wyly Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 oh ya nukes are safe, but not even the nuke lovers want one built in their neighbourhood... forget nukes no one really wants them, they're a last resort...just get on with green energy research, solar, tidal, geo-thermal, wind combined with energy conservation... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 The natural sources, wind, light are all of a less reliable nature, and have environmental impact issues in their own right as well. Including hazardous waste and death of wildlife. Ironically energy conservation could probably yield the greatest return of any of those options you pointed out, yet it's not being looked at with as much interest. There needs to be an economic incentive for energy conservation. I would be in favour of a tax break if your energy bill is below a certain level, including home heating, electrical bill, motor vehicle mileage and fuel consumption. It could be a voluntary program that people sign up to, collect the data and submit their energy usage report at tax time. Quote
Bonam Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 The natural sources, wind, light are all of a less reliable nature, and have environmental impact issues in their own right as well. Including hazardous waste and death of wildlife. Ironically energy conservation could probably yield the greatest return of any of those options you pointed out, yet it's not being looked at with as much interest. There needs to be an economic incentive for energy conservation. I would be in favour of a tax break if your energy bill is below a certain level, including home heating, electrical bill, motor vehicle mileage and fuel consumption. It could be a voluntary program that people sign up to, collect the data and submit their energy usage report at tax time. The financial incentive of having a lower energy bill is... *drumroll*... the lower energy bill. A radical concept, I know. As for energy conservation, it is already working. But there are limits to how much you can get through efficiency gains, as processes approach their theoretical limits. Energy still needs to be produced, and the net demand for energy will continue to increase as populations grow, as more of the world's poor are lifted out of poverty, and as our progressing technology finds ever more new uses for energy. You are right that there are real limitations to what one can practically get from the so called "renewable" energy sources. These limits will continue to be pushed as technology develops. For example, renewables may benefit greatly from improved transmission and energy storage technologies. Based on my knowledge of the science and engineering involved, however, I would suggest that we are quite likely to have developed viable fusion energy before renewables are able to provide for the majority of our energy needs. Quote
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 People know the incentive but they need something to draw their attention. Saving money works. Other studies show simply putting a meter with a large display on the wall, showing power consumption levels can cause the consumer to use less power. But to work it needs to be on their "radar" and simple, easy, convenient. Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 The natural sources, wind, light are all of a less reliable nature, and have environmental impact issues in their own right as well. Including hazardous waste and death of wildlife. there is always light, wind, geo-thermal and tides,it never stops, waste/damage is minimal compared to any other sources, wildlife death ...ya lets ban cars because of roadkill, how about banning house cats which make bird killed by wind turbines miniscule in comparison...the only issues with environmental friendly sources is the lack of effort put into research, there's more than a 200yrs's worth of research into making carbon based fuels efficient, 70yrs behind nuclear power, the amount of research behind natural sources is minimal, give it 20 years and we'll see vast improvements in green energy... Ironically energy conservation could probably yield the greatest return of any of those options you pointed out, yet it's not being looked at with as much interest. There needs to be an economic incentive for energy conservation.have you been living in a cave? Definitely out of touch with the building industry, and certainly the auto industry... i can't think of two bigger industries focused on energy conservation...and the economic incentive for both is lower energy costs for the consumer...I would be in favour of a tax break the best incentive is a carbon tax, industry will provide the most efficient products to meet consumer demand... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
dre Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 First of all, keep in mind that not all estimates show that Nuclear power generation more expensive than gas/coal/etc. Estimates vary widely, but at least some show that Nuclear can be cheaper. The problem with Nuclear is the huge upfront capital costs (compared to fossil fuel generation, where most of the cost is with the fuel itself.) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources Secondly, even when coal/oil is considered cheaper, that is often because only direct costs are measured.... external concerns are not factored in. So the cost of, for example, handling global warming or dealing with health concerns due to smog (both issues with coal generation) may or may not be included when they calculate costs. Lastly, the costs of nuclear power can be reduced further if spent fuel is recycled (something that isn't often done.) Minor point... France also has to import Uranium, although its probably a lot cheaper to transport a few pounds of uranium instead of a few tons of coal. Its one thing for a nuclear plant to say it can generate power for X cents per kilowatt but thats because the taxpayer pays for so many of their expenses. Not only does the tax payer backstop the entire fuel cycle, they subsidize virtually every step of process. