283 replies to this topic

[Phil]

I was talking about the US market, not international, on nuclear.  Germany has shuttered nuke plants and replacing them with renewables and coal.  That tells you the state of nuclear in much of the developed world.  There is little appetite for nuclear in the US.  What's more, support is "soft" while opposition is fierce and motivated, making it a near impossibility  we'll will see a nuclear revolution in this country.

My 10KW solar replaces 85% of my energy total, not just on sunny days, not just when the sun is shining.  Even on cloudy days the meter is often spinning backwards.  Six months of the year the power company owes me money.  I don't live in a cracker box either, I have almost 3400 sq. ft. under roof and a professional kitchen and home theater.  Not even two years yet and my system has generated over 25 MWH and that's across the strait from the Canadian border.

The ONLY issue with solar on rooftops is storage.  The numbers I've seen thrown around for hydrogen backup I'd buy today since it would also fill up the FCV.  Right now solar does not need federal incentives, some states like mine do need incentives due to our cheap hydro power, (6.7 cents/KWH).  As solar continues to decline it's likely even states like mine won't need them.  Even today in Alaska there are many solar augmented homes since power is so expensive.

To add to Jeff's comment, having been in many startups in my career I can almost guarantee he is under non disclosure agreements so likely cannot get into specifics, but you can bet that at least as far as this forum is concerned he IS the expert on all things hydrogen.  Here is a great little site that covers hydrogen innovation over a number of fields.  Most useful!  http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog2/

[Shortpoet-GTD]

E3 wise, on 24 August 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

I have really tried to avoid this thread but the last statement regarding renewables to hydrogen broke the camels back.  Today in Germany we are working on three projects that not only use the left over energy from wind and solar to fuel cars and provide electricity, but also do so for much less cost than any fossil fuel, with the exception of Natural Gas and that is because of the fracking boom.

Rifkin is not wrong, in fact his estimates have been a little high on base load rates.  Solar and wind to hydrogen using the hydrogenics system uses nano platinum plating, so that cost is much lower than the source cited, secondly the energy being used is left over energy that can not be used by the grid and would be lost otherwise, thereby recovering cost, not creating it, lastly the cost of hydrogen in US dollars is $ 2.88 cents per liter, each car requires 5.5 liters so with taxes thrown in around $20.00 US to fill up a car that averages 300 miles or more.  The 1/4 recovery rate in energy for hydrogen are old numbers from the mid 1990's.

I would hope everyone would keep renewables to hydrogen out of this thread because A.  The numbers being used are just wrong, B. do not take in to account using alternative energy over production as a fuel source and storage source, C. Do a huge disservice to the work going on today, that most of you have no clue about, yet spout numbers like you are all experts, ( your not).

Question why would every major car manufacture in the world be so excited and bullish on fuel cells if they where going to lose there shirts, answer they would not be.

Renewables produced in countries other than China are produced using  stringent environmental guidelines, produce no CO2 after manufacture, no pollution, no radioactive waste,and bring down the cost of electricity over fossil fuel cost.  Where as everything else needs to be found, mined or drilled, refined, transported, then usually transported again to the end user, alternatives produce no radiation or chance of irradiating oceans or water ways and killing fish and wildlife.  To me it's a know brainier,your entitled to your options but in the business of energy production, most of you are getting information that is either old and outdated,slanted toward your own preference or just down right wrong, Wikipedia falls into this also because most of their info on this subject is either years or even a decade old.

BRAVO!

Nothing beats facts.

[eds]

I agree, this is a good group of Caring and Sharing people.
. . . Everyones entitled to there opinion,
. . . but when people purposely, constantly and knowingly spread misinformation,
. . . it certainly feels like your dealing with a troll or wind-up merchant.

[Phil]

There may also be differences in post over what we wish will happen compared to what is likely will happen.  While I wish renewables and hydrogen would be the entire solution, reality dictates it will be decades before that even has a chance to occur.

If we could begin mass production of gen 4 nukes tomorrow that certainly would zero out a substantial portion of our CO2 problem, reality is few have any stomach for nuclear in this and many other nations and we cannot do ANYTHING "tomorrow".

What will likely happen is renewables will expand exponentially as long as the economy doesn't crash, while coal will continue to be replaced by natural gas.  Hydrogen, if it lives up to it's hype will begin to have a noticeable effect by the end of the decade and increase in the decades beyond that.

While we wish we could solve global warming, reality is as we continue to lower our CO2 output the developing world continues to increase theirs, making the US less and less relevant on the issue.  If we cut CO2 50% by 2040 that's a 9% reduction in world levels.  Meanwhile coal use will increase over 30% and car ownership would likely more than double in China and India alone.

