV could provide power to almost every lowrise building in the US with todays technology without doing anything at all besides utilizing existing roof area.

Wrong. Every building would still have to be connected to the grid and the grid would still have to provide 100% of demand. This is why solar and wind can be nothing but bit players providing less that 10% of our power needs. We simply cannot afford to build the same capacity twice.

You talk about the hidden subsidies for nuclear but the duplication of capacity is a huge subsidy to solar/wind. In fact, wind can lead to MORE consumption of fossil fuels in areas that depend on coal/gas because the constantly changing the output of these plants to match the wind reduces efficiency.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Wrong. Every building would still have to be connected to the grid and the grid would still have to provide 100% of demand. This is why solar and wind can be nothing but bit players providing less that 10% of our power needs. We simply cannot afford to build the same capacity twice.

Must I point out again that there are already places that get more than 10% of their power from renewables? (mostly wind) In Spain in 2009 14.3% of energy demand was from wind power. That's 36,188 GWh. Here's a little fun fact for ya.

On particular windy days, wind power generation has surpassed all other electricity sources in Spain, including nuclear.[6] On November 8, 2009 wind power production reached the highest percentage of electricity production, with wind farms covering 53% of the total demand.[2][7] On November 9, 2010, the maximum power output was reached being 14,960 MW.[8]

My link

You talk about the hidden subsidies for nuclear but the duplication of capacity is a huge subsidy to solar/wind. In fact, wind can lead to MORE consumption of fossil fuels in areas that depend on coal/gas because the constantly changing the output of these plants to match the wind reduces efficiency.

I've also pointed out how this is wrong and how fossil fuel companies have said renewables are good for the grid. Time for you to stop spouting such BS.

Oh and so has the US department of energy.

Edited November 24, 2010 by TrueMetis

[TimG]

Must I point out again that there are already places that get more than 10% of their power from renewables? (mostly wind) In Spain in 2009 14.3% of energy demand was from wind power. That's 36,188 GWh. Here's a little fun fact for ya.

In all of these cases the grids are not isolated - i.e. they can import/export power as required. This makes the local % stats that you love to quote absolutely meaningless.

Here is a map of the grids within Europe. You will not find any single RTO with wind >10%. 4-6% is the real number.

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/jelsample.pdf

Also - the one situation where wind is ok is when it is paired with hydro power but this does nothing to reduce fossil consumption. Hydro power what Denmark depends on. In Spain they export their excess wind to the EU and Morroco.

I've also pointed out how this is wrong and how fossil fuel companies have said renewables are good for the grid. Time for you to stop spouting such BS.

You have one example of an executive that said wind was not as bad as they thought because of the *subsidies*. Big deal. Wind in Colorado is no more than 5%.

Here is a discussion of how cycling fossil fuel plants increasing:

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/05/wind-integration-realities-texas-iv/#more-10008

In summary, the Netherlands experience is that at wind penetration of about 3% the fossil fuel and CO2 emissions saving is reduced to zero. As wind penetration is increased, the Colorado and Texas experience shows that the savings become negative, that is, fossil fuel and CO2 emissions are increased

Wind is not different from ethanol: an expensive waste of money.

[waldo]

In fact, wind can lead to MORE consumption of fossil fuels in areas that depend on coal/gas because the constantly changing the output of these plants to match the wind reduces efficiency.

say what? Are you speaking of "additional" measures that need to be taken to accommodate wind... as in additional measures above and beyond normal grid peak-balancing (before reserves are actually engaged)... as in additional measures above and beyond the typical engagement of spinning and non-spinning reserves... additional measures that aren't a part of the existing grid management? Is that the kind of "additional" you're speaking to? Do you have examples, taking into consideration the typical wind warm turbine numbers/geographical displacement... taking into account the typical time-aspects related to wind variance across those geographical displacements?

[blueblood]

Agreed, and I suspect it's the same kind of morons who clamor for all renewables today.

Who the Bush Administration that wanted a third of corn production to be fuel? I owe Bush a bottle of rye for that legislation.

It was either burn your corn or pay bigger dollars per barrel of oil.

It was never about the environment, it was economic activity and national security.

[ToadBrother]

Hmmm. What other environmental policies has he supported because of politics instead of science? Is he supporting current policies because of politics instead of science? That one is a rhetorical question since we all know the answer is a resounding yes.

What's also of note, is that while he was campagining and supporting the ethanol policies he now admits were wrong. He was citing the science of these policies to make the case for their necessity. Sound familiar?

Isn't this a non sequitur, at the very least. That someone may be wrong on one point does not necessarily mean he's wrong on all points.

And besides, why is it again that we should care what Al Gore thinks?

[ToadBrother]

Look, I agree in principle. Just build more of everything til everyone is happy and we live in utopia. Unfortunately, our resources are limited, and choices have to be made which projects and technologies to invest more in. Personally, I'd rather see more money going to nuclear. Whether solar or wind are viable or not, you cannot argue with the million-fold energy and power density advantages of nuclear energy sources.

Nuclear power is clear the mid-range answer, but it isn't without its own problems, among them being that it too ultimately relies on non-renewables.

[bush_cheney2004]

Nuclear power is clear the mid-range answer, but it isn't without its own problems, among them being that it too ultimately relies on non-renewables.

Yes and no, as the fuel cycle can be extended significantly using IFR/breeder reactors, which adresses the waste cycle of 3rd generation light water designs.

[Guest TrueMetis]

In all of these cases the grids are not isolated - i.e. they can import/export power as required. This makes the local % stats that you love to quote absolutely meaningless.

Here is a map of the grids within Europe. You will not find any single RTO with wind >10%. 4-6% is the real number.

http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/jelsample.pdf

Also - the one situation where wind is ok is when it is paired with hydro power but this does nothing to reduce fossil consumption. Hydro power what Denmark depends on. In Spain they export their excess wind to the EU and Morroco.