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 there is always light, wind, geo-thermal and tides,it never stops, waste/damage is minimal compared to any other sources, wildlife death ...ya lets ban cars because of roadkill, how about banning house cats which make bird killed by wind turbines miniscule in comparison...the only issues with environmental friendly sources is the lack of effort put into research, there's more than a 200yrs's worth of research into making carbon based fuels efficient, 70yrs behind nuclear power, the amount of research behind natural sources is minimal, give it 20 years and we'll see vast improvements in green energy... Yeah thats what they said about mutual funds too Wiley, so go invest your money in it. It's all a big scam, it will cost way more than it's worth to do the conversion necessary to make these distributed systems viable. Not for the next 50 years. Yes, I do live in a cave. I like old houses, they were built to last and yours will be dust in the ground while mine stands, proud and true. And well maintained by someone who knows how to use tools. Problem is, you know how many old houses and facilitoes, and equipment is out there? Converting it is never cost effective. If you buy a high efficeincy furnace, can be $20 grand or more installed. You will never ever make the money back. Better to burn at 70% efficiency for the next 20 years, than buy a high efficiency system. There's no incentive! the best incentive is a carbon tax, industry will provide the most efficient products to meet consumer demand... No I think that's a pointless idea that never got off the ground. It's just a money pit. Like paying for plastic grocery bags. Quote
Bonam Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) there is always light, wind, geo-thermal and tides,it never stops, waste/damage is minimal compared to any other sources, wildlife death ...ya lets ban cars because of roadkill, how about banning house cats which make bird killed by wind turbines miniscule in comparison... There is no energy source that "never stops". Furthermore, the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind, extracted from the tides, or extracted from the Earth's interior, without affecting the natural balance is even more limited. Wind power can alter local wind and weather patterns in unnatural ways, and if used on a larger scale could alter global weather patterns. The total power in the Earth's wind has been estimated as 72 TW. If we provide a large portion of the world's needed 15 TW using wind energy, for example, 7 TW, thus extracting 1/10th of all the energy from the wind, we will have modified global wind patterns dramatically. Hydroelectric energy is already in use on a large proportion of applicable sites in developed countries, and further room for developing large hydro projects is limited, while small "run of the river" hydro projects do not provide enough power to matter on a large scale. The total power transferred in the orbital interaction between the Earth and the Moon is only ~3.5 TW, only a fraction of humanity's energy needs. Extracting energy on this scale from the tides would have a measurable impact on the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system. The Earth's core and mantle are warmed through the decay of radioactive isotopes, which produce about 30 TW of power. This energy keeps the Earth's interior warm, allowing for the processes of plate tectonics and volcanism, which refresh both the Earth's surface and atmosphere with new materials necessary to the survival of all life. Tapping a substantial chunk of that 30 TW would cause a measurable change in the cooling rate of the Earth's interior and alter worldwide seismic and volcanic phenomena in unpredictable ways. On the other hand, the Earth does receive about ~17,000 TW of solar power, and extracting 15 TW from that would only be a negligible ~0.1%. Solar energy is the only form of renewable for which one could try to make the argument that we could get most of the energy we need without having a profound impact on the Earth. Of course, solar also tends to be one of the most expensive and least space-efficient methods. But there is certainly hope there. the only issues with environmental friendly sources is the lack of effort put into research, there's more than a 200yrs's worth of research into making carbon based fuels efficient, 70yrs behind nuclear power, the amount of research behind natural sources is minimal, give it 20 years and we'll see vast improvements in green energy... People have been harnessing "natural" sources of energy such as wind and hydro for hundreds of years as well. And research that makes these energy sources "more efficient" can provide only very limited diminishing returns at this point. Solar does have room for more substantial gains, however. Edited September 25, 2012 by Bonam Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) Yes, I do live in a cave. I like old houses, they were built to last and yours will be dust in the ground while mine stands, proud and true. And well maintained by someone who knows how to use tools. myth...I have a lifetime home construction, it's what my father did, it's what I do, old homes are not better than new homes, construction technology of new building is far ahead of past building techniques...all homes new and old need to be maintained... it's what I do. Problem is, you know how many old houses