Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 181
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Solar/Wind vs. Nuclear Who will win?

  1. #1 Solar/Wind vs. Nuclear Who will win? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Let the bloodbath begin!!!!


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Oh come on. We know the proponents of these two options need to have it out and settle things before they can band together to fight their common foe: coal. Let's get it out of the way early.

    Nuclear:

    Good

    1) - Works (and reasonably price efficient too).
    2) - Does not Pollute the Air
    3) - Base loads well.

    Bad

    1) - Creates lots of nasty solid waste that has to be stored underground.
    2) - Has dangerous accidents every now and again, most of which are benign and don't result in anybody getting hurt.
    3) - Requires fuel to work


    Solar/Wind

    Good

    1) - Requires no fuel
    2) - Does not pollute at all (neither air, nor ground pollution).
    3) - Practicable on a small scale

    Bad

    1) - Cannot handle its own base loading
    2) - Weather/region dependent.
    3) - Expensive

    Seriously, can we not just hurry up and have the slugfest? Clearly the two options will never get along. Most of the cost of nuclear is building the infrastructure, and... most of the cost of solar/wind is building the infrastructure. Building both infrastructures would just be terribly expensive compared to building just one, but if we build neither then coal wins. So what can we do about that?


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    We all win and loose, because all methods eventually create heat if the energy created is used. The terms Wind Power and Solar Power have eliminated the word 'conservation' from normal conversation. As a Canadian, I enjoy the effects of global warming whether they are sun-powered or man-powered, so I win, but as a human breathing our planet's air I loose because the more energy created the more air pollution is created. A solar-powered car still creates air pollution when rubber particles and brake particles burn off tires and brakes. Pollution of many kinds are created making a solar-powered car, but the term "Solar Powered Car" seems to make them non polluting. Windmills are killing millions of birds, making chemical control of harmful insects more necessary. Nuclear warms the lakes to temperatures which kill the original fish, creating an evniroment better for other kinds of fish. We all win and we all loose. Mostly though we loose.
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To kojax

    Just a minor point.
    In terms of tonnage produced per terrawatt year of power generated, nuclear actually produces relatively little waste. Compared to coal smoke and ash, for example, the tonnage is trivial. Even compared to the CO2 from natural gas.
    The Finger Prince likes this.
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    I think it's a false choice. Without both we're pretty much screwed. Development of mass electrical energy storage technology may eventually give us many more options and flexibility to combined approach.

    And I agree with AE, our progress in conservation is atrocious with many proven 1970s and earlier house tech still rejected by many Americans because of non-nonsensical ascetic community rules, oversized vehicles, poor urban planning which makes people drive too far for work or groceries, delinked purchasing cost from environmental disposal cost, few items designed for recycling, repairs or resuse, etc.

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The problem if we do both is then we're building lots of expensive infrastructure. It's not necessarily the worst problem since it's giving people jobs, but the price tag gets ever higher.

    On that note, wind has the advantage that it can be done with less skilled labor. Engineers design optimal fans, but mostly technicians and construction crews put it all together, and they don't have to worry about being accountable for a nuclear melt down as they do it (worst case the thing just falls apart later).
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    The problem if we do both is then we're building lots of expensive infrastructure. It's not necessarily the worst problem since it's giving people jobs, but the price tag gets ever higher.

    On that note, wind has the advantage that it can be done with less skilled labor. Engineers design optimal fans, but mostly technicians and construction crews put it all together, and they don't have to worry about being accountable for a nuclear melt down as they do it (worst case the thing just falls apart later).
    Do you want to be around when "thing falls apart"? Prince does not. In fact, anyone who has seen size of turbine blades on highway semitrailer transport probably would not. Kudos for new thread. High time, really. Should have level playing field, and on this note:

    [ RadSafe ] Fwd: LOBA Accidents -- Wind Turbine Failures Strike Again
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
    You're talking sources instead of eliminating the need for the sources. Conservation.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To kojax

    Just a minor point.
    In terms of tonnage produced per terrawatt year of power generated, nuclear actually produces relatively little waste. Compared to coal smoke and ash, for example, the tonnage is trivial. Even compared to the CO2 from natural gas.
    Additional point: Nuclear can produce higher temperature gradient for greater thermodynamic efficiency and industrial process heat, including THERMAL decomposition of water for hydrogen production before ever a watt is expended on electrolysis. Terrestrial solar cannot compete on this basis, let alone wind. Haber process of ammonia production is also endothermic, production of steel, list goes on.

    Why consume watts in arc furnace if heat is available directly from HTGR? Such arc furnaces are major power consumers, to the degree that utilities often determine their permitted hours of operation.

    http://www.nextgenerationnuclearplan...ectrolysis.pdf
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; November 8th, 2011 at 07:20 PM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
    You're talking sources instead of eliminating the need for the sources. Conservation.
    Without production there is nothing to conserve. Eliminate the need for sources? OK, CARRY your canoe to river next time and portage home again without vehicle. We will wait while you do.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Good

    1) - Works (and reasonably price efficient too).
    It's pretty expensive to be called "reasonably priced". And we haven't even paid for the waste, decommissioning, etc, yet - we've got a blank check looming over our collective futures.

    And everything "works".

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    In terms of tonnage produced per terrawatt year of power generated, nuclear actually produces relatively little waste.
    In terms of what has to be dealt with, including the plant itself when decommissioned, that "little" waste is a big and expensive problem.

    We could, for example, use reactors that produce plutonium in their waste - only a few tons of it, fit in a single rail car. No problem, you claim?
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Plutonium is fuel, dingbat. It can be recovered via reprocessing, along with much else of value.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; November 9th, 2011 at 12:04 AM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
    You're talking sources instead of eliminating the need for the sources. Conservation.
    But conservation doesn't allow for gluttony. Using solar and wind, we could glutt ourselves all we want. Build huge factories everywhere, and run them around the clock. In time, maybe build an all robot economy, where nobody is troubled to exert any manual labor. Nuclear has that potential too......at least until we run out of fuel.

    Why not aspire to that? Is monk like frugality meant to be a reward unto itself?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Breeder reactors operate by turning U238 into Pu239 via neutron bombardment and beta decay. A certain amount of this is going on continuously in conventional reactors, so-called "breeders" are simply designs optimizing process.

    Of course, those conversant with LFTRs already know that much the same thing happens when Th232 is transmuted into U233.

    Critics of fission power are prone to cite dwindling amounts of available U235- the rest of the story is that correct application of the technology will ensure abundant fuel for centuries, ample time to perfect fusion power and attendant benefits of this technology.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarchus in Exile View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
    You're talking sources instead of eliminating the need for the sources. Conservation.
    But conservation doesn't allow for gluttony. Using solar and wind, we could glutt ourselves all we want. Build huge factories everywhere, and run them around the clock. In time, maybe build an all robot economy, where nobody is troubled to exert any manual labor. Nuclear has that potential too......at least until we run out of fuel.

    Why not aspire to that? Is monk like frugality meant to be a reward unto itself?
    Agreed, kojax, but this is precisely the reason why nuclear is superior to terrestrial solar energy. Notice, if you will, that solar in space has much going for it, particularly inner Solar System where gobs and gobs of it can be collected with relative ease.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

    Interstellar craft using solar sails would benefit from lasers pumped by Sun in orbit of Mercury, as described by late great Dr. Robert L. Forward, but obviously there are other applications for such devices.
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; November 9th, 2011 at 03:28 AM. Reason: reference added
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    To kojax

    Just a minor point.
    In terms of tonnage produced per terrawatt year of power generated, nuclear actually produces relatively little waste. Compared to coal smoke and ash, for example, the tonnage is trivial. Even compared to the CO2 from natural gas.
    Additional point: Nuclear can produce higher temperature gradient for greater thermodynamic efficiency and industrial process heat, including THERMAL decomposition of water for hydrogen production before ever a watt is expended on electrolysis. Terrestrial solar cannot compete on this basis, let alone wind. Haber process of ammonia production is also endothermic, production of steel, list goes on.

