Ideas on going green and having enough power without going broke.

[Keravnos]

I would advise watching all of this.

Some great ideas spoken out loud by a man who can claim to be one of the original "Environmentalists" of 30 years ago, when there was no environmentalism to speak of.

Even if I would like to see him speak more about flat panel solar farms or wind turbine parks, and on this aspect I disagree with his position, I honestly respect his view that the main green power source (NO EMISSIONS- THAT's WHAT MATTERS) can only be Nuclear and Hydroelectric. Hydro is maxed out, therefore only Nuclear power can be counted on as a way to provide a lot of the power needed.

Some really interesting ideas and thoughts about slum cities as well.

Do you think his approach is valid? Do you maybe think he hasn't gone far enough?

[Mangalore]

...([B]NO EMISSIONS- THAT's WHAT MATTERS) ...

Try to tell those to these stubborn people who refuse to live next to a nuclear waste deposit, preferrably after you grew another eye...

We won't get out of nuclear power quickly, but just because it doesn't emit carbondioxid doesn't mean its mining, transport and its waste deposits aren't a very messy affair with partially even higher risk factors to certain people than climate change, let alone the environment (those uran mines are not the best thing for a thriving ecosystem aside of accelerating genetic mutation...) . The thing about Chernobyl is not so much that an unsafe nuclear reactor went boom but what happens when a nuclear reactor goes boom. The current human track record is that when something goes boom once the chances that something goes boom twice are not zero. And if that can mess up an area the size of bavaria, that might be considered worse than the carbon emissions saved aka it has to be calculated into risk management a bit more seriously.

Still, let's hope nothing goes boom, seeps into the ground water or has an unexpected traffic accident in a crowded urban center...

[Mithradates]

Nuclear power

[Tiberios]

Nuclear power

Yep

[Tankfriend]

For me, personally, going nuclear is about one of the worst solutions to the energy/environment you can have. What all those nuclear lobbies tend to ignore is that you've still got a huge environmental cost in the form of radioactive waste disposal and uranium mining (tend to be strip mines as well). And just in case a reactor should fail through whatever cause, you're as far away from green as you can.
Another thing is that you can't trust people to not make mistakes or do something for their personal profits. There were just several "incidents" concerning nuclear power and waste disposal over here in Germany in the past few months.
A nuclear power plant was partly shut down for something over a year, I think, because they didn't really get the repairs done correctly. When they started the reactor again, they had some 2 or 3 times where the automatic shutdown system went into action because some people still seem to have "forgotten" to do some things as simple as using a power switch.

The other case is that of a waste disposal facility that was running since the '60s or so. Just now they've found out that the site
a) is barely stable anymore.
b) has too much water flowing into it, dissolving parts of the salt inside the surrounding stones. Basically, it becomes slightly radioactive in the process and could possibly contaminate the ground water.
c) has been used far beyond its' intended capacity. Not only was the waste managed in an extremely bad way ("Just chuck the barrels into it, who cares anyway? Who cares if they start to leak?"). Some of the waste was also highly radioactive and the site was actually not even allowed to take that waste because it's not suitable for it.

And now, they're considering whether they're getting all the waste out of the site or just seal.
Those things are pretty much the reason why I don't want nuclear power around - there're just too many people who couldn't care less about it so long as they get their profits off of it.

[Oldgamer]

Yep

Double "Yep!" on nuclear!

I live about 4 miles from a nuke plant. I go fishing in its cooling pond (more of a small lake, actually). I eat the fish. Note that I don't glow at night ...

@tankfriend
They want profits, so they must be evil, right?

[John I Tzimisces]

Double "Yep!" on nuclear!

I live about 4 miles from a nuke plant. I go fishing in its cooling pond (more of a small lake, actually). I eat the fish. Note that I don't glow at night ...

@tankfriend
They want profits, so they must be evil, right?

Of course nuclear is nice from a certain standpoint but it must be remembered that it too is a finite resource...

[Denny Crane!]

Double "Yep!" on nuclear!

I live about 4 miles from a nuke plant. I go fishing in its cooling pond (more of a small lake, actually). I eat the fish. Note that I don't glow at night ...

@tankfriend
They want profits, so they must be evil, right?

You do realise that profit and business can be unethical if the services provided aren't voluntary but forced, that when special interests go through government to do their ''business'' yes it is wrong. I can get behind the idea of nuclear somewhat if every last damn cost was privatised (it never is at least in the UK the profit is private the cost is public)

I hope you know that if your running or involved in politics or I'm as concerned as ever about politics.