and facilitoes, and equipment is out there? Converting it is never cost effective. If you buy a high efficeincy furnace, can be $20 grand or more installed. You will never ever make the money back. Better to burn at 70% efficiency for the next 20 years, than buy a high efficiency system. shitting directly into a river is more cost effective than paying to treat our sewage but not doing so destroys our water supply, so we pay our taxes and treat our sewage...because you can't see smell or taste CO2 emissions like you can a river full of crap doesn't mean there isn't any less damage to the environment...what you are doing when you contribute excess co2 to the atmosphere is shitting in your own kitchen...There's no incentive!the incentive is paying for the actual cost of for emission reduction, a co2 tax, a stable environment...No I think that's a pointless idea that never got off the ground. It's just a money pit. Like paying for plastic grocery bags.then stop paying tax for garbage pickup and sewage treatment and see how that works out... Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Its one thing for a nuclear plant to say it can generate power for X cents per kilowatt but thats because the taxpayer pays for so many of their expenses. Not only does the tax payer backstop the entire fuel cycle, they subsidize virtually every step of process. When they estimate the cost of generation (per kilowatt, or whatever) it includes all costs, whether the cost appears on your actual electricity bill or is subsidized by the government/taxpayer. Again, the problem with Nuclear is the huge up-front capital construction costs before any power is generated. Yes, they may need subsidies/loans/etc. to pay for building the plant. Once the plant is running it produces power cheaply. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 The natural sources, wind, light are all of a less reliable nature, and have environmental impact issues in their own right as well. Including hazardous waste and death of wildlife. Radioactive waste from nuclear plants are not hazardous to wildlife? Ironically energy conservation could probably yield the greatest return of any of those options you pointed out, yet it's not being looked at with as much interest. There needs to be an economic incentive for energy conservation. One solution is this smart grid that will require more power to be used by 'smart' appliances. All this is in place to help you save money. Smart meters will require a swap out in 5-10 years. Stupid compared to the analog ones that have been working perfectly for decades. Quote
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 oh ya nukes are safe, but not even the nuke lovers want one built in their neighbourhood... And I'm pretty sure nobody would want a hydroelectric dam, coal-fired plant, or wind turbine in their neighborhood. forget nukes no one really wants them, they're a last resort... Ummm... who's this "we"? Rather than being a 'last resort', they should be our first choice. We know Nuclear Power works, its a mature technology, and its reliable. France went nuclear, and its has been exporting electricity. just get on with green energy research, solar, tidal, geo-thermal, wind... While I'm not opposed to research, keep in mind that many of those technologies you listed have limitations. Its unknown if they will ever be able to scale up to meet power requirements in a reliable fashion. Quote
GostHacked Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 There is no energy source that "never stops". Furthermore, the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind, extracted from the tides, or extracted from the Earth's interior, without affecting the natural balance is even more limited. Nuclear waste is not an impact? Oil rigs and refineries exploding, tankers sinking? So called CO2 in the air causing global warming? Wind power can alter local wind and weather patterns in unnatural ways, and if used on a larger scale could alter global weather patterns. The total power in the Earth's wind has been estimated as 72 TW. If we provide a large portion of the world's needed 15 TW using wind energy, for example, 7 TW, thus extracting 1/10th of all the energy from the wind, we will have modified global wind patterns dramatically. All these tall buildings we have in major cities are not doing exactly what you claim wind power would do? Also don't the forests do exactly what you are claiming? Hydroelectric energy is already in use on a large proportion of applicable sites in developed countries, and further room for developing large hydro projects is limited, while small "run of the river" hydro projects do not provide enough power to matter on a large scale. As damaging it initially is to build a dam, it is in my view one of the greenest ways to produce energy. But we have also diverted, blocked, flooded, altered areas around the dam. Talks to your bit about the wind. The total power transferred in the orbital interaction between the Earth and the Moon is only ~3.5 TW, only a fraction of humanity's energy needs. Extracting energy on this scale from the tides would have a measurable impact on the dynamics of the Earth-Moon system. How? I've love to see an explanation for that. The Earth's core and mantle are warmed through the decay of radioactive isotopes, which produce about 30 TW of power. This energy keeps the Earth's interior warm, allowing for the processes of plate tectonics and volcanism, which refresh both the Earth's surface and atmosphere with new materials necessary to the survival of all life. Tapping a substantial chunk of that 30 TW would cause a measurable change in the cooling rate of the Earth's interior and alter worldwide seismic and volcanic phenomena in unpredictable ways. We