While we wish government could solve this, reality is it can't because it can't even afford what it's doing now let alone taking on something new.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Nuclear power (with all of it's problems) is finally on the decline.
http://sustainablog....wer-in-decline/

[Phil]

Nuclear died after Fukushima, it just didn't know it!    Safety upgrades required after that event have made many sites not worth the expense, the economics are now becoming untenable for the industry as a whole.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 15 September 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Nuclear died after Fukushima, it just didn't know it!    Safety upgrades required after that event have made many sites not worth the expense, the economics are now becoming untenable for the industry as a whole.

If I want to glow in the dark, I'll just have to use those sticks.
https://encrypted-tb...rWdeZrEGFxdLYOw

[E3 wise]

What worries me now is the long term radiation effects on our oceans, scientest estimate that the radiation from Fukishima will reach the western United States later this year, meaning fish stocks in Alaska and the west coast will soon be radioactive, and the higher up the food chain the more concentrated it will be.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

E3 wise, on 15 September 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

What worries me now is the long term radiation effects on our oceans, scientest estimate that the radiation from Fukishima will reach the western United States later this year, meaning fish stocks in Alaska and the west coast will soon be radioactive, and the higher up the food chain the more concentrated it will be.

It will be in the mix sooner than later, now that typhoon Man-Yi has hit the region.
http://www.huffingto..._n_3932634.html

[Phil]

I gave you a link to a Geiger counter, what more do you want!

As an aside, (off topic), I found this on the same page as your link.  If that isn't the truth I don't know what is.   http://www.huffingto...?utm_hp_ref=mos  

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 16 September 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

It will be in the mix sooner than later, now that typhoon Man-Yi has hit the region.

At what level?

[Dustoffer]

If 300 tons per day of mildly radioactive water enters the seas, take the estimated total tons of sea water, divide it by 300 and you get how many days we have until all the coasts are even more dangerous than normal.  
I agree with James Hansen in his 2009 book "Storms of My Grandchildren".  A massive effort to reduce fossil fuel use by replacing all coal and other fossil fuel power plants with the 1994 GenIV design that uses waste from old nuclear plants and after 500 years would use sea water for many thousands of years.  Of course, a lot more solar and wind and hydro where practical.
In his 2006 TV Special, he said a 90% reduction in emissions within ten years.  In another, later study it stretched it to 2023.  Otherwise something worse and longer by far than PETM will happen in the future of the crash survivors circa 2500.  AETM.
It is doubtful with the distrust of nuclear in general, and the limited time, that enough will be built in time.   The last 30% of emissions are from agriculture, especially slash and burn, and with overpopulation increasing toward peak, it is doubtful that will stop in the next 30 years.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Excellent article about the problems with nuclear power; cost of construction, site considerations and of course,
waste.

"The 75,000 tons of waste now stored at 80 temporary sites in 35 states is projected to double by 2055."

http://sustainablog....wer-in-decline/

[E3 wise]

Let me relate some spooky information regarding storage of nuclear material on site at many nuclear power plants and what I begrudgingly call America’s Fukushima  risk.  The Canary Islands sit off the eastern coast of Africa.  The island of La Palma and its volcano of Cumbre Vieja have been o ne of the most active volcanoes in recent geologic history.  Sitting 2 km high on the southern third of the island with slopes of 15 to 20 degrees its placement just happens to be in one of the frequent seismological areas of the Atlantic.  Likewise a large have large fault marks running parallel to the ocean on the western side that were first reported in 1949 and has shown movement since then.  Geologist agree that it is not a matter of if but when this large volcano and possibly much of the island will collapse into the ocean causing a huge Tsunami heading right for the shores of the United States eastern states. With me so far, now look at the placement of nuclear reactor sites on the eastern coast of the United States and you see many could be affected by this Mega Tsunami, none more so than the Turkey Point Nuclear power plant just 30 miles south of my home here in South Florida.   In 2002 our company participated in a study to evaluate the possible risk form such a disaster.  The results of which where buried by the Utility (Florida Power & Light) who had commissioned the study.  Non disclosure agreements prevent me from offering specifics, but I can say that the risk was so high that the federal government used the results to offer recommendations on hardening the facility and providing additional measures to deal with a possible loss power that would cause the cooling pumps to fail, just like at Fukushima.  This worst case scenario of waves 20 feet high taking out the plant are not the only risk.  Hurricanes are the largest risk face by Turkey Point and although they have done much to increase the sites strength.  Waste material sitting on top of the nuclear reactors (just like Fukushima) is a major risk that seems to be going largely ignored.

