283 replies to this topic

[Phil]

That brings us back to hydrogen generation/storage.  The $64K question is will it be sufficiently cheap in the long run to render most centralized power plants obsolete.  

If most houses and light industries can be self powered, that still leaves wind power and hydro, not to mention geo-thermal and other green renewable sources to power the rest.

I read some time ago that carbon generation was 40% housing, 40% transportation, 20% industry.  If someone has a source to better numbers it would be good to see, but assuming for the moment it is true and hydrogen/solar can resolve the first two, certainly wind/hydrogen could resolve the latter.

It isn't valid to compare nuclear with solar/wind/hydrogen today.  With nuclear plants taking a decade the question to ask is how cheap the others will be then, not now.  Solar is already cheaper than nuclear so the only issue is hydrogen.  

I don't think we'll have long to wait to see if hydrogen is valid or another pipe dream.  One good thing about the EU going first is they will be sitting on the bleeding edge of technology and we can learn from their mistakes and save a bundle in the process.

Finally, it isn't the initial deaths from nuclear plants that make it so insidious, it's the long term radiation effects, genetic damage, birth defects, cancer, etc.  Radiation is cumulative so any new low level source is cause for concern.  Unfortunately, like weather, you cannot blame any one cancer/birth defect on it but also like weather, you CAN say the likelihood increases that there will be more cancers, more birth defects, etc.  According to MSNBC there was an uptick in birth anomalies in this country following the Japan meltdowns.

[Dingo]

eds, on 02 June 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

When I post, I give the Source of my material, for those who need clarity or wish to dig deeper into the subject.

Some of us lack tech. clarity. Show me what the relative energy sources for the car production is. I can't find it.

Quote

I believe you when you say you find it hard to imagine World War ll, production lines.

I never said anything so ridiculously obtuse. I said I couldn't imagine pvs and windmills being the principal drivers of ww2 production.

Quote

Most things were made by hand, by craftsmen

You mean like the Sherman Tank? You would have to have been blind not to see war time footage of the large assembly lines that drove so much of world war 2 war production. And my step father was a riveter on many of the ship assemblies.

Quote

All you need, is to find something to believe in, maybe you can understand this, maybe you can't. but here's a Link.

I've already gotten and appreciate the fellows message. What I want to know is the solar hydrogen connection sufficient to power up heavy industry? Maybe we ought to keep some of the less polluting centralized big boys around until we resolve that question.

By the way, I love all your patronizing.

[Dingo]

Phil, on 02 June 2013 - 09:56 PM, said:

That brings us back to hydrogen generation/storage.  The $64K question is will it be sufficiently cheap in the long run to render most centralized power plants obsolete.

Or for that matter concentrate sufficiently powerfully to run heavy industry.  And solar represents about 1% of total world energy production as does wind. That's going to require quite a ramp up.

Quote

Solar is already cheaper than nuclear

I'm not arguing the point but as far comparative cost per unit of power do you have any cost comparison on that?

Quote

Radiation is cumulative so any new low level source is cause for concern.

We all experience low level background radiation to varying degrees, higher level mountain folks more than lower level coastal ones in general. I haven't read anything yet that convinces me low level radiation is a major health concern. Anybody come across any authoritative study, not anecdotal, that says otherwise?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

"The pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjust the sails." W.A. Ward

Ed is a realist.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Water contamination remains an issue from the Fukushima plant in Japan.
Tepco (the nuclear plants operator) wants to build a by-pass system that will dump contaminated water into the sea.


"The fishermen and Tepco are in dispute over the utility's plans to dump 100 metric tonnes (110.23 tons) of groundwater a day from the devastated plant into the sea.
The complicated clean-up plan for Fukushima could take 30 years or more."

The mistrust that fisherman have of Tepco and the government led to one fisherman saying-
"They say it's safe, but they had always told us that the nuclear power is safe too -
and just look what a mess we've gotten ourselves into because of that.
The nuclear disaster destroyed our livelihoods and now we are like beggars."

Source

[Dingo]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 03 June 2013 - 04:59 AM, said:

"The pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, the realist adjust the sails." W.A. Ward

Ed is a realist.

Mass producing GM trucks from hydrogen storage and solar? Until you folks and Rifkin work that one out you're living in la la land. And frankly I hope you do.

[eds]

When I was a child. I spoke as a child.
When I was a man, I spoke as a man.
When I was a parent, I spoke as a parent.
When I was a Grandparent. I spoke as a Grandparent.

Nuclear is NOT a religion, nor a toy to play with.
. . . There are very REAL consequences, in the hands of a child.
. . . When someone speaks like a child, about potentially dangerous subjects,
. . . . . . my first impulse is, they need a good spanking or timeout,
. . . . . . then I remember, I used to be a child once.
. . . The parent in me, try's to encourage people to grow into a caring and sharing partner,
. . . . . . who may disagree with others point of view,
. . . . . . but give's and receive's respect, of their right to have those views and
. . . . . . no one has all the answers to everything.
The great thing about the internet is, there is a whole world of answers on every subject,
. . . your free to go find whatever your looking for.
. . . Your free to stay here, but expect a childish attitude to be patronized, for awhile.

[Dingo]

Fukushima is pretty much a worse case scenario and strikes me more and more as a rather opportunistic way of conducting an anti-nuke campaign, sort of playing the pessimist in mister Ward's world. If it were a few decades back I would probably support a robust nuclear program intelligently conceived. But unfortunately the climate, pollution, resource depletion, overpopulation wolves are too near the door to seriously imagine a dramatically mobilized nuclear power program as a realistic substitute for fossil fuel. Still it, along with hydro, might yet be an industrial time buyer while Rifkin and co. work out how they are going to internet the energy playing field. In this case a troubling friend may be better than no friend.