    Why consume watts in arc furnace if heat is available directly from HTGR? Such arc furnaces are major power consumers, to the degree that utilities often determine their permitted hours of operation.

    http://www.nextgenerationnuclearplan...ectrolysis.pdf
    Another way nuclear hot water is being used is in greenhouses. If that could reach potential, it would be nice.
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    It's pretty expensive to be called "reasonably priced". And we haven't even paid for the waste, decommissioning, etc, yet - we've got a blank check looming over our collective futures.
    Oh, yes. We the rate payers have paid for it in waste disposal fees charged by the federal government and added to our nuclear electric bill. We just haven't gotten anything for our money, because our wonderful federal government has put the fees into the general fund, and squandered that money along with our social security money, which they also put into the general fund and squandered. Yes, that federal government. The one you want to have more and more power.
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    It's pretty expensive to be called "reasonably priced". And we haven't even paid for the waste, decommissioning, etc, yet - we've got a blank check looming over our collective futures.
    Oh, yes. We the rate payers have paid for it in waste disposal fees charged by the federal government and added to our nuclear electric bill. We just haven't gotten anything for our money, because our wonderful federal government has put the fees into the general fund, and squandered that money along with our social security money, which they also put into the general fund and squandered. Yes, that federal government. The one you want to have more and more power.
    Most members of modern societies are excellent squanderers in their own right .. they have a right to squander and they do it luxuriously .. and as long as things are rosey they don't complain much about the government squandering .. then things get tough and the squanderers of every stripe take the easy route and blame someone else. I just read that 20,000,000 copies of Warcraft 3 or some other titled game like that was sold .. the latest version only, 20,000,000 copies sold, a game of death and destruction and squander .. how many other death and destruction games are squandering this planet's resources and humans. The race really would be doomed except for a power which will intervene soon .. a power I will not name as this is not a religious thread.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    It's pretty expensive to be called "reasonably priced". And we haven't even paid for the waste, decommissioning, etc, yet - we've got a blank check looming over our collective futures.
    Oh, yes. We the rate payers have paid for it in waste disposal fees charged by the federal government and added to our nuclear electric bill. We just haven't gotten anything for our money, because our wonderful federal government has put the fees into the general fund, and squandered that money along with our social security money, which they also put into the general fund and squandered. Yes, that federal government. The one you want to have more and more power.
    We would be reprocessing in USA right now if Carter had not forbidden it in '77, illogically citing proliferation concerns and terrorist attacks. Wha-? United States Armed Forces can safely guard bombs already constructed, but cannot prevent terrorists from stealing radioactive material for bomb construction?

    Anyway, since Yucca Mountain failed to open as scheduled since January 31st , '98 the DOE owes nuclear utilities about $300 million per year in tax refunds. Some "subsidy".

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/...2/165520.shtml
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Oh, yes. We the rate payers have paid for it in waste disposal fees charged by the federal government and added to our nuclear electric bill.
    That wasn't nearly enough money. You haven't paid for something until you've paid what it costs.
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    We just haven't gotten anything for our money, because our wonderful federal government has put the fees into the general fund, and squandered that money along with our social security money, which they also put into the general fund and squandered.
    50% tax cuts for rich people don't come cheap. Neither to land wars in Asia.

    But the dependence of nukes on a large, intrusive, and dubiously motivated Federal government is indeed one of their downsides.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    - - -Wha-? United States Armed Forces can safely guard bombs already constructed, but cannot prevent terrorists from stealing radioactive material for bomb construction?
    So we are to anticipate the Pentagon running a major share of the civilian electrical power system in the US - with all the "classified info", mobility and access controls, secrecy and unaccountability, and - let us not forget - cost overruns, that implies?
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Oh come on. We know the proponents of these two options need to have it out and settle things before they can band together to fight their common foe: coal. Let's get it out of the way early.

    Nuclear:

    Good

    1) - Works (and reasonably price efficient too).
    2) - Does not Pollute the Air
    3) - Base loads well.

    Bad

    1) - Creates lots of nasty solid waste that has to be stored underground.
    2) - Has dangerous accidents every now and again, most of which are benign and don't result in anybody getting hurt.
    3) - Requires fuel to work


    Solar/Wind

    Good

    1) - Requires no fuel
    2) - Does not pollute at all (neither air, nor ground pollution).
    3) - Practicable on a small scale

    Bad

    1) - Cannot handle its own base loading
    2) - Weather/region dependent.
    3) - Expensive

    Seriously, can we not just hurry up and have the slugfest? Clearly the two options will never get along. Most of the cost of nuclear is building the infrastructure, and... most of the cost of solar/wind is building the infrastructure. Building both infrastructures would just be terribly expensive compared to building just one, but if we build neither then coal wins. So what can we do about that?
    Define "lots of nasty solid waste" above, please, and in the interest of complete candor and accuracy some fission products are gaseous, e.g. isotopes of Xenon, Radon, and Hydrogen(tritium).

    In practice, reprocessing has been conducted successfully for decades, effectively reducing the volume of waste and recovery of useful isotopes, plus resulting volume can and has been safely stored in the United States in deep geologic formations.

    Reasons these options are not more widely known and put into practice is due to poorly informed hysterical fear mongering by groups organized for that purpose.

    U.S. Department of Energy Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    Oh, yes. We the rate payers have paid for it in waste disposal fees charged by the federal government and added to our nuclear electric bill.
    That wasn't nearly enough money. You haven't paid for something until you've paid what it costs.
    Quote Originally Posted by harold
    We just haven't gotten anything for our money, because our wonderful federal government has put the fees into the general fund, and squandered that money along with our social security money, which they also put into the general fund and squandered.
    50% tax cuts for rich people don't come cheap. Neither to land wars in Asia.

    But the dependence of nukes on a large, intrusive, and dubiously motivated Federal government is indeed one of their downsides.
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    - - -Wha-? United States Armed Forces can safely guard bombs already constructed, but cannot prevent terrorists from stealing radioactive material for bomb construction?
    So we are to anticipate the Pentagon running a major share of the civilian electrical power system in the US - with all the "classified info", mobility and access controls, secrecy and unaccountability, and - let us not forget - cost overruns, that implies?
    Cost, as noted above, is based upon expenses of production, including tax paid to Federal government by law for service not rendered, hence refund is due. Military is entrusted with safety and defense of nation, IF threat exists from nuclear wastes or fuel makes perfect consistent sense for military to guard as they do weapons of every sort AND national gold repository at Fort Knox. Who better is qualified? Mall cops? Greenpeace?

    Get on the clue bus, dotcomrade.

    Money for these soldiers would be better spent on such duty domestically vs. stationed abroad among hostile populations, even you must concede this. Actually security at WIPP seems to be contracted to some outfit called "Security Walls, LLC", yeh, Prince never heard of it before either...
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; November 10th, 2011 at 02:26 PM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Military is entrusted with safety
    Against all enemies. Also, with the exception of the Marine Corps, we are severely restricted by what we can do on US sovereign land.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Military is entrusted with safety
    Against all enemies. Also, with the exception of the Marine Corps, we are severely restricted by what we can do on US sovereign land.
    Yes, ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere is it stipulated the nature of this threat. If, as antinuclear advocates maintain, all radioactive substances can be pressed into service to make "dirty" bomb, military measures to prevent same are perfectly appropriate. Why "exception" of Marine Corps? Prince would think "exception" status would most likely go to Coast Guard in view of widely varying missions. Reference to posse comitatus legislation noted. If base is established at WIPP or Yucca Mountain, and Army must provide security at base, problem is circumvented.

    Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Anyway, WIPP is DOE project charged with cleaning up DOD-generated debris, does this have to make sense in order to work?

    Evidently not, no reports of contamination so far. Best regards to esteemed moderator, thanks for service to forum, and to all dotcomrades at TSF, duty calls.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Military is entrusted with safety and defense of nation, IF threat exists from nuclear wastes or fuel makes perfect consistent sense for military to guard as they do weapons of every sort AND national gold repository at Fort Knox. Who better is qualified? Mall cops? Greenpeace?
    My guess is somebody like Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves these days.