*watches goalpost shift.

You a such a wanker it's not even funny. You said that a grid couldn't handle more than 10% renewables and when I point to one that does you shift the goal post by then saying well the grid isn't isolated. Well no sh!t nothing is isolated anymore. Spain gets 14% of it's energy demand from wind, deal with it you are wrong.

You have one example of an executive that said wind was not as bad as they thought because of the *subsidies*. Big deal. Wind in Colorado is no more than 5%.

Here is a discussion of how cycling fossil fuel plants increasing:

http://www.masterres...-iv/#more-10008

No I have a fossil fuel company, the US DOE, Berkly engineers, and Stanford engineers. You have f#ck all.

Modern wind plants can be added to a power grid without degrading performance. In fact they can contribute to improvements to system performance.

DOE

...an average of 33% and a maximum of 47% of yearly averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used a reliable baseload electric power.

Stanford

Dan Kammen director of the renewable and appropriate energy lab. (Skip to 4:14)

Edited November 25, 2010 by TrueMetis

[ToadBrother]

Yes and no, as the fuel cycle can be extended significantly using IFR/breeder reactors, which adresses the waste cycle of 3rd generation light water designs.

There are certainly solutions, but like I said, I think it's a mid-range solution, not a long term solution. But nuclear power pretty much is the only thing that does what both the economy and the environmentalists want; and that is to produce electricity without producing greenhouse gases. Wind and tidal power suffer from a number of problems that make them inadequate, unless you shove big-ass capacitors in there to level off the extreme unevenness of power generation. Solar is still very expensive and requires a helluva lot of panels to produce useful amounts of electricity (then there's the manufacturing of things like solar cells, not always all that green, unfortunately).

In the long term, well, hopefully we'll figure out how to do fusion economically, and then I guess all our power problems will disappear, but there's damned little evidence that's going to happen any time soon. Other ideas, like orbital solar power stations are still pretty much science fiction, theoretically possible, but grossly expensive and requiring a degree of space-based construction that we are a long ways away from being able to pull off. I suspect that by the time material technologies and techniques have reached that degree, we'll probably have fusion power, so other than for powering things in space, it won't do folks on Earth much good.

But back to nuclear, unfortunately there is still a hippie cabal within the environmental movement that can't get past nuclear power, and still fly banners about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that are hardly relevant any more. All these clowns ever accomplished was to stagnate the nuclear industry for decades, and ultimately maintain the reliance on fossil fuels for electrical generation. I don't think "simpering morons" is adequate to describe my feelings about the anti-nuclear crowd.

[dre]

Nuclear power is clear the mid-range answer, but it isn't without its own problems, among them being that it too ultimately relies on non-renewables.

If nuclear power was the answer private investors would be building plants. The reality is they make no sense in countries that have lots of coal. If you need a bridge between what we have now and new technologies youre better of using the cleanest modern coal plants.

[dre]

There are certainly solutions, but like I said, I think it's a mid-range solution, not a long term solution. But nuclear power pretty much is the only thing that does what both the economy and the environmentalists want; and that is to produce electricity without producing greenhouse gases. Wind and tidal power suffer from a number of problems that make them inadequate, unless you shove big-ass capacitors in there to level off the extreme unevenness of power generation. Solar is still very expensive and requires a helluva lot of panels to produce useful amounts of electricity (then there's the manufacturing of things like solar cells, not always all that green, unfortunately).

In the long term, well, hopefully we'll figure out how to do fusion economically, and then I guess all our power problems will disappear, but there's damned little evidence that's going to happen any time soon. Other ideas, like orbital solar power stations are still pretty much science fiction, theoretically possible, but grossly expensive and requiring a degree of space-based construction that we are a long ways away from being able to pull off. I suspect that by the time material technologies and techniques have reached that degree, we'll probably have fusion power, so other than for powering things in space, it won't do folks on Earth much good.

But back to nuclear, unfortunately there is still a hippie cabal within the environmental movement that can't get past nuclear power, and still fly banners about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that are hardly relevant any more. All these clowns ever accomplished was to stagnate the nuclear industry for decades, and ultimately maintain the reliance on fossil fuels for electrical generation. I don't think "simpering morons" is adequate to describe my feelings about the anti-nuclear crowd.

But back to nuclear, unfortunately there is still a hippie cabal within the environmental movement that can't get past nuclear power, and still fly banners about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that are hardly relevant any more. All these clowns ever accomplished was to stagnate the nuclear industry for decades, and ultimately maintain the reliance on fossil fuels for electrical generation

Environmentalists arent the reason the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant in North America since the early 70's. The problem is that the private sector wont build them because of the issues I mentioned a few pages ago. Massive decommissioning costs etc. And because theres too much coal here for nuclear to be economical.

The nuclear industry doesnt even have enough money to close down dozen or so plants that will expire over the next few years, never mind building more.

Edited November 25, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

....But back to nuclear, unfortunately there is still a hippie cabal within the environmental movement that can't get past nuclear power, and still fly banners about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island that are hardly relevant any more. All these clowns ever accomplished was to stagnate the nuclear industry for decades, and ultimately maintain the reliance on fossil fuels for electrical generation. I don't think "simpering morons" is adequate to describe my feelings about the anti-nuclear crowd.

Agreed, and I suspect it's the same kind of morons who clamor for all renewables today.

[GostHacked]

Yes and no, as the fuel cycle can be extended significantly using IFR/breeder reactors, which adresses the waste cycle of 3rd generation light water designs.

Anything left after that? Or is the waste small enough and of low radiation so that it is not much of a concern anymore?