[Dingo]

Hi eds! I understand you have a role to play, sometimes intelligent, sometimes silly.

You've been getting awfully silly lately, but whatever rocks your boat. In any case, the Jeremy Rifkin videos were appreciated.

[GlewEngineering]

Here's an interesting blog on Nuclear Energy. I am intrigued to see how the safety features will change with the 4th Generation reactors.

http://tinyurl.com/luodbdg

[Besoeker]

eds, on 03 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

. . . Your free to stay here, but expect a childish attitude to be patronized, for awhile.

I think avoiding avoiding such personally acrimonious comments would be more conducive to constructive discussion.

Can we get back on topic please?

[Phil]

Yes renewables have a long way to go but they are just getting off the ground.  Again you are looking at todays numbers, what will the numbers be in a decade when the first nuclear plants come on line, (assuming we begin the process tomorrow)?  

Solar panels can be had on sale at less than fifty cents/watt today, what will that cost be a decade from now?  If the reporting is correct home hydrogen fueling stations will be $4-6K in a couple of years from now, what will they be in a decade?  FCV's are supposedly going to cost about $25K in a couple of years, what will they cost in a decade?  What will wind turbines cost in a decade?  

What happens if you build a billion dollar nuke plant and 9.5 years out solar and hydrogen storage or some new battery can supply the same amount of power for $100 million and take six months to deploy?  At a decade out, the green solution saves $900 million.

I had nuclear energy in my portfolio before Japan's disaster.  I then sold it and won't go back.  I doubt I'm alone, it's just too risky an investment.  I am still heavily invested in oil, that still has some legs on it and will remain so for quite some time.  When it comes to investing I'm a pragmatist, I put my money where my mouth is.  When I think oil is too risky I'll divest that and this board will be the first to know! :<)

There are already countries nearing or at 100% renewables, do none of them have heavy industry?

Personally I'm not talking about scrubbing all nukes tomorrow, I'm talking about not building any more and allowing the current ones to continue until renewables and viable storage methods are in play.

Just as states are the laboratories of our nation, each trying different approaches to problems, so different countries are the laboratories of the world, each trying different approaches.  As I've said, by not going first we can learn from other's mistakes and save a bundle in the process.  It is the early adopters that pay the bulk of the research dollars, coming in a little later is often the smartest way to go,(VHS vs. Betamax, Blue Ray vs. HD DVD being a couple of recent examples).

[Dingo]

Even if we get pvs down to nothing I'm not sure they can deliver the horse power that a modern industrial state needs. If after all the hooting and hollering it's only 1% of the world's energy output well ......

It might be worth thinking about encouraging and enabling a population drop and using less per capita energy  by switching over and scaling down to the kind of technologies that are more consistent with simpler liveable communities.

Quote

Personally I'm not talking about scrubbing all nukes tomorrow, I'm talking about not building any more and allowing the current ones to continue until renewables and viable storage methods are in play.

And if it looks like it might take longer than anticipated to get a sufficient number of renewables in play and CO2 ppm keeps heading steadily toward 450 you think maybe adding a few nukes in the interim might be in order?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Dingo, on 04 June 2013 - 02:48 AM, said:

It might be worth thinking about encouraging and enabling a population drop

monsanto, dow, basf, bayer and others are already hard at work to do just that.

[Dingo]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 04 June 2013 - 03:19 AM, said:

monsanto, dow, basf, bayer and others are already hard at work to do just that.

?

[Besoeker]

Dingo, on 04 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

?

I think it's a reference to fertilizers,,...and I think SP doesn't approve of them.....

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Dingo, on 04 June 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

?

Chemical toxins=lower sperm counts=reduced populations.

[Phil]

Yes it's 1% for now and that's why I say it will be half a century before CO2 trends down.  Nuclear does not fuel cars unless they are electric or hydrogen, (reformed with electricity), and BEV/FCV penetration will take decades even with advantageous pricing.

That being said, I was under the impression the bulk of new energy sources coming on line were alternatives. I could be wrong of course.  As pricing continues to trend down installations should accelerate exponentially.  From one of the links above, utilities are already experimenting with literal grid batteries.  When FCV's become available in the EU in a year or two we'll know how hydrogen fares as well.

[Besoeker]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 04 June 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Chemical toxins=lower sperm counts=reduced populations.

Reduced birth rate. However, there are more effective birth control measures and people are already using them. Families are getting smaller by choice. But, as ever, it isn't the whole story. China, the most populous nation in the world, has a one child per couple policy. Yet, the population is still growing. I think that, to at least some extent, improvements in health care may account for that. People are living longer.

The one child per couple has its problems too. There is a strong "must have a son" culture and I've read some disturbing reports....'nuff said
There is another more all pervasive issue. In a country where there is little by way of social care, family are expected to care for elderly parents and sometimes grandparents. One young couple might therefore have to look after four parents and eight grandparents. It's a demographic time bomb.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Besoeker, on 05 June 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

There is a strong "must have a son" culture and I've read some disturbing reports....'nuff said

My bad- I've taken this thread off topic but before we go back to topic-
The Chinese government has been killing female babies (or more recently because of
technology, in utero) for centuries; it's sadly, nothing new.

Back to nukes.