    I note that nuke proponents are not at all wary of that kind of situation, or motivated to consider the overall risks and other costs of such "security". This matches my stereotype of the faction quite closely - matches the demands that anything based on the word of authority (UNSCEAR, say) be taken at face value and uncritically regardless of even its own caveats, matches the contempt for the reluctance of the lied to and deceived to respect the word of the liars and deceivers based on their authority status, etc.
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    From a more practical standpoint, nuclear requires nuclear engineers. How many people could even earn a degree in that if they tried? A lot of people are studying lightweight degrees in college and pulling their hair out just to get grades as it is. It's easy to train business leaders, at least MBA's. Mechanics and construction workers don't even need to go to college. Why not tap the labor force we have instead, instead of trying to dream up another one we're probably never going to get?

    Wind farming is a practical technology, only about one step removed from making automobiles.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    From a more practical standpoint, nuclear requires nuclear engineers.
    Too design them sure. But we have plenty enough smart people to train them. Most of the operators and maintainers though, like wind and solar, doesn't take advanced degrees.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  30. #29  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The other problem is what happens if our skilled labor pool gets stretched too thin? Once all the most competent people reach their work load limit, we'll start having to assign less competent people to handle the overflow. We'll start wanting to mix in more technicians and fewer engineers. If some companies are cutting corners already, and the incentive to cut corners increases, simple market economics tells us the level of caution used isn't going to increase.

    With wind, that means there might be on site accidents. Workers might get hurt or die. What about nuclear?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Reno NV USA
    Posts
    10
    Seeing as how this question has steered towards politics, economics, and other societal issues I would like to redirect the question back to the science of the initial question by attacking it from a different perspective…propulsion.

    First off… I feel that solar wind would be an excellent source of propulsion in terms of maximum velocity (i.e. theoretically in aperfect vacuum that would be the speed of the solar wind itself). This concept of creating propulsion by the deflection of protons in the solar wind using a positively charged electric filed (electric solar wind sail not to beconfused with a solar sail) to create a virtual sail is a fascinating technology. I would like to see such technologies be investigated further for possible extra-solar space flight. Sadly in the present state both the electric solar wind sails (E-sails) and solar sails are unpractical due to extremely low delta-v’s as well as other dynamic issues such as the attraction of electrons, in the solar wind, to the E-sail burdening it and ultimately neutralizing the field. However, the sails are still interesting technologies where the possibilities are only limited by the velocity of the particles that push them (which is the seed of light c in case you didn’t catch that).

    Now for the nuclear side… very interesting, channeling nuclear explosions to create thrust. Mathematically very promising and technologically tangible! I mean come on they wanted to deploy this technology (Nuclear pulse propulsion) in the 1950’s and 1960’s, not totally unrealistic for the time period. The only down side to this rocket design is the simple fact that anything behind the rocket gets showered with radioactive particles (nuclear waste), and there is also a UN treaty that prohibits the detonation of nuclear explosions in space. However, I think if a compromise could be met, and the rock could be launched a great enough distance from earth as to not further contaminate our upper atmosphere; I say launch! For God sakes it has a theoretical specific impulse (Isp) of 100,000 seconds which I would wager isn’t far from the obtainable Isp! For those of you that speak rock you know how kick ass this is. If nuclear pulse propulsion could be further refined ‘Project Longshot’ might not be such a long shot after all and in the next hundred years we might just have a probe orbiting Alpha Centauri… Very exciting!
    So in terms of space craft I think we have two potential winners here
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    As for materials being stolen to make dirty bombs, that threat is probably overblown as well. When it's hot, it's usually on the same grounds and within the security perimeters as the plant, very hot and really easy to track if somehow someone did manage to get some off the installation. Once it cools a bit, it's usually encapsulated in some way, which means it becomes extremely bulky to handle and would still be relatively easy to track.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    It will require a combination of sources to get us where we need to be. This is not an either/or proposition.
    No, certainly not. But the advantages offered by each option are worthy of discussion, clearly resources allocated to one will be unavailable for the other. Thank you for making this important point and others to come.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Military is entrusted with safety and defense of nation, IF threat exists from nuclear wastes or fuel makes perfect consistent sense for military to guard as they do weapons of every sort AND national gold repository at Fort Knox. Who better is qualified? Mall cops? Greenpeace?
    My guess is somebody like Blackwater, or whatever they call themselves these days.

    I note that nuke proponents are not at all wary of that kind of situation, or motivated to consider the overall risks and other costs of such "security". This matches my stereotype of the faction quite closely - matches the demands that anything based on the word of authority (UNSCEAR, say) be taken at face value and uncritically regardless of even its own caveats, matches the contempt for the reluctance of the lied to and deceived to respect the word of the liars and deceivers based on their authority status, etc.
    You are exhibiting increasingly paranoid tendencies. Prince would like to point out a possibility that you have apparently not considered, that people educated about the dangers vs benefits have views different from your own not because they are sinister but because they are correct. These Blackwater people you think so much of, where do they come from? Military? Get out! And are they paid more than military? Yes? You don't say! So how much experience does Blackwater, as an organization, have guarding nuclear devices? Less than five decades? Hmmm... between them and military, who is more qualified?

    Yes, predictable objection arises, has military been responsible for lapses in security with regard to such devices- yes. Prince would point out that the last such incident involving United States military personnel occurred several decades ago, and that this event caused no release of radiation. Since then record has been unblemished.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by scinerd View Post
    Seeing as how this question has steered towards politics, economics, and other societal issues I would like to redirect the question back to the science of the initial question by attacking it from a different perspective…propulsion.

    First off… I feel that solar wind would be an excellent source of propulsion in terms of maximum velocity (i.e. theoretically in aperfect vacuum that would be the speed of the solar wind itself). This concept of creating propulsion by the deflection of protons in the solar wind using a positively charged electric filed (electric solar wind sail not to beconfused with a solar sail) to create a virtual sail is a fascinating technology. I would like to see such technologies be investigated further for possible extra-solar space flight. Sadly in the present state both the electric solar wind sails (E-sails) and solar sails are unpractical due to extremely low delta-v’s as well as other dynamic issues such as the attraction of electrons, in the solar wind, to the E-sail burdening it and ultimately neutralizing the field. However, the sails are still interesting technologies where the possibilities are only limited by the velocity of the particles that push them (which is the seed of light c in case you didn’t catch that).

    Now for the nuclear side… very interesting, channeling nuclear explosions to create thrust. Mathematically very promising and technologically tangible! I mean come on they wanted to deploy this technology (Nuclear pulse propulsion) in the 1950’s and 1960’s, not totally unrealistic for the time period. The only down side to this rocket design is the simple fact that anything behind the rocket gets showered with radioactive particles (nuclear waste), and there is also a UN treaty that prohibits the detonation of nuclear explosions in space. However, I think if a compromise could be met, and the rock could be launched a great enough distance from earth as to not further contaminate our upper atmosphere; I say launch! For God sakes it has a theoretical specific impulse (Isp) of 100,000 seconds which I would wager isn’t far from the obtainable Isp! For those of you that speak rock you know how kick ass this is. If nuclear pulse propulsion could be further refined ‘Project Longshot’ might not be such a long shot after all and in the next hundred years we might just have a probe orbiting Alpha Centauri… Very exciting!
    So in terms of space craft I think we have two potential winners here
    Good point, thank you for bringing it up. Space propulsion will bring literally new worlds of wealth for benefit of humanity, including many tonnes of fusion fuel from outer planets.

    So how do we get there?

    Gaseous core nuclear design, the Liberty Ship
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by prince
    Prince would like to point out a possibility that you have apparently not considered, that people educated about the dangers vs benefits have views different from your own not because they are sinister but because they are correct.
    Always a possibility.

    One would expect, in that case, that they would make a case for their views, and provide new information and unfamiliar insight from their superior education,

    rather than sidetrack aspersions about the irrational fears of people not present in the discussion, accusations of racism and similar ad hominems, nuclear industry propaganda, and denial of physical realities known to us all.

    Any time.