America is the hub of all the new power generation technology that is literally exploding right now, I can't believe anyone would support nuclear in the USA. Why pick centralised expense over decentralised cheap power that generates little waste.

[Oldgamer]

You do realise that profit and business can be unethical if the services provided aren't voluntary but forced, that when special interests go through government to do their ''business'' yes it is wrong. I can get behind the idea of nuclear somewhat if every last damn cost was privatised (it never is at least in the UK the profit is private the cost is public)

I hope you know that if your running or involved in politics or I'm as concerned as ever about politics.

America is the hub of all the new power generation technology that is literally exploding right now, I can't believe anyone would support nuclear in the USA. Why pick centralised expense over decentralised cheap power that generates little waste.

The situation is different, in the United States. For example, Exelon Corporation (formerly Commonwealth Edison), operates several nuclear power plants in the State of Illinois (the nuke I mentioned is one of these). In fact, their Dresden Station was one of the first nukes ever built (I was in elementary school when it first went online). So, the question could be asked, "Why doesn't a company with so much experience at building and operating nukes build more?"

The simple answer is that ... from the time that the company announces its intentions to build a nuclear power plant, to the time they actually start building ... is about forty years. The reason: They have to get the permission of the federal government and overcome all the obstacles the Sierra Club and other environmentalist organizations will throw in their way. Forty years, and untold billions of dollars.

The actual cost of building a nuke would be privatized in the States, but the runup cost to actually building it is almost beyond comprehension.

[Denny Crane!]

Okay the huge distinction to be made here is that yes micro nuclear power might be a good idea but centralised large scale nuclear power is just plain idiotic and only advocated by people who either stand to make money out of it, or people who don't have a clue.

The big problem with energy plans that are being made that will take two decades to implement (in construction, planning and development) is that power generation is currently undergoing a revolution so any taxpayers money used to fund power generation will be utterly wasted as the energy generation field now from ten years ago is totally different.

This idea of scarcity of resources is scare tactics, as problems arise we fix them. This is a man who sees a problem and looks to government for the solution by the sounds of it mostly I think based on theoretical problems that aren't even certain yet.

[Gumpfendorfer]

Try to tell those to these stubborn people who refuse to live next to a nuclear waste deposit, preferrably after you grew another eye...

We won't get out of nuclear power quickly, but just because it doesn't emit carbondioxid doesn't mean its mining, transport and its waste deposits aren't a very messy affair with partially even higher risk factors to certain people than climate change, let alone the environment (those uran mines are not the best thing for a thriving ecosystem aside of accelerating genetic mutation...) . The thing about Chernobyl is not so much that an unsafe nuclear reactor went boom but what happens when a nuclear reactor goes boom. The current human track record is that when something goes boom once the chances that something goes boom twice are not zero. And if that can mess up an area the size of bavaria, that might be considered worse than the carbon emissions saved aka it has to be calculated into risk management a bit more seriously.

Still, let's hope nothing goes boom, seeps into the ground water or has an unexpected traffic accident in a crowded urban center...

I'll second that, apart from the fact that it is a myth that nuclear is carbon free, it's about one third of fossil fuel energy plants on average. That figure will go up as soon as the current easy available and high quality uranium supplies are depleted, we'll have to dig deeper and process far more. Very dirty business. At that point it carbon emissions will be as big or exceed fossil fuels, in particular gas.

Last spring France had to shut down part of its nuclear fleet, no rain, no cooling water, it had to import electricity from the UK. EDF in France is almost going bankrupt with the building of its new showcase reactor, government has to bail them out. Nuclear has its own set of problems, some quite serious.

IAEA says at best nuclear can be a additional form of energy combined with the rest. Given developments in Germany and Japan on solar we'll won't be needing it very likely. Why bother falling back on an industry which never delivered on its promise of clean and cheap energy.

[Kanaric]

Nuclear power and invest in fusion research.

However wind farms and solar power is something that should be looked into as well. It gets more efficient practically every year, here at Nellis we have a solar farm that provides half the power to the base and it cost around $10 million and is assumed to pay for itsself in less than 10 years.

They want profits, so they must be evil, right?

IMO all lobbies are evil, their goal is to bribe politicians to side with their point of view. Even if you agree with their viewpoint they are harmful.

[Oldgamer]

Nuclear power and invest in fusion research.

Concerning fusion research, there is a new laser that reaches the temperature of the Sun's core, at the point of impact. This is what fusion power research has always needed ... a non-fissile source of heat.

[Kanaric]

I read about that last week.

