Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of California’s major electric utilities,
. . . shut down its 1,122 MW Unit #1 at its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant last week,
. . . just as the state prepared for a serious heat wave.
Whatever happens with the plants outage, PG&E loses.
. . . If a power emergency is called, it becomes clear that nuclear is not dependable during a crisis.
. . . If no emergency is called, then it is equally clear that the reactor is not needed.
Source: Another Nuclear shutdown
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
7
Nuclear as religion sort of
Started by
Dingo
, May 26 2013 07:44 PM
283 replies to this topic
#122
Posted 09 July 2013 - 02:40 PM
Phil, on 09 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:
The point is the public will not support nuclear. It doesn't matter what is physically possible, no politician will force the issue with that much resistance either here or abroad.
Phil, on 09 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:
I also believe the storage problem can be solved if enough effort is put towards a solution, there are a number of pilot projects already going on. If a home hydrogen station can be had for the projected advertised price of $4-6K and it's powered with rooftop solar that is a solution.
I think there a number of things to be considered here.
Rooftop solar can provide solar PV. But a lot of the population in the world, particularly in the more densely populated countries, live in apartment buildings don't have a roof they can call their own so that rules out rooftop PV for them. And also rules out domestic wind generation for them too. So home generation simply isn't a practical proposition for many millions of people. Affordability or otherwise just doesn't come into it.
Most of the world population lives in the northern hemisphere and almost all of that north of the Tropic of Capricorn. Long winter nights. Not particularly productive for solar PV.
If you can't collect it, you can't store it.
We, in UK, generally have fairly small properties.
Our back garden is about one hundredth of an acre.
Better than most in Shanghai or Delhi.
But we grow some plants and have solar powered lights.
My attempt at art.........
A picture of our wiggly wire tree shadow on the garage door..
#123
Posted 10 July 2013 - 04:45 AM
Update on Fukushima-
"At the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant north of Tokyo, the site of the world's worst atomic disaster
since Chernobyl in 1986, the situation took a turn for the worse as radiation levels in groundwater soared,
suggesting highly toxic materials from the plant are now close to the Pacific Ocean.
An observation well between the damaged reactor No. 2 and the sea showed levels of radioactive caesium-134
were 90 times higher
on Monday than they had been the previous Friday.
Tokyo Electric, also known as Tepco, said it detected caesium-134 at 9,000 becquerels per litre,
150 times :blink:above Japan's safety standard.
The reading for caesium-137, with a half life of 30 years, was some 85 times higher than it had been three days earlier.
A becquerel is a measure of the release of radioactive energy."
http://www.huffingto...reen&ref=topbar
"At the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant north of Tokyo, the site of the world's worst atomic disaster
since Chernobyl in 1986, the situation took a turn for the worse as radiation levels in groundwater soared,
suggesting highly toxic materials from the plant are now close to the Pacific Ocean.
An observation well between the damaged reactor No. 2 and the sea showed levels of radioactive caesium-134
were 90 times higher
on Monday than they had been the previous Friday.Tokyo Electric, also known as Tepco, said it detected caesium-134 at 9,000 becquerels per litre,
150 times :blink:above Japan's safety standard.
The reading for caesium-137, with a half life of 30 years, was some 85 times higher than it had been three days earlier.
A becquerel is a measure of the release of radioactive energy."
http://www.huffingto...reen&ref=topbar
#124
Posted 10 July 2013 - 09:05 AM
Property size is a problem, particularly near cities. However not everyone needs to be energy neutral, there can be local and regional aggregates. If a substantial portion of power can come from wind, and most have some solar, local/personal hydrogen backup can supplement the intermittency of both.
Even in long winter seasons, if a tank of sufficient size is employed enough hydrogen could be stored to handle it. Even though I live 48 degrees north I generate more power than I use six months out of the year, another four I buy minimal power. Only two winter months do I draw heavily on the grid. England is only 4 degrees north of me, not that much. The solar insolation maps show comparable radiance. Solar works in Canada too, Alaska has a surprising number of solar installations as well.
I also think, some nuclear, some natural gas, and even some coal power will be around for decades if not centuries. I don't think we need to get to zero fossils, just substantially lower than present.
Somewhere I read that 40% of CO2 comes from transportation, 40% from housing, and 20% from industrial. Just switching to BEV's and FCV's with renewable integration could cut CO2 output nearly in half. Solar powered hydrogen filling stations are already planned.
Of course this all depends on hydrogen infrastructure viability, if that's a bust, were screwed! :<O I do think there are enough backers that it will happen though. It's likely we'll know by 2020. By then there should be sufficient hydrogen filling stations, home hydrogen units, and FCV's to see if it all pans out or it's just more toys for the rich.
All this is moot though, if the developing world won't buy in. The west does not control the environment, the developing world does. China, India, Brazil, etc. will control the worlds fate.