    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    As for materials being stolen to make dirty bombs, that threat is probably overblown as well. When it's hot, it's usually on the same grounds and within the security perimeters as the plant, very hot and really easy to track if somehow someone did manage to get some off the installation.
    The Pentagon has lost hundreds of pounds of plutonium alone, from military guarded and monitored facilities. They don't know what happened.

    Probably not stolen, of course. Probably just missing for various bookkeeping and mechanical reasons. As you note, dirty bomb fears are long shot fears - improbabilities.

    But they incur large expenses, even as improbabilities, because the consequences would be so grim. As with big earthquakes, etc, the long shots have to be handled when dealing with nukes, because they are so incredibly dangerous.
     

  37. #36  
    Professor of Articulation Zesterer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The fourth dimension, our universe, the milkyway, outer galactic spiral 8, the solar system, earth.
    Posts
    43
    This debate relies on one particular question that I believe will sway the tables of this argument one way or another.Will humans create the necessary technology to use nuclear fusion?Currently, all nuclear power stations use nuclear fission as a power source. This involves the radiation of atomic components of an atom such as electrons so exit the realms of an atom and trigger a similar event in a neighbouring atom. This process releases a large amount of energy, bu produces a dangerous bi-product - radioactive waste. This waste is capable of causing the deterioration of nearby atoms through the means of radiation (nb: methods of heat transfer). This is why the waste is generally kept in secure underground containment facilities that are capable of resisting large amounts of radiation for long periods of time, preventing the contamination of nearby matter. But there is another option. Nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is fundamentally the opposite of nuclear fission, and involved the bonding of several atomic sub particles. This too releases a large amount of energy, much larger than nuclear fission. The bi-products are also alot easier to care for. They are non-toxic, and will no affect surrounding matter in the same way as nuclear radiation. So far, nuclear fusion has only been achieved on a small scale in scientific laboratories across the globe, but technology is constantly improving, and this may soon be possible on a scale large enough for creating a significant amount of power. If this is achieved, the age of fossil fuel power stations and nuclear fission power stations are over, and this is not a bad consequence. These grease spots of the planet shall no longer be churning out large amounts of damaging CO2, or radioactive waste. If this happens, most of the gloves power problems are over almost indefinitely. We may even have a chance of reversing the problems that the previous 5 or so previous generations have placed on us - global warming and pollution. It is certainly an exiting prospect, and is definitely an option to be considered with greater interest than it is currently given...Zesterer
    The Finger Prince likes this.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    One would expect, in that case, that they would make a case for their views, and provide new information and unfamiliar insight from their superior education,

    rather than sidetrack aspersions about the irrational fears of people not present in the discussion, accusations of racism and similar ad hominems, nuclear industry propaganda, and denial of physical realities known to us all.

    .
    The problem, Iceaura, is that you refuse to believe the hard data that does not support your position. It has nothing to do with education. It is a simple refusal to accept inconvenient facts.

    Like when I quote the clearest reference on the cost of generating electricity. Because the figures do not back up your own ideas, they must be wrong!

    Like the number of fatalities per terrawatt year for various generating methods. You do not like the data, so it must be wrong.

    Did you never consider the possibility that the data might be correct, and you wrong?
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm hoping this discussion doesn't center on the dangers and then just stay there until it stagnates. There's more to this issue than just that. Nuclear still has to deal with NBY ("not in my back yard"). We're producing a certain amount of waste nation wide right now, but if we ramped up our nuclear program that quantity would rise, and we'd need to expand our storage capacity. Just keeping the waste on site at the plant isn't going to work forever, and there really haven't been a whole lot of breakthroughs on the political front, toward getting people to be more amenable to allowing it to be stored off site. How would we propose to address this?

    On the other hand, solar is more of a "please put it in my backyard" kind of problem.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  40. #39  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    There's tremendous resistance to solar in many places, particularly in communities in the Us.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The problem, Iceaura, is that you refuse to believe the hard data that does not support your position. It has nothing to do with education. It is a simple refusal to accept inconvenient facts.

    Like when I quote the clearest reference on the cost of generating electricity. Because the figures do not back up your own ideas, they must be wrong!
    They aren't even wrong. They're meaningless.

    You haven't posted a single item of relevant hard data on this issue yet.

    There is no such thing as the kwh cost of "thermal solar", as a category, for example. And no cost of nuclear power that omits the security and waste handling and risk premium for accidents is worth posting.
    There's tremendous resistance to solar in many places, particularly in communities in the Us.
    It tracks Fox News viewership and talk radio's audience almost exactly. Any idea why?
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    It tracks Fox News viewership and talk radio's audience almost exactly. Any idea why?
    Despite your strange fascination for Fox News, it's been going on since at least the 1970s--when comfortable passive solar homes that would have savings owners tens of thousands by now were hard to sell, solar hot water heaters which are extremely effective in the South have been in decline, where various covenants of homeowner associations across the country unwittingly ban efficient homes and solar collectors of any kind.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Despite your strange fascination for Fox News, it's been going on since at least the 1970s--when comfortable passive solar homes that would have savings owners tens of thousands by now were hard to sell, solar hot water heaters which are extremely effective in the South have been in decline, where various covenants of homeowner associations across the country unwittingly ban efficient homes and solar collectors of any kind.
    That rhetorical technique should be named after Fox News, in honor of its most effective practitioner in modern times.

    That trick illustrated by the slide from "Nuclear still has to deal with NBY ("not in my back yard"). - - - -

    On the other hand, solar is more of a "please put it in my backyard" kind of problem" through "tremendous resistance" to "hard to sell" and even "unwittingly", I mean.
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Nice way to duck the observation that this trend is much older than Fox news. We see it in Massachusetts, where coastal folks rejected the installation of wind power far off their homes because they might see it on clear days and considered it unsightly.
    In another non-Fox News watching area, near Seattle, where I now live, there's considerable resistance to renewables. Most housing communities would reject solar, wind, or effecient house design--too high, too small, too "ugly," too "unconventional" compared to their stick and frame energy pig-for-homes.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    Nice way to duck the observation that this trend is much older than Fox news.
    The alternative was to call you on that scummy little trick of rhetorical bs directly, for the dishonesty that it is and has been - continually, post after post - for a while now. "Observation" my fucking ass - you can't possibly be that incapable of following an argument. You've got a real integrity problem, and it seems to be directly related to your politics - none of you Tea Party types can simply argue your stuff honestly.

    Essentially every post I make in reply to you has to lead off with a correction of some misrepresentation, unless I want to let it slide. It's continual. Why do you do that?

    Look: That shit you are picking up from the media campaigns I label Fox, handily, and you very well know what I'm talking about, is not mere style, mere technique: it's content. It's the content of your thinking, by now. That would worry me, if I were you.

    and an example follows immediately:
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    - - - We see it in Massachusetts, where coastal folks rejected the installation of wind power far off their homes because they might see it on clear days and considered it unsightly.
    Was that supposed to be an example of such hostility predating Fox News, in further attempt to pretend I was claiming Fox invented it? Because it doesn't work for that purpose - it doesn't predate Fox News. Or was it supposed to be unrelated to the lead in, in position by accident of careless writing, an awkward bit of unrelated rhetoric actually merely an example of community hostility toward solar power? Because it doesn't work, windmills are not "solar power" conventionally.

    So what are we supposed to take that as - it's casual, just something you threw in there, but why? Where did it come from? What was the impulse, and what was the relevance?

    Or this:
    Quote Originally Posted by lynx
    In another non-Fox News watching area, near Seattle
    There is no non-Fox watching area in the US, there are no US news media uncorrupted by Fox's introduced framing, and "near Seattle" is certainly not a candidate for either description.

    Obviously. And of course we all know that. But then where did the post come from - what was the impulse?

    --

    You crossed the line in that first paragraph between attacking ideas and broad statements attacking people. The mod team will review our actions. See you in a few days.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; November 15th, 2011 at 09:23 AM.
     