are not tapping directly into the core with geothermal. But I guess we can talk about oil/gas, mining in general, extraction and how taking the oil out of the ground creating underground holes/caverns is not going to be a factor in seismic activity right? We can also look at fracking where it is known to cause small localized tremors. Cities already have a huge infrastructure going down hundreds of feet already into the ground. On the other hand, the Earth does receive about ~17,000 TW of solar power, and extracting 15 TW from that would only be a negligible ~0.1%. Solar energy is the only form of renewable for which one could try to make the argument that we could get most of the energy we need without having a profound impact on the Earth. Of course, solar also tends to be one of the most expensive and least space-efficient methods. But there is certainly hope there. My hope with solar is that it can be made transparent. The amount of windows on any home or large structure would be a gold mine of energy. People have been harnessing "natural" sources of energy such as wind and hydro for hundreds of years as well. And research that makes these energy sources "more efficient" can provide only very limited diminishing returns at this point. Solar does have room for more substantial gains, however. The Dutch have been using wind energy for a long time, They are also the leaders in wind and tidal power generation. Iceland is also one of the world's largest users of geo-thermal. Surprised their island has not shaken apart because of it! Quote
wyly Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 My hope with solar is that it can be made transparent. The amount of windows on any home or large structure would be a gold mine of energy. there is some interesting research into solar "paint", a coating for cars and buildings convert solar energy...it's early days in solar energy research, large corporations believe it can be done it's the denier world that are the naysayers...why shouldn't roof shingles double as solar energy collectors? we both know it's only a matter of time... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
GostHacked Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 there is some interesting research into solar "paint", a coating for cars and buildings convert solar energy...it's early days in solar energy research, large corporations believe it can be done it's the denier world that are the naysayers... why shouldn't roof shingles double as solar energy collectors? we both know it's only a matter of time... The only downside I can see is maintenance of these types of systems, but I think we have progressed enough with certain technologies that the shingles thing can happen quite easily. Quote
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Nuclear waste is not an impact? Oil rigs and refineries exploding, tankers sinking? So called CO2 in the air causing global warming? I don't think anyone claimed that nuclear power was without its risks/problems. Only that the problems may have been overstated, and the problem with other technologies understated. The Dutch have been using wind energy for a long time, They are also the leaders in wind and tidal power generation. Not sure if you want to use the Dutch as an example of "green power generation". They use natural gas to do a lot of generation, and in the summer their electricity imports reached record levels. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2012/08/electricity_imports_reach_reco.php Iceland is also one of the world's largest users of geo-thermal. Iceland is also a country with a population of only around 300k people, and benefits from being situation in an area that's quite active volcanically. While I'm not saying geothermal will never be useful, it may not scale up to countries like Canada and/or the U.S., with larger populations and fewer "hot spots". Quote
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 (edited) why shouldn't roof shingles double as solar energy collectors? we both know it's only a matter of time... The only downside I can see is maintenance of these types of systems, but I think we have progressed enough with certain technologies that the shingles thing can happen quite easily. The problem with many of these "alternative" energies like solar is that while an individual installation might appear "safer" than your local nuclear power plant, it is also generating far less energy. When you consider the amount of resources to generate electricity per kilowatt, as well as the number of deaths caused (from something as simple as falling off the roof during installation), Nuclear power has been one of the safest around. http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf Edited September 25, 2012 by segnosaur Quote
dre Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 When they estimate the cost of generation (per kilowatt, or whatever) it includes all costs, whether the cost appears on your actual electricity bill or is subsidized by the government/taxpayer. Again, the problem with Nuclear is the huge up-front capital construction costs before any power is generated. Yes, they may need subsidies/loans/etc. to pay for building the plant. Once the plant is running it produces power cheaply. Not in any of the estimates Iv seen. In fact its almost impossible to even calculate all the subsidies because they are woven into a patchwork of literally hundreds of different federal laws. And some of them are very hard to calculate. For example, government backstops insurance... If the nuclear industry had to purchase liability insurance from a private company against a major nuclear accident, costs would be astronomical. Then you have the cost of storing the spent fuel for 1500 years after the So no... when you see the nuclear industry throw out a figure like "12 cents per KWH" this absolutely does not account for all these hidden costs. And even with the taxpayer picking up so much of the tab the nuclear industry STILL cant sell plants to private utilities. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 shitting directly into a river is more cost effective than paying to treat our sewage but not doing so destroys our water supply, so we pay our taxes and treat our sewage...because you can't see smell or taste CO2 emissions like you can a river full of crap doesn't mean there isn't any less damage to the environment...what you are doing when you contribute excess co2 to the atmosphere is shitting in your own kitchen... There is no soapbox tall enough for this speech. Quote