Even in long winter seasons, if a tank of sufficient size is employed enough hydrogen could be stored to handle it. Even though I live 48 degrees north I generate more power than I use six months out of the year, another four I buy minimal power. Only two winter months do I draw heavily on the grid. England is only 4 degrees north of me, not that much. The solar insolation maps show comparable radiance. Solar works in Canada too, Alaska has a surprising number of solar installations as well.
I also think, some nuclear, some natural gas, and even some coal power will be around for decades if not centuries. I don't think we need to get to zero fossils, just substantially lower than present.
Somewhere I read that 40% of CO2 comes from transportation, 40% from housing, and 20% from industrial. Just switching to BEV's and FCV's with renewable integration could cut CO2 output nearly in half. Solar powered hydrogen filling stations are already planned.
Of course this all depends on hydrogen infrastructure viability, if that's a bust, were screwed! :<O I do think there are enough backers that it will happen though. It's likely we'll know by 2020. By then there should be sufficient hydrogen filling stations, home hydrogen units, and FCV's to see if it all pans out or it's just more toys for the rich.
All this is moot though, if the developing world won't buy in. The west does not control the environment, the developing world does. China, India, Brazil, etc. will control the worlds fate.
#125
Posted 10 July 2013 - 11:39 AM
Phil, on 10 July 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:
Property size is a problem, particularly near cities. However not everyone needs to be energy neutral, there can be local and regional aggregates. If a substantial portion of power can come from wind, and most have some solar, local/personal hydrogen backup can supplement the intermittency of both.
Even in long winter seasons, if a tank of sufficient size is employed enough hydrogen could be stored to handle it.
Even in long winter seasons, if a tank of sufficient size is employed enough hydrogen could be stored to handle it.
Phil, on 10 July 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:
Even though I live 48 degrees north I generate more power than I use six months out of the year, another four I buy minimal power. Only two winter months do I draw heavily on the grid. England is only 4 degrees north of me, not that much.
Phil, on 10 July 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:
Somewhere I read that 40% of CO2 comes from transportation, 40% from housing, and 20% from industrial. Just switching to BEV's and FCV's with renewable integration could cut CO2 output nearly in half.
#126
Posted 11 July 2013 - 08:45 AM
Apartments would likely have to be treated as a whole, with a tank buried on the property. If I owned an apartment building that's how I'd do it.
If you owned your apartment that would be a challenge. One thing we have here is home owner associations as well as apartment associations that act for the common good of the subdivision or complex. That methodology could be used to support a common hydrogen storage mechanism for an apartment complex.
Of course there is a difference between being able to do it and actually doing it! Just as it's technically possible to generate all our electricity from nuclear, it's also possible to embrace the hydrogen infrastructure. I deem the latter much more publicly palatable, as long as costs aren't out of line.
While those of us in the north have a much darker winter we also have a much brighter summer. Arizona gets much more sun but solar is still viable in the far north. Storage is the key.
Unfortunately nothing will be done overnight, anything we do will take time. At least in the US, nuclear plants take a decade or more. From what I've read we are decommissioning more nuke plants than we are building. The nice thing about local/personal solar/wind/hydrogen (eventually), is that it can be deployed in days/weeks.
The next five years should be very interesting. By then solar will have become even cheaper, hydrogen will or will not have been deemed viable, and nuclear will or will not have been doomed. I think if hydrogen does become viable, that will be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear.
If you owned your apartment that would be a challenge. One thing we have here is home owner associations as well as apartment associations that act for the common good of the subdivision or complex. That methodology could be used to support a common hydrogen storage mechanism for an apartment complex.
Of course there is a difference between being able to do it and actually doing it! Just as it's technically possible to generate all our electricity from nuclear, it's also possible to embrace the hydrogen infrastructure. I deem the latter much more publicly palatable, as long as costs aren't out of line.
While those of us in the north have a much darker winter we also have a much brighter summer. Arizona gets much more sun but solar is still viable in the far north. Storage is the key.
Unfortunately nothing will be done overnight, anything we do will take time. At least in the US, nuclear plants take a decade or more. From what I've read we are decommissioning more nuke plants than we are building. The nice thing about local/personal solar/wind/hydrogen (eventually), is that it can be deployed in days/weeks.
The next five years should be very interesting. By then solar will have become even cheaper, hydrogen will or will not have been deemed viable, and nuclear will or will not have been doomed. I think if hydrogen does become viable, that will be the final nail in the coffin for nuclear.