  46. #45  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nice way to duck the observation that this trend is much older than Fox news. We see it in Massachusetts, where coastal folks rejected the installation of wind power far off their homes because they might see it on clear days and considered it unsightly.
    In another non-Fox News watching area, near Seattle, where I now live, there's considerable resistance to renewables. Most housing communities would reject solar, wind, or effecient house design--too high, too small, too "ugly," too "unconventional" compared to their stick and frame energy pig-for-homes.
    It's true there is some resistance, but I think it's much more address-able. If a few key celebrities start showing off their solar/wind power like it's stylish or something, the various flocks of fan-sheep that follow them around will find it to be all the rage pretty quickly. It's just not been stylish in the past.

    NBY has problems that go far beyond aesthetic objections.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  47. #46  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    It's true there is some resistance, but I think it's much more address-able. If a few key celebrities start showing off their solar/wind power like it's stylish or something, the various flocks of fan-sheep that follow them around will find it to be all the rage pretty quickly. It's just not been stylish in the past.

    NBY has problems that go far beyond aesthetic objections.
    Thus far that hasn't happened, which is rather sad. There are reasons associated with aesthetic objections, for example Senator Kennedy's (a closet Fox News fan...ROFL), who coupled aesthetics with possible decrease in property values for people (you know his ultra-liberal closet Fox News watching friends) on the coast who saw them as "ugly," inertia such as those community rules which are often hard to change, concern about warranty or getting expert maintenance help to design, install and service low density technologies, mega-developers which use the same cookie cutter house designs from Florida to Minnesota, regardless of how poorly they perform in those climates, just to name a few.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I can see their concern. Sometimes people get so caught up in function they forget form. It's probably easier just to ban solar panels altogether rather than try and adjudicate which configurations look good and which ones look garish, because you know people are going to try and put the garish ones up.

    I don't see how that objection applies to setting up a solar grid, though? Presumably a number of solar panels sufficient to replace a power plant isn't going to be on the roofs of peoples' houses in a gated community somewhere, but rather somewhere out in the countryside where there's room for it. We don't store nuclear waste literally in anyone's back yard either. (I'm sure those same gated communities would ban the storing of waste barrels in one's household as well.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    I don't see how that objection applies to setting up a solar grid, though? Presumably a number of solar panels sufficient to replace a power plant isn't going to be on the roofs of peoples' houses in a gated community somewhere, but rather somewhere out in the countryside where there's room for it.
    It's not just gated communities...it's many of them that aren't gated as well. I don't know why it shouldn't be on people's homes, (or beside them) either. Solar thermal, can only be used on locality and IS FAR more efficient than converting the energy off the grid to heat water and air, yet we can't even do that in this the US in any great number while other nations like Israel do it routinely. For PV panels, as they become cost effective, it's also better to have them on people's roofs, or in the backyard, where you don't get transmission losses, can still feed it to the grid, and overall make your grid less vulnerable to catastrophic losses from centralized production plants.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    A fundamental problem is STORAGE of electricity, as pointed out elsewhere on the site. Electric power is inherently resistant to this application and this is why utilities at present must produce according to current demand, pun intended. Role of FOX news in this is unclear- there are sound engineering and technical reasons why nuclear is preferable in this case, as persistently seems to elude certain forum members. As for "waste", technical solutions have been found for it, they are reprocessing, transmutation via neutron bombardment, and vitrification/isolation in stable geological formations. These are NOT being employed to best advantage due to political factors.

    Repeatable energy storage
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't see how that objection applies to setting up a solar grid, though? Presumably a number of solar panels sufficient to replace a power plant isn't going to be on the roofs of peoples' houses in a gated community somewhere, but rather somewhere out in the countryside where there's room for it.
    It's not just gated communities...it's many of them that aren't gated as well. I don't know why it shouldn't be on people's homes, (or beside them) either. Solar thermal, can only be used on locality and IS FAR more efficient than converting the energy off the grid to heat water and air, yet we can't even do that in this the US in any great number while other nations like Israel do it routinely.
    Yeah. We waste a lot of electricity creating heat.

    The same goes for natural gas. Gas heating is a little bit more dangerous than electric heating, but if you're converting the gas into electricity and back again, you're losing 40% of the energy right there.


    For PV panels, as they become cost effective, it's also better to have them on people's roofs, or in the backyard, where you don't get transmission losses, can still feed it to the grid, and overall make your grid less vulnerable to catastrophic losses from centralized production plants.
    I notice a lot of gasoline generators for sale in my area as Winter approaches. Nobody likes to be out of power when trees start falling. There's definitely one advantage to having solar panels.... at least during the daytime.

    However, in order for Solar to become cost effective, it's going to have to be done on a large scale instead of a small scale. Economy of scale could bring down the price per unit quite a bit if some industrial entity were buying/making a huge batch of panels to put in arrays around the country. Selling one by one to individual buyers will never achieve that unless consumer demand suddenly got really high, like at least high enough to make it onto the shelves at Lowe's.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    The two main problems with PV generation on a domestic basis are :

    1. It carries the highest fatality rate by accident of all means of generating electricity, basically by installers falling off ladders.
    2. It is expensive. $US0-21 per kwh compared to $US0-12 for nuclear or $US0-08 for natural gas.

    Both these problems may reduce in the future, but these things take time.
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Solar and wind will win for the foreseeable future simply because they tap into the motivation for reductions in emissions that arise from what science knows about climate whereas the proponents of nuclear as a solution can't agree that there even is a climate/emissions problem. The dissonance of being in irrational denial of climate science whilst pushing the idea that nuclear is the only rational solution to this non-problem eats away credibility. Without tapping into that political motivation and by continuing to oppose policy developments like carbon pricing the groundwork that would lead to major uptake of nuclear won't be laid.

    Acceptance of the seriousness of the problem by the political Right would change the balance - at which point the opposition of entrenched fossil fuel interests to nuclear will probably become open and intense. As long as those proposing nuclear as a low emissions policy refuse to have reductions of emissions via pigovian pricing or regulation as a cornerstone of their policy they will be the losers.
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Skeptic, injuries from home installation of solar properly belongs in the category of owner/handyman home maintenance - or are you saying that every injury of an owner builder or handyman should be considered a serious failing of the construction industry?
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Solar and wind will win for the foreseeable future simply because they tap into the motivation for reductions in emissions that arise from what science knows about climate whereas the proponents of nuclear as a solution can't agree that there even is a climate/emissions problem.
    All generalizations are false, and who cares if the proponents of nuclear think there is a climate problem if they are in fact advocating a low carbon source of power?
    The dissonance of being in irrational denial of climate science whilst pushing the idea that nuclear is the only rational solution to this non-problem eats away credibility.
    You eat away at your credibility by making illogical arguments.
    Without tapping into that political motivation and by continuing to oppose policy developments like carbon pricing the groundwork that would lead to major uptake of nuclear won't be laid.

    Acceptance of the seriousness of the problem by the political Right would change the balance - at which point the opposition of entrenched fossil fuel interests to nuclear will probably become open and intense. As long as those proposing nuclear as a low emissions policy refuse to have reductions of emissions via pigovian pricing or regulation as a cornerstone of their policy they will be the losers.
    As long as the political left insists upon renewables to the exclusion of nuclear, there will not be a low carbon source of base load power. This means more fossil fuels burned.
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Skeptic, injuries from home installation of solar properly belongs in the category of owner/handyman home maintenance - or are you saying that every injury of an owner builder or handyman should be considered a serious failing of the construction industry?
    I am not making judgement calls at all. I am merely quantifying the hazard of various means of generating electricity. The reason I am doing this, is to counter the people who rely on opinion instead of data, and who use that opinion instead of data, to argue that nuclear is too dangerous.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Solar and wind will win for the foreseeable future simply because they tap into the motivation for reductions in emissions that arise from what science knows about climate whereas the proponents of nuclear as a solution can't agree that there even is a climate/emissions problem. The dissonance of being in irrational denial of climate science whilst pushing the idea that nuclear is the only rational solution to this non-problem eats away credibility. Without tapping into that political motivation and by continuing to oppose policy developments like carbon pricing the groundwork that would lead to major uptake of nuclear won't be laid.