Factor in all the nuclear facilities facing the same scenario and the level of risk goes way up.  So what to do?

Nuclear proponents feel enough has been done to prevent a disaster but understanding that Mother Nature may surprise us with a 1 in 100 year storm, seismic occurrence or tsunami seems to have gone unchecked because planning for that type of occurrence would cost the utility billions and since they are the largest utility funder of political campaigns in South Florida they seem to be able to control the political outcome of bills calling for greater safety measures.

[eds]

But what are the chances that it will happen in the next 10 years?
. . . But if it did, what it would look like?

Attached Files

•  Tsunami1.jpg   31K   0 downloads
•  Tsunami2.gif   16.18K   0 downloads
•  Tsunami3.jpg   87.72K   0 downloads

[Dustoffer]

Nice rendition of La Palma, when it goes, with plenty of warning to save lives but not coastal structures.  I would prefer no warning, to help lower population naturally.  Another even bigger one due is Cascadia, but the Pacific also has a tsunami warning system.  It will hit the Washington and Oregon Coasts with too little warning to move and a R-9 earthquake going on within 90 miles of the coast.  That would also destroy the world economy, IMO.   Another one due, and we should hope for, is the Katla Volcano in Southern Iceland which is due and could give a volcanic winter, followed by several years of temporary cooling.  Enough people would die , possibly, to lower emissions a lot.
People keep up the mistake of equating GenIV with other nuclear.  Some say we can replace all the bad power plants including old nuclear and coal and oil/NG in 5 years if we wanted.  The guy in the video is clueless to GenIV and claims it would take 40 years to just get to 20% nuclear.  But he was talking about the old designs.  Others don't think there will be the will or the money.
I tend to agree with this.  Overpopulation increases economic woes and we are poor on average already.
Those rich enough and powerful enough to make a difference, won't.  Greed does not go with altruism.
So what is left is the long road to AETM and our extinction with most other life and a 230K year resequestration period followed by 3 million years to get back the species and ecosystems diversity we had at the start of this interglacial before humans started ruining it.
The average human just was not smart enough to live sustainably.  Sure there are many thousands who do live sustainably with one or no children in an Earthship growing food, all solar power and driving minimally hybrids or full electrics, practicing the "3 Rs" faithfully.  These people will be dragged down with the rest eventually.  The population crash of the late 2040s will be too late to reduce the emissions because by then the tundra self release of massive amounts of methane will be in progress, followed by the oceanic deposits until even the land and seas give up their CO2 after the fourth tipping point.
If you want all the links to this stuff, I can copy and bring it here.
IF we don't go full speed ahead can-do attitude within less than a decade, feel sorry for those thousands of generations of kids that will never be.
I remember "ice boxes" when I was very young, and TVs when they first came out.  Stories of the depression, and the result of cholesterol laden foods killed my dad when he was over 5 years younger than me. Whole milk, eggs and bacon breakfast every day, steaks with "treasures" of fat, butter, and Spam the half cholesterol "meat" of the depression and WWII generation.
I remember when America was a really great country that won WWII and went to the moon, now filled with multi-culturalism and stupidity with a corrupt gov't, and gross overpopulation.  And they want to make it worse!!!  More cheap labor and high business profits as usual with the bought government of special interests.  The "can-do attitude" gone mostly, and the populace dumbed down and ignorant of ecology.

[Phil]

The funny thing is you read Animal Farm, 1984, and Atlas shrugged and it was all spelled out half a century ago.  Too bad we stood by an let it happen.  All three should be required reading.

I am John Galt.

[eds]

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV)
. . . are a set of THEORETICAL nuclear reactor designs
. . . currently being researched.

Most of these designs
. . . are generally not expected to be available
. . . for commercial construction before 2030.

[Dustoffer]

I've done a lot of reading on them and there are 8 going well around the world that are known.  Read in "Storms of My Grandchildren" what Clinton did to the 1994 good solid working plans when he was talking about us leading the world in emissions reductions.  He did it for his supporters, supposedly green but not, who were against any nuclear.  Their stupid ignorance of the fact Gen IV was safe and used the N-waste was what stopped something good and green.  If we had had the time, we could have done it--lead the world, like we should have, in emissions reductions and alternative non-emissions safe energy.
It is just like last century when we wasted away the time to go to one child families worldwide to prevent the crash after 2030.
Now we face the imminent crossing of four tipping points and the "Horsemen" and their armies are on the way.
All the links are in this thread ;
http://www.envirolin...php?f=3&t=24375

I am JE there, for my astounding acid blues/rock/metal guitar playing that blows minds.  :)

[eds]

What is the location of the Gen IV Nuclear Plants?