#129
Posted 13 July 2013 - 06:59 PM
Dr. Helen Caldicott: Radiation and Fukushima, What They Aren’t Telling You
http://foodintegrity...nt-telling-you/
#130
Posted 14 July 2013 - 03:11 AM
E3 wise, on 13 July 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:
Dr. Helen Caldicott: Radiation and Fukushima, What They Aren’t Telling You
http://foodintegrity...nt-telling-you/
After Monbiot demolished her book with its lack of peer-reviewed source documents and very Denialist-seeming lack of respect for the scientific process, I'm surprised anyone here quotes her. To me she now comes across as a tired, rather dishonest old lady that's willing to shout out conspiracy theories in the name of her whacked-out belief system. She's becoming a caricature of herself. I'm quite embarrassed for her, and saddened for the environmental movement.
1. Suspend judgement.
2. Get your favourite drink
3. Read this slowly and carefully
4. Ask yourself if Caldicott is behaving professionally any more, or if she's just going a bit manic and might even need medication?
http://www.monbiot.c...otts-responses/
#131
Posted 14 July 2013 - 04:40 AM
One person's opinion from monbiot. The fact that Caldicott has worked in the field for years, knows and states the dangers
of nuclear should give at least most people, a reason to listen to her.
I have found that when people are passionate about a subject, they sometimes will not choose their words
carefully enough, and others will nit-pick their statements.
It sounds like monbiot is dismissing the dangers of nuclear and that's incorrect in itself.
of nuclear should give at least most people, a reason to listen to her.
I have found that when people are passionate about a subject, they sometimes will not choose their words
carefully enough, and others will nit-pick their statements.
It sounds like monbiot is dismissing the dangers of nuclear and that's incorrect in itself.
#132
Posted 14 July 2013 - 05:38 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 14 July 2013 - 04:40 AM, said:
One person's opinion from monbiot. The fact that Caldicott has worked in the field for years, knows and states the dangers
of nuclear should give at least most people, a reason to listen to her.
I have found that when people are passionate about a subject, they sometimes will not choose their words
carefully enough, and others will nit-pick their statements.
It sounds like monbiot is dismissing the dangers of nuclear and that's incorrect in itself.
of nuclear should give at least most people, a reason to listen to her.
I have found that when people are passionate about a subject, they sometimes will not choose their words
carefully enough, and others will nit-pick their statements.
It sounds like monbiot is dismissing the dangers of nuclear and that's incorrect in itself.
I actually have quite a lot of respect for Moonboot as we sometimes call him here.
And I respectfully have to disagree on the dangers of nuclear power generation.
Statistics put it bottom of the list in terms of fatalities by some considerable margin.
I'm a pretty old bloke and have been around since nuclear power generation came into commercial operation. In that time I can recall just three significant failures, only one of which resulted in immediate fatalities. By way of contrast UK alone has recorded 164,000 coal mining accidents many of which resulted in multiple fatalities. And I know I have previously mentioned Aberfan.- 146 fatalities of whom 116 were young children. It was truly shocking news.
And, so far this year, China has recorded nearly 200 mining fatalities.
Apart from the shocking death toll, coal and fossils pollute. If nuclear is taken out of the equation then other forms of energy generation would need to take up the slack. At present the bulk of that would have to be fossils.
I'm not an advocate for nuclear but, as things stand, it's the lesser of some of the evils.
That's not to say that, as with all human endeavours, we should not be cognisant of potential risks.
#133
Posted 14 July 2013 - 08:15 AM
I don't think any sane person is advocating radical changes of energy production or reduction,
. . . however, Nuclear radiation, is a gift that keeps on giving, for generation after generation, and
. . . no one has figured out how to successful, contain it's accidents and waste's.
. . . The Japan Nuclear accident from 2011, unlike mine accidents, still goes on,
. . . with one failed plan after another to contain the problem.
. . . That threat has been recognized by many countries as a good reason to look for saner sources of energy.
. . . Burying Nuclear waste under mountains. FAILED.
. . . Storing Nuclear waste in double-walled containers. FAILED.
The beginning of this year, the US had 104 Nuclear plants, at the last count, 5 were permanently shutdown, and
. . . one temporary shutdown, wasting $100's millions of dollars to decommission and
. . . 2 that were being built, for $14 Billion where experiencing cost overruns and scheduling delays,
. . . that have ratepayers up in arms, to break the Monopoly that Utilities have.
Nuclear was supposed to save us from coals pollution. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be safe. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be cheap. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be cheap to decommission. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be clean energy for our children and their children. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be baseload power. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to make a lot of money for investors. FAILED.
Nuclear was NOT supposed to be an endless problem, we hand to future generations. FAILED.
There are Billions of people on this planet, and they all want cellphones, cars, TV's, Air Conditioners, etc.
Nuclear FAILED, and can NOT provide for them.
That's NOT to say Coal or Oil are better than Nuclear, or that they should be instantly stopped.
. . . let's sanely, stop doing what is harming us, because,
. . . Insanity: is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
. . . however, Nuclear radiation, is a gift that keeps on giving, for generation after generation, and
. . . no one has figured out how to successful, contain it's accidents and waste's.