    Acceptance of the seriousness of the problem by the political Right would change the balance - at which point the opposition of entrenched fossil fuel interests to nuclear will probably become open and intense. As long as those proposing nuclear as a low emissions policy refuse to have reductions of emissions via pigovian pricing or regulation as a cornerstone of their policy they will be the losers.
    But nuclear IS a minor carbon emitter, Ken Fabos, and the volume of waste is quite manageable compared to say, coal, and it is inexpensive, and versatile, and best of all, RELIABLE.

    Any cost estimates for flaky solar and wind piddle power must necessarily include storage media, by your own reasoning, as well as that of our temporarily incapacitated dotcomrade iceaura.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    REGARDING storage, Prince has some news which may be of interest. Nuclear desalination will of necessity create large volumes of brine, which, being denser than ordinary seawater, will sink to the abyssal plains of sea floor, there to form submarine brine "lakes". By tapping this flow much as conventional hydropower does, additional energy can be harvested or even stored in artificial brine "lagoons" constructed for the purpose. Since large numbers of cities are located near the sea, local storage can be expediently provided.

    All that is required for the construction of such lagoons is a suitable volume of space, enough metal mesh to enclose said space, and some electric power:

    Wolf Hilbertz – Accretion
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Skeptic, injuries from home installation of solar properly belongs in the category of owner/handyman home maintenance - or are you saying that every injury of an owner builder or handyman should be considered a serious failing of the construction industry?
    I am not making judgement calls at all. I am merely quantifying the hazard of various means of generating electricity. The reason I am doing this, is to counter the people who rely on opinion instead of data, and who use that opinion instead of data, to argue that nuclear is too dangerous.
    The argument that nuclear power is "too dangerous" while automobiles are not, is patently absurd. If those owner/handymen were putting shingles on their roofs, such injuries would be irrelevant, but they were putting solar power related hardware up there, and consequently are fair game. If you wish, Ken Fabos, to include "hidden costs" of nuclear power in your calculations, would it be fair to discount such obvious consequences of your own approach?

    No. Skeptic is fully justified by any objective standard, as far as Prince can determine at this point.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    The two main problems with PV generation on a domestic basis are :

    1. It carries the highest fatality rate by accident of all means of generating electricity, basically by installers falling off ladders.
    As noted already above, this is a cost of construction, not a cost of solar. Conflating the two is a rather intellectually dishonest way to make a point about costs of power generation. However, even if I stipulate that this should be included, then you must equally include downstream costs of nuclear processing and safety, which you consistently have left out of your arguments in this thread (as have other posters... it is not my intent to single you out).


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    2. It is expensive. $US0-21 per kwh compared to $US0-12 for nuclear or $US0-08 for natural gas.
    I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but they are very outdated. Not only is the cost of solar dropping akin to Moore's law like computers did, but even two years ago installed cost was only $7.16 per kwh... Not 3x that number @ 21 like you posted.





    And again... if you're doing the math in good faith, then you need to also include the annual savings on energy bills customers with solar enjoy... They would not see those same savings with other sources like nuclear.





    http://solarpowerauthority.com/how-m...rage-us-house/

    The cost of a solar panel today is around $4 per watt, and the extra cost of installation brings costs up to $7- $9 per watt. Note: Installation costs for PV systems include both labor and the electronics needed to tie the solar array into your existing electrical system. The good news is that these costs are expected to continue to drop. <...> It will be interesting to see where this all goes in the next year or two, since these companies are talking about very aggressive price targets — in the order of $1-2 per watt — and volumes that are several times today’s total output. Assuming that installation and auxiliary equipment costs can be reduced to around $1 per watt, then a 5 kW system may cost as little as $10,000, and the payback period would be 10 years, even without subsidies. This makes PV solar installations much more attractive. Of course, all this assumes that electric rates stay constant. However, they are likely to rise as fuel and other infrastructure costs increase, so payback periods may be even shorter in the future. In the meantime, expect to see more PV solar panels installed on roofs, especially in areas with favorable solar conditions or with higher-than-average electricity rates.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    If somebody dies installing a solar panel on their roof, that is a death that would not have occurred if they were getting their power from some other source. It is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest otherwise.

    Nuclear power utilities, at least in the US, pay for disposal and decommissioning by way of disposal fees and decommissioning funds mandated by law. Can you say the same for disposal of used solar panels?

    Edit: Inow, are you confusing dollars per watt with dollars per kilowatt-hour?
    Last edited by Harold14370; November 16th, 2011 at 06:09 AM.
     

  62. #61  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Inow, are you confusing dollars per watt with dollars per kilowatt-hour?
    Yikes... I may have screwed the pooch on that one. That was not intentional, by any means. Thanks, Harold. Good catch. Cost per kwh of solar was closer to 21cents in 2009, but is in the teens now.

    Skeptic... Did you mean 21 cents above in your post, or 21 dollars? If the former, my apologies for the other post... I just knew that $21 was way outside the bounds of accurate given where we are today with solar, and given where we're heading so quickly with it.



    Here's an updated look given the correction:







    Also, a great review here: http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-5047e.pdf

    As the deployment of grid-connected solar photovoltaic (PV) systems has increased, so too has the desire to track the installed cost of these systems over time and by location, customer type, system characteristics, and component. This report helps to fill this need by summarizing trends in the installed cost of grid-connected PV systems in the United States from 1998 through 2010, with preliminary data for 2011, and includes, for the first time, installed cost trends for utility-sector PV. The analysis is based on installed cost data for approximately 116,500 behind-the-meter (i.e., residential and commercial) and utility-sector PV systems, totaling 1,685 megawatts (MW) and representing 79% of all grid-connected PV capacity installed in the United States through 2010.

    <...>

    Available evidence confirms that the installed cost of PV systems has declined substantially since 1998, though both the pace and source of those cost reductions have varied over time. Prior to 2005, installed cost reductions were associated primarily with a decline in non-module costs. Starting in 2005, however, cost reductions began to stall, as the supply-chain and delivery infrastructure struggled to keep pace with rapidly expanding global demand. Starting in 2008, global wholesale module prices began a steep downward trajectory. Those reductions in module prices began to drive the average installed cost of PV systems installed in the United States significantly lower in 2010, when average installed costs fell by 17%.

    In addition, average non-module costs also fell significantly in 2010, after several years of apparent stagnation. Trends in non-module costs may be particularly relevant in gauging the impact of state and utility PV deployment programs. Unlike module prices, which are primarily established through global markets, non-module costs consist of a variety of cost components that may be more readily affected by local programs – including deployment programs aimed at increasing demand (and thereby increasing competition and efficiency among installers) as well as more-targeted efforts, such as training and education programs. Both the long-term and more recent reductions in non-module costs suggests that PV deployment policies have achieved some success in fostering competition within the industry and spurring improvements in the cost structure and efficiency of the PV delivery infrastructure. Preliminary cost data for the first half of 2011, as well as current cost benchmarks published by a variety of other entities, indicate that installed costs have continued to decline.


    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Nuclear power utilities, at least in the US, pay for disposal and decommissioning by way of disposal fees and decommissioning funds mandated by law.
    Here's the relevant question, though. Do those fees adequately cover the overall burden of cost born to each of us through tax dollars, upkeep of roads, safety personnel and inspections, and others? I can tell you up front the answer is absolutely not. Sure, they pay a fee, but try not to conflate the fact that they pay a fee with the concept that they cover all costs.
    Last edited by inow; November 16th, 2011 at 11:55 AM.
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If somebody dies installing a solar panel on their roof, that is a death that would not have occurred if they were getting their power from some other source. It is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest otherwise.

    Nuclear power utilities, at least in the US, pay for disposal and decommissioning by way of disposal fees and decommissioning funds mandated by law. Can you say the same for disposal of used solar panels?

    Edit: Inow, are you confusing dollars per watt with dollars per kilowatt-hour?
    There are two issues with this

    1) - Only voluntary participants are affected.