Fusion power is important on so many levels and we are so close to making it a reality. Once that becomes a reality the whole green power grid idea will be a thing of the past because this is the most potentially powerful green technology that is under development. Also there are no silly fears associated with it.

[Oldgamer]

I read about that last week.

Fusion power is important on so many levels and we are so close to making it a reality. Once that becomes a reality the whole green power grid idea will be a thing of the past because this is the most potentially powerful green technology that is under development. Also there are no silly fears associated with it.

Agreed!

We can then launch the nuclear waste into deep space, above the plane of the ecliptic, and tear down the ugly wind farms.

[webMaster412160]

We should plant some more flowers that produce oil, and use green energy.

[Keravnos]

Thank you all for your opinion and especially on the time it took to write them.

@Mordred, while I agree that current gen. nuclear plants are not as efficient as they could be, I would point out to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

From what I read,
UK uses first gen nuclear stations (which should have been decomissioned long ago), while 85% of the rest of the world uses evolved US naval nuclear plants that were conceived to power ships. I agree that cleanup costs are extremely high, but that is the price to pay for having an emission free source. No other way around this, I'm afraid.

Early 3rd gen. designs have been operating in Japan since 1996.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

Third-generation reactors have:

a standardised design for each type to expedite licensing, reduce capital cost and reduce construction time,
a simpler and more rugged design, making them easier to operate and less vulnerable to operational upsets,
higher availability and longer operating life - typically 60 years,
further reduced possibility of core melt accidents,
resistance to serious damage that would allow radiological release from an aircraft impact,
higher burn-up to reduce fuel use and the amount of waste,
burnable absorbers ("poisons") to extend fuel life.
The greatest departure from second-generation designs is that many incorporate passive or inherent safety features* which require no active controls or operational intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction, and may rely on gravity, natural convection or resistance to high temperatures.

China has started construction of such a power station, the first of many...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_11217433.htm

also,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100182226.html

China presently has 11 nuclear reactors at its six nuclear power plants, all on the east coast, with a combined installed capacity of 9.07 mn kw.

To meet its fast economic growth, China plans to develop more nuclear power. The country plans to have 40 mn kw of installed nuclear capacity by 2020.

Can you estimate how much would 30.000.000 Kw need so far as CO2 emissions are concerned? How many coal plants would be needed and what would be the projected effect they would have on the environment?

Cost over runs is a problem in Nuclear plants, but that is more due to other factors than the Nuclear plants themselves. Most of which, once beginning operation, work without a hitch for as long as their life cycle allows.

I must repeat, I have nothing against wind turbines or solar panels. In fact I do believe that in the future they will coexist with Nuclear power. Anything that doesn't produce emissions is OK in my book. In fact 3rd gen. Nuclear power plants are designed with the capability to ramp up production from 25% up to 100% in a matter of hours. Therefore an intelligent power mix would have the majority of solar plants working on the day, with some nuclear plants coming online as the sun rises to cover up demand as needed. Wind turbine power, even as the most attractive, with its new Enercon E-126 being able to deliver more than 6 Mw. The problem is, essentially, that a backup is needed for the time when the wind will stop turning those turbines.

I recently read about a plan to use huge expanse of Saharan desert for solar power generation. That is an amazing development to have. Many new technologies coming on line as we speak. It has to be noted however, that even as solar power is great during the day, technology to store energy during the night simply isn't there, therefore a backup energy source for the night has to exist.

I guess there are Electrical power engineers who are vastly more experienced in this matter than I am. I just believe that plans should be made to make sure that after some time Thermal power generation is slowly fazed out, in favor of power plants which do not pollute the air we breathe, have no emissions, do not assist the greenhouse effect to further damage our world. The power mix of tomorrow must only be composed of NO EMITTING power sources.

[Denny Crane!]

The profits of the nuclear industry have been privatized, the financial burdens have been socialized.. Sounds familiar? Let's check.

The industry gets a tax credit and subsidies of around 10 billion annually for decades now.

Bush allocated 50 billion dollar as a guarantee for those bidding-investing to build 27 new nuclear plants, in case they estimated costs are exceeded. So far most plant build has exceeded its budget 2-3 times in almost every country. This guarantee fund has always been standard procedure.

The new nuclear plants built in France and Finland at the moment are already twice the original budget and seriously delayed due to serious technical failures. The one in Finland is 2.5 billion over budget -euros. You do the math how soon the 50 billion dollars are gone.