. . . The Japan Nuclear accident from 2011, unlike mine accidents, still goes on,
. . . with one failed plan after another to contain the problem.
. . . That threat has been recognized by many countries as a good reason to look for saner sources of energy.
. . . Burying Nuclear waste under mountains. FAILED.
. . . Storing Nuclear waste in double-walled containers. FAILED.
The beginning of this year, the US had 104 Nuclear plants, at the last count, 5 were permanently shutdown, and
. . . one temporary shutdown, wasting $100's millions of dollars to decommission and
. . . 2 that were being built, for $14 Billion where experiencing cost overruns and scheduling delays,
. . . that have ratepayers up in arms, to break the Monopoly that Utilities have.
Nuclear was supposed to save us from coals pollution. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be safe. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be cheap. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be cheap to decommission. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be clean energy for our children and their children. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to be baseload power. FAILED.
Nuclear was supposed to make a lot of money for investors. FAILED.
Nuclear was NOT supposed to be an endless problem, we hand to future generations. FAILED.
There are Billions of people on this planet, and they all want cellphones, cars, TV's, Air Conditioners, etc.
Nuclear FAILED, and can NOT provide for them.
That's NOT to say Coal or Oil are better than Nuclear, or that they should be instantly stopped.
. . . let's sanely, stop doing what is harming us, because,
. . . Insanity: is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
#134
Posted 14 July 2013 - 09:34 AM
Consider the following:
The energy industry is not a free market.
. . . It is also incapable of valuing externalities such as environmental and health considerations.
New technologies such as solar and PV are enabling choice for consumers, but reducing demand.
. . . As demand erodes, utilities must raise prices across the base of ratepayers to maintain
. . . the backbone of the distribution grid, which is still needed to ensure service in most cases.
. . . This then incentivizes customers to adopt increasingly cost-competitive technologies,
. . . further reducing demand. It’s a vicious spiral.
Existing regulatory schemes are not designed to manage this disruption.
. . . The cost recovery and rate design process must be rethought to halt the death spiral
. . . described previously, account for hidden costs (such as managing intermittency), and
. . . avoid subsidizing the demand destruction of early-adopters by charging the entire customer base.
Source: Policymakers
The energy industry is not a free market.
. . . It is also incapable of valuing externalities such as environmental and health considerations.
New technologies such as solar and PV are enabling choice for consumers, but reducing demand.
. . . As demand erodes, utilities must raise prices across the base of ratepayers to maintain
. . . the backbone of the distribution grid, which is still needed to ensure service in most cases.
. . . This then incentivizes customers to adopt increasingly cost-competitive technologies,
. . . further reducing demand. It’s a vicious spiral.
Existing regulatory schemes are not designed to manage this disruption.
. . . The cost recovery and rate design process must be rethought to halt the death spiral
. . . described previously, account for hidden costs (such as managing intermittency), and
. . . avoid subsidizing the demand destruction of early-adopters by charging the entire customer base.
Source: Policymakers
#138
Posted 14 July 2013 - 10:59 AM
Besoeker, on 14 July 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:
I don't know.
Released contamination from an accident isn't exactly a controlled substance.
My point was about waste.
Released contamination from an accident isn't exactly a controlled substance.
My point was about waste.
The japanese people have been told for years, that one thing after another,
. . . was going to solve the problem, and then, they have another solution.
. . . They have stopped believing.
There were windmills in the ocean there, that were not effected and
. . . could have supplied emergency power, at the most critical time,
. . . but their utility companies, didn't connect them up to the grid,
. . . so when the Nuclear plant needed outside emergency power, it wasn't available.
#139
Posted 14 July 2013 - 11:05 AM
Besoeker, on 14 July 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:
If nuclear is taken out of the equation then other forms of energy generation would need to take up the slack. At present the bulk of that would have to be fossils.
http://rabett.blogsp...-round-two.html
Quote
Germany provides useful empirical evidence about progress in quitting the fossil fuel addiction. Germany is making a major effort to improve energy efficiency. It is also trying hard to promote renewable energy, with large subsidies for wind and solar energies. Wind provides up to 20% o the country's electric energy in winter, but on annual mean the wind and sun produced only 7.3% percent of Germany's electricity in 2008…But what is disturbing about the empirical evidence from Germany is that, despite technical progress and strong efforts in energy efficiency and renewable energies, there are no plans to phase out coal. On the contrary, there are plans to build new coal-fired power plants, which the German government claims will be necessary once the country closes its nuclear reactor plants. The bottom line seems to be that it is not feasible in the foreseeable future to phase out coal unless nuclear power is included in the mix.
There is more in here on maintaining a persistent baseload to cover solar's intermittency.
Here are a couple of lead in links.
http://rabett.blogsp...-at-nation.html
http://www.spiegel.d...s-a-786048.html
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