    2) - You have to show that the overall death rate of people doing home improvement work has been impacted. A person wreckless enough to go on their own roof and do such a project without the correct gear or training is an accident waiting to happen, one which might have simply waited another week or month (perhaps until Christmas season so they could die doing Christmas lights). It's like if a person who's genetically predisposed to get cancer gets cancer after a nuclear accident. Looking at the overall cancer statistics would help to screen that person out.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If somebody dies installing a solar panel on their roof, that is a death that would not have occurred if they were getting their power from some other source. It is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest otherwise.

    Nuclear power utilities, at least in the US, pay for disposal and decommissioning by way of disposal fees and decommissioning funds mandated by law. Can you say the same for disposal of used solar panels?

    Edit: Inow, are you confusing dollars per watt with dollars per kilowatt-hour?
    There are two issues with this

    1) - Only voluntary participants are affected.
    This is a bogus distinction. Having power in your home from one source or another is not optional. Well, I suppose it is, but then you have to account for the risk of having no electricity, like freezing to death, etc.

    2) - You have to show that the overall death rate of people doing home improvement work has been impacted.
    That's easy. Somebody climbing on the roof obviously has a greater risk than somebody not climbing on the roof.
    A person wreckless enough to go on their own roof and do such a project without the correct gear or training is an accident waiting to happen, one which might have simply waited another week or month (perhaps until Christmas season so they could die doing Christmas lights). It's like if a person who's genetically predisposed to get cancer gets cancer after a nuclear accident. Looking at the overall cancer statistics would help to screen that person out.
    A person reckless enough to bypass a nuclear power safety system is obviously an accident waiting to happen. Therefore, can I say that Chernobyl does not count?
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    To iNow

    On cost

    My figures for cost of various forms of electricity come from :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

    I have been quoting this reference for some time, and have noticed that the numbers change periodically, meaning they are being updated by the normal Wiki editing process. So, I am reasonably confident that they are not too far out of date.
    The only calculating I do is to convert the numbers to American cents per kilowatt hour, and round them to the nearest half cent.

    Last time I looked, nuclear cost 12 cents per kwh, PV 21 cents and solar thermal 31 c. Cheapest was natural gas at 8 cents.

    I am pretty sure that the 12 cents for nuclear is total cost. I read in another reference that nuclear fuel costs less than 2 cents per kwh.

    I also point out that 97.5% of all electricity generated world wide is coal, natural gas, hydroelectricity and nuclear. In my list, those are the four cheapest. The powers that decide have picked those four, and I am pretty sure it is mainly on cost.

    On safety.
    For any means of generating electricity, there will be two sets of data for safety, written as number of fatalities per terawatt year of electricity generated.
    The first set is fatal accidents.
    The second set is total fatalities, including indirect means of killing people. In many cases, I have had to calculate this as deaths per terawatt year, since the published figures are just totals, and we need a standard number to compare different generation methods.

    The first is easy to get and very accurate, since it is just a count of dead people converted to the number per twy. The second is much more difficult and has wide error bars, and is based on estimates, or computer models. Those estimates will vary according to who makes the estimate.

    So, for example : nuclear accidents kill 8 people per twy by direct accident. Indirect deaths (mostly cancers from Chernobyl) from estimates, computer models, and simple calculations are between 65 and 500 per twy. This is from reputable sources such as the International Atomic Energy Agency or the United Nations. Of course, if you choose to believe crackpot web sites like Greenpeace, the latter figure is massively higher.

    I can give you figures for other generation methods if you like. Nuclear compares very favourably, with only natural gas (possibly) being lower for total deaths.
    Last edited by skeptic; November 16th, 2011 at 02:37 PM. Reason: spelling correction
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by inow View Post
    Here's the relevant question, though. Do those fees adequately cover the overall burden of cost born to each of us through tax dollars, upkeep of roads, safety personnel and inspections, and others? I can tell you up front the answer is absolutely not. Sure, they pay a fee, but try not to conflate the fact that they pay a fee with the concept that they cover all costs.
    If you are that certain perhaps you can tell us how much of the cost they cover.
    I notice that you did not address the cost of disposal of used solar panels. You might also wish to address the environmental nightmare of chemical waste from solar panel production as described in this article. How much of this cost is covered by the price of solar panels? Where is the seismically qualified underground storage facility that will protect the public from this 10,000 years into the future?
    Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China
    Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

    GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.
    But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards. "The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Harold, you can't be serious that the position pro-nuclear folk take on climate isn't pertinent. Here in Australia nuclear is widely distrusted and fiercely opposed and nothing short of widespread acceptance of the climate problem, steeply rising energy prices and strong regulation of emissions via pricing or by decree to force the energy providers will change that.

    This is all about the climate problem and I don't know that any of the pro-nuclear folk here really take it that seriously - not enough that if the only practical way to get to the nuclear solution (to get real and sustained emissions reductions - for those that nominally agree it's a problem) is to try the carbon price and subsidised renewables course and have it fail that they would do that. Anyone?

    I think the consequences of unrestrained growth of emissions are serious enough that such a diversion down an unproductive path in order to learn the hard way would be better than letting the emissions growth juggernaut gather more momentum whilst holding out for the day when public opinion suddenly and magically comes into agreement with sensible people. I don't believe it would be completely wasted effort or that the crunch time where problems of mismatch between supply and demand become an urgent issue will come ahead of the collapse of the BS climate change denial campaign - at which point much of the political opposition to effective action (with it's resultant mish-mash of ineffective, compromised policy and greenwash) will be replaced with bipartisan efforts that may - probably will - include nuclear. As a proportion of the eventual bill that climate change will load onto us I suspect that such 'waste' will barely rate as noteworthy compared to the quarter century (so far) of thumb twiddling, hot air and BS peddling.

    Without climate change as motivation nuclear won't happen in Australia.

    I would like to point out that it's not the unreasonable organised opposition to nuclear that is the reason we don't have nuclear in Australia; the reality is the electricity industry here wants to keep on using the abundant, nearby, cheap, accessible - and familiar - coal. When they use the 'if it's such a big problem nuclear is the only option' argument it's threat, not promise, made in the certain knowledge that nuclear is politically unacceptable and with the intent of preserving the status quo. The energy sector in Australia has never been a strong defender of nuclear and when push comes to shove it will show itself to be a staunch opponent of having nuclear forced on them. Much cheaper and easier all round for them to oppose all and every serious attempt to limit or price emissions by burying the public in BS. Unless forced to do so they won't change. What I've encountered here from the pro-nuclear folk is a lack of willingness to force that change.

    The full effect of additional GHG's build over multi decades and are irreversible by any ordinary means. The costs will come out of the essential environmental capital that underpins our food security and cannot be replaced or brought back once lost. Holding out for an idealised all out solution, demanding that only painless transitional paths be undertaken looks like a misreading of, and even a denial of, what climate science is telling us.

    Now, I do expect that at some point there will be a political tipping point where the Right in Australia abandon their delusions about climate change. At that point their may be genuine progress in overcoming the reluctance of Australia to use nuclear but it won't be an easy transition and means projected income from the coal boom as well as the cozy friendships between big coal and the political Right have to be foregone. The change can only come from widespread acceptance of the problem which won't happen as long as the Right here find it politically convenient to encourage the public to embrace climate change denial and to swear undying support to the fossil fuel industry.

    BTW I think assigning blame for unsafe DIY practices to anyone but the individuals involved is nonsensical and insisting otherwise for no other purpose than to blame solar to make it look bad doesn't impress me.
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Harold, you can't be serious that the position pro-nuclear folk take on climate isn't pertinent. Here in Australia nuclear is widely distrusted and fiercely opposed and nothing short of widespread acceptance of the climate problem, steeply rising energy prices and strong regulation of emissions via pricing or by decree to force the energy providers will change that.
    I am quite serious, Ken. First of all, you are lumping "pro-nuclear folk" into one barrel with those who do not believe in climate change. This is incorrect. See BraveNewClimate Secondly, even if every pro-nuclear advocate denied man-made climate change, it should have NO bearing at all on which non carbon producing electrical generation technology you or I should prefer.

    What I can't seem to get across to solar power fanatics such as yourself is that renewable power cannot and will not replace all the fossil fuel generating plants. Not in our lifetime, anyway. The energy storage capability just is not there. Without nuclear, fossil fuel usage will continue into the foreseeable future. So, you are actually part of the problem, Ken.