National insurance fund in case of a major accident is now 10 billion, coughed up by the industry, topped by another 9 billion from the government. A serious accident will cost around 600 billion, the costs similar to Chernobyl 20 years ago. The industry is not liable, so it’s the taxpayers who will have to pay the remaining costs. Sneaky detail –check your own insurance, you’re not insured against a nuclear accident, not even your health insurance. You’re out on your own. Nobody is going to pay you in case of.

Than there is the waste, Yucca Mountain, US’s planned waste disposal has a fund of around 20 billion built up by the industry, estimated costs in 2007 are 90 billion and counting. Taxpayers will have to cough up the money. It’s unlikely that it is going to be built at all.

DOE research fund gets eaten by the nuclear industry over 70%. Renewables I think 6%. In any case insanely low compared to nukes.

Now about the Sierra Club- getting a plant online takes about twelve years, not forty. The reason why is that they have to have strict safety measures, unless you’d like to have a design as Chernobyl as your local fishing pond. The old reactor types are simply not safe enough. It has nothing to do with greenies spoiling your party, common sense and governments taking their responsibility towards its citizens.

Nice detail -privatisations in Sweden almost caused a meltdown in 2006. The cooling system failed, also the back up system, but the directors ordered the technicians to keep the reactor online instead of following safety procedures to switch it off. Seven minutes before a meltdown would begin, it was shut off. Seven minutes. I’ll pass on the corporate thugs.

Last but not least- clean up costs and decommissioning. In The UK Blair allocated 72 billion pounds –when the pound was still 1.45 to the euro- to start decommissioning the fist generation plants, together with the clean up of chemical and radio-active pollution. Very likely it will sore to 100 billion. The industry fund doesn't even reach 20 billion.

Seems to me like going broke.

Actually its worse than that. A recent Royal Society report said it was optomistically reporting a clean up cost of 92 billion before decommissioning the reactors that are active - not privately funded.

Keravnos, according to the Guardian in the UK around 3.6% of the total energy used, is being produced by nuclear, electricity is but s small part of it. In other words, nuclear is too little, too slow to make an impact to tckle climate change. Above all an open checkbook for the taxpayers. And as other pointed out, extremely polluting.

Yes people misunderstand energy does not = Electricity but then that is why we shouldn't have ordinary people voting for politicians who can then dictate idiocy to everyone else.

Thank you all for your opinion and especially on the time it took to write them.

@Mordred, while I agree that current gen. nuclear plants are not as efficient as they could be, I would point out to this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

You know what I don't really care. Whatever, so long as the cost isn't funded by the taxpayer I don't care, and that is cost from start to eventual finish.....

Oh wait no one can guaruntee that because the companies can die before the waste and the government will always step in and clean it up. Venture capital firms won't touch them without guarunteed assurances of price fixing etc etc.

From what I read,
UK uses first gen nuclear stations (which should have been decomissioned long ago), while 85% of the rest of the world uses evolved US naval nuclear plants that were conceived to power ships. I agree that cleanup costs are extremely high, but that is the price to pay for having an emission free source. No other way around this, I'm afraid.

Fine and dandy if they are emission free (and they are not) and they are now competing against carbon neutral technology like biodiesel which has recently been spawning breakthroughs like a fat man spawns chins. They think they can now produce biodiesel on waste land competively enough and in volume to compete with current oil prices which makes it VERY VERY attractive.

Early 3rd gen. designs have been operating in Japan since 1996.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html



China has started construction of such a power station, the first of many...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_11217433.htm

also,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100182226.html


Can you estimate how much would 30.000.000 Kw need so far as CO2 emissions are concerned? How many coal plants would be needed and what would be the projected effect they would have on the environment?

Cost over runs is a problem in Nuclear plants, but that is more due to other factors than the Nuclear plants themselves. Most of which, once beginning operation, work without a hitch for as long as their life cycle allows.

I must repeat, I have nothing against wind turbines or solar panels. In fact I do believe that in the future they will coexist with Nuclear power. Anything that doesn't produce emissions is OK in my book. In fact 3rd gen. Nuclear power plants are designed with the capability to ramp up production from 25% up to 100% in a matter of hours. Therefore an intelligent power mix would have the majority of solar plants working on the day, with some nuclear plants coming online as the sun rises to cover up demand as needed. Wind turbine power, even as the most attractive, with its new Enercon E-126 being able to deliver more than 6 Mw. The problem is, essentially, that a backup is needed for the time when the wind will stop turning those turbines.

UGhhh they do produce emmisions. Wind turbines produce emmisions, solar panels produce emmisions everything does at some stage.

Are you one of the people who thought a Prius was reduced emmisions? You don't think mining involves setting up a shrine and praying for the material?