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Rather than being a 'last resort', they should be our first choice. We know Nuclear Power works, its a mature technology, and its reliable. Right, and as soon as Wild Bill figures out how to economocally (and safely) send fuel rods to the sun, blasting them off earth in low energy rockets we will be all set for the future of the human race. Quote
Wild Bill Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Right, and as soon as Wild Bill figures out how to economocally (and safely) send fuel rods to the sun, blasting them off earth in low energy rockets we will be all set for the future of the human race. Manny, I guess you don't know much about rocketry. Sending fuel rods to the sun is cheap as borscht! First off, you seal some rods in a container that if a rocket ever crashed would protect the rods from scattering. Make the cargo one big strong lump of metal or ceramic, or both. The weight of such a cargo is mice nuts for most of the boosters in use today. The cargo sent to the International Space Station would likely mass more. You don't have to boost it all the way to the Sun. That would be an extremely expensive and inefficient approach, I grant you, but any rocketry engineer who suggested doing that would be fired as a "nob extreme" on the spot! You simply get your payload free of Earth's gravity and into a slow orbit that will eventually end up in the Sun. The nuclear waste will slowly drift along and in a few years get close enough to the Sun to get drawn in and obliterated. The cost would be very low, certainly FAR less than what we spend on storage now! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Guest Manny Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Sounds simple enough WB. Quote
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Rather than being a 'last resort', they should be our first choice. We know Nuclear Power works, its a mature technology, and its reliable. Right, and as soon as Wild Bill figures out how to economocally (and safely) send fuel rods to the sun, blasting them off earth in low energy rockets we will be all set for the future of the human race. Reprocessing spent fuel rods would greatly reduce the bulk of material that would have to be dealt with. (I remember reading a statement that in theory, with reprocessing, the total amount of radioactive waste that would be produced by a family over their life time if they used nuclear electricity would be about the size of a cigarette lighter.) And internment (for example in Yucca mountain) is a feasible option from a technical/scientific view... its just politically unpopular. Quote
segnosaur Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 When they estimate the cost of generation (per kilowatt, or whatever) it includes all costs, whether the cost appears on your actual electricity bill or is subsidized by the government/taxpayer Not in any of the estimates Iv seen. In fact its almost impossible to even calculate all the subsidies because they are woven into a patchwork of literally hundreds of different federal laws. Once again... It is irrelevant whether the costs are subsidized or not. We know how much construction costs will be, we know how much fuel costs will be, and we know how much decommissioning costs will be. Whether those costs are paid for with subsidies or not is not an issue. We know the expenditures. That's the important part. The fact that you're assuming that the costs are hidden via subsidization does not make it so. And some of them are very hard to calculate. Errr... not really. Not any more than any other big, long term engineering/construction project. For example, government backstops insurance... If the nuclear industry had to purchase liability insurance from a private company against a major nuclear accident, costs would be astronomical. Umm... first of all "astronomical" costs do not mean "impossible to calculate". And yes, a nuclear disaster would be expensive. But guess what? After many decades of nuclear power it has a better safety record (e.g. fewer deaths per kw of generated power) than almost every other form of electrical generation. Nuclear engineers know the risk, and they take precautions. Then you have the cost of storing the spent fuel for 1500 years after Again, factored into the cost. The issue is not one of economics or engineering, its political. And even with the taxpayer picking up so much of the tab the nuclear industry STILL cant sell plants to private utilities. That's probably because things like electrical generation from natural gas from Shale has become very cheap lately. Quote
Fletch 27 Posted September 25, 2012 Report Posted September 25, 2012 Interesting fact.. Coal mining has killed over 100,000 people in the US alone. This is just in the mining aspect.. Not to mention the respitory ailments felt by other in or near a coal-fired plant. Nuclear? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.