Do you think Uranium and Cadmium fall from the sky like manna?

I recently read about a plan to use huge expanse of Saharan desert for solar power generation. That is an amazing development to have. Many new technologies coming on line as we speak. It has to be noted however, that even as solar power is great during the day, technology to store energy during the night simply isn't there, therefore a backup energy source for the night has to exist.

Which shouldn't be nuclear. Battery technology is progressing rapidly. By the time any new nuclear plants come online far better tech will have surpassed it. The days of heavy centralised power bases ( were never really here) but have passed.

I guess there are Electrical power engineers who are vastly more experienced in this matter than I am. I just believe that plans should be made to make sure that after some time Thermal power generation is slowly fazed out, in favor of power plants which do not pollute the air we breathe, have no emissions, do not assist the greenhouse effect to further damage our world. The power mix of tomorrow must only be composed of NO EMITTING power sources.

I'm not an electrical engineer but a few hours reading the right sources allowed me to argue a nuclear power plant engineer to a standstill on the issue long before the tech that is coming now was even envisioned. That is a debate I could probably hunt out for you.

[Gumpfendorfer]

The type 3 is being built in Finland and France and costs are running over due to technical failures, mismanagement and not meeting the required standards which have being hushed under the table for the regulatory committees. They are basically also out of date models and have their own problems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...n-1604051.html

The also cannot withstand the impact of a large airliner, EDF has so much admitted that and basically holds the French government responsible if they want impose that standard and that they should pay for it. Mind you a nuclear plant was on the hitlist of Osama for 9/11.

And as said nuke plants have their own set of technical problems when operating.

The type 4 plants still exists on the drawing table, nobody knows when and if they will work, let alone if anyone can afford them. The fast breeders are a no go zone, far too dangerous and polluting, all but a few fast breeders built went out of service quite fast, too unstable and accident prone. An accident with a fast breeder would destroy Europe completely unless you can use something different than plutonium..

Can you estimate how much would 30.000.000 Kw need so far as CO2 emissions are concerned? How many coal plants would be needed and what would be the projected effect they would have on the environment?

Can try and figure out, but coals are a no-brainer I guess.

The problem is, essentially, that a backup is needed for the time when the wind will stop turning those turbines.

Back up for the moment can be gas, smart grids, biogas, all sorts of things.

I recently read about a plan to use huge expanse of Saharan desert for solar power generation. That is an amazing development to have. Many new technologies coming on line as we speak. It has to be noted however, that even as solar power is great during the day, technology to store energy during the night simply isn't there, therefore a backup energy source for the night has to exist.

The problem of night time is solved, with the desertec plan in the Sahara they will build solar plants which store their heat. There are building them too in Spain at the moment. Very simply technology.

And indeed there are plenty of new technologies getting on line, the key problem is legislation and all kinds of advantages given by the old energy producers which makes it difficult to implement them.

Energy companies do not want to see people producing their own energy for commercial reasons. In my country, green houses where you grow veggies can produce and deliver to the net. The problem is the energy producers not allowing them on the net.

The German and Japanese solar project are two good examples of how you can implement it fast with great success. It costs the German taxpayers 37.50 euro extra per year till 2012, then it should be a break even point. From there its cashing in.

Family is working in Algeria for my government, the desert plan is very serious, a lot of people want to invest.

It's a matter of speed and whether new technologies can keep up with the fast rising demand for energy. If it does we don't need the old technologies, if it doesn't we will need them, but coal or gas will be far more likely than nukes.

As said electricity is just part of the energy we use, we also have to look at mobility, a far bigger problem to tackle and the fastest growing problem environmental wise. Energy efficiency is badly needed, without all is doomed, well sort of, would make our industry also more competitive. I am not so pessimistic to be honest.

Anyway, nukes is difficult, bot the industry and the nay-sayers produce a lot of spin, the industry has a tarnished reputation for a reason, hard to figure out what is true, what isn't.

Last but not least, much of our nuclear fuel is made in Russia. below is a link of four locations where there has been large scale pollution. two of those locations, Mayak and Tomks-7 either produce or reprocess nuclear fuel/waste from Europe, Japan and quite a few other countries.

Would you like to have this on your doorstep?http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/index.html This is very much the hidden face of the nuclear industry, far away in Siberia.


Absolutely mind boggling.....

Actually its worse than that. A recent Royal Society report said it was optomistically reporting a clean up cost of 92 billion before decommissioning the reactors that are active - not privately funded.

[favre4ever]

Gee, i dont know maybe we could..... consume less.