    You remind me of certain evangelical religious folks who think it doesn't matter what people do, only what they believe. As long as they believe, they will be saved. Well, no Ken. We won't be saved by believing the right thing, only by doing the right thing.
    The Finger Prince likes this.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I am pro-nuclear and I firmly believe in climate change.

    Australia is a weird irony. It exports uranium and refuses to use it. It pumps coal exhaust out by the billions of tonnes, and poisons its air and its people, but refuses to accept that nuclear might be 'safe' enough to use. Not good!
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    I don't know where you stand but believe me Harold, climate science denial seriously undermines credibility, whatever the position on nuclear. The proportions around here that hold that view may not be representative but I'd distance myself if you don't want yours to suffer by association. That kind of irrationality, that confidently presumes to know the subject better than, say, the investigative committees of the US National Academy of Sciences as well as the leading practitioners inevitably undermines credibility in other subject areas.

    I don't know what the individual positions here are - but does yours include any actual ways to overcome the opposition to nuclear that doesn't involve allowing the fossil fuel juggernaut to keep on going and growing unchecked in the meantime? Will you support carbon pricing independent of nuclear being an immediate and direct beneficiary of such policies in in the hope of getting there in the end? Will your democratic right to vote reflect the urgency of the warnings of leading climate scientists of the need to end growth of emissions pretty much immediately? If you were an Australian voter would you vote to keep the Clean Energy Futures legislation that imposes a modest carbon price of $23/ton on the top 500 Australian emitters despite it including subsidies to renewables or would you vote to repeal it? Is the problem serious enough that you could accept a cost impost on your lifestyle or support less than ideal policies or make compromises, political and personal, to prevent extreme climate change?

    A roundabout way of asking if you really accept it's as serious mainstream science says it is or if you think the problem is real but overstated in seriousness and urgency - sorry, but lots of people say they accept it but actually don't.

    I would also note that nuclear is not on offer by any political party of any consequence in Australia - without steep carbon pricing and the end of irrational opposition to action on climate, the 'irrational' opposition to nuclear will remain the mainstream position and it will continue to not be on offer. Sometimes the easiest route involves backing up and going around. Naive if you imagine holding out for nuclear without compromise and blaming the left for it being off the agenda is the way to go. When it comes to irrationality the Right have a track record of it over climate and energy; get the Right out of it's self inflicted delusions about it and a modicum of bipartisanship can put nuclear on the agenda.

    Without strong acceptance of the seriousness of the climate/emissions problem nuclear won't be built in Australia.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; November 17th, 2011 at 05:29 AM.
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Ken, I don't really care what you think of my credibility, of the credibility of anybody with whom I may be associated. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I would hope you independently verify any factual information that is presented by me or anybody else participating in the discussion. This is how science works.

    Do you give extra credibility to environmental activists just because they believe in climate change legislation? If you do that, you are setting yourself up to be fooled. So, don't believe them either, but verify the facts instead.
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    These charts illustrate why nuclear has an advantage over the unreliables like wind or solar. The first chart shows the sum of four major utilities' wind generation, for all of Germany over the month of January 2009. The second shows the sum of the nuclear power plants in US NRC Region 1 in the same time period. The third shows nuclear electricity generation in Region 1 during 2009, with a superimposed curve showing total US electrical usage. The nuclear power plant outages are scheduled during spring and fall, to coincide with lowest demand.

    Put yourself in the place of the utility dispatcher who has to supply power to the grid according to the demand.



     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    As long as the political left insists upon renewables to the exclusion of nuclear, there will not be a low carbon source of base load power. This means more fossil fuels burned.

    And that's the point of this thread. Two non-carbon camps need to figure out how to cooperate against their common enemy. Accusing the other camp of depriving our own camp of money is not constructive.

    Either a clear basis of agreement must be found, or the two options must accept a split victory, or coal will win.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If somebody dies installing a solar panel on their roof, that is a death that would not have occurred if they were getting their power from some other source. It is "intellectually dishonest" to suggest otherwise.

    Nuclear power utilities, at least in the US, pay for disposal and decommissioning by way of disposal fees and decommissioning funds mandated by law. Can you say the same for disposal of used solar panels?

    Edit: Inow, are you confusing dollars per watt with dollars per kilowatt-hour?
    There are two issues with this

    1) - Only voluntary participants are affected.
    This is a bogus distinction. Having power in your home from one source or another is not optional. Well, I suppose it is, but then you have to account for the risk of having no electricity, like freezing to death, etc.
    Yes, but individuals get to choose solar as individuals. Nuclear is something we have to choose as a group by vote or some similar means, and those in dissent are still bound by the decision of the majority.

    So far it seems only those individuals who choose to put solar panels on their own roof are getting hurt by the decision. Those in dissent to the decision are free of the liabilities.


    2) - You have to show that the overall death rate of people doing home improvement work has been impacted.
    That's easy. Somebody climbing on the roof obviously has a greater risk than somebody not climbing on the roof.
    A person wreckless enough to go on their own roof and do such a project without the correct gear or training is an accident waiting to happen, one which might have simply waited another week or month (perhaps until Christmas season so they could die doing Christmas lights). It's like if a person who's genetically predisposed to get cancer gets cancer after a nuclear accident. Looking at the overall cancer statistics would help to screen that person out.
    A person reckless enough to bypass a nuclear power safety system is obviously an accident waiting to happen. Therefore, can I say that Chernobyl does not count?
    I wouldn't count Chernobyl if the idiot who bypassed the safety system had been the only one harmed, no.

    There are lots of things in life that can get an idiot killed. Drowning in the ocean, for example. Shall we outlaw beaches? However, if by one person visiting the beach another person might be killed, I would definitely say we should outlaw them. That is the basis for all modern legal systems. It's illegal to harm others. It's usually not illegal to harm yourself. (Admitting there are some exceptions, like laws against suicide.. which many object to.)
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Yes, but individuals get to choose solar as individuals. Nuclear is something we have to choose as a group by vote or some similar means, and those in dissent are still bound by the decision of the majority.

    So far it seems only those individuals who choose to put solar panels on their own roof are getting hurt by the decision. Those in dissent to the decision are free of the liabilities.
    People who pass laws which outlaw or restrict the safest forms of power generation are responsible for the deaths which are caused by the use of riskier forms of power generation.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Skeptic, Australia's political system is highly supportive of mining for export. Mining is big money in government coffers and we are experiencing an unprecedented boom that barely noticed the GFC. Introduction of carbon pricing got through parliament only due to political wranglings to form a government after a tied election - and it took the big miners unprepared. A deal with The Greens, yes but, it was conservative independents who took it across the line. The scale of campaigning and the amount of misinformation employed by the mining sector was breathtaking - and if they have their way, (and they generally do), they will ensure the current government will lose the next election and the scheme will be denigrated, dismantled, compromised and sabotaged. Denial of the climate problem is purely a business decision on their part that has nothing to do with the quality of climate science or how serious or how irrevocable the consequences will be - but they are completely sincere in that position! That Australia's mining boom and consequent high exchange rate is bleeding the rest of the economy is also not a problem for them - it makes coal and gas and iron ore and uranium even more profitable.

    Harold, I know that Barry Brooks at bravenewclimate is sincere in his advocacy of emissions reductions and of nuclear to do it, but I believe he also has given a degree of grudging support to Australia's carbon pricing package. I haven't looked in there much lately but I'm sure he'd much prefer direct support for a direct to nuclear response yet knows that's politically and practically impossible in Australia. That position doesn't reflect the views of the majority of fellow advocates at his site, at least when I last looked; others, including some that state climate as the reason to promote nuclear support continuing global growth via growth of use of fossil fuels and low energy prices until the body politic 'comes to it's senses' - ie agrees with them.

    Would you believe the current opposition (the Right) in Australia, that has clearly signalled that it's opposed to CO2 being regulated, would interpret votes for them (to oppose the current Clean Energy/carbon pricing package) as support for nuclear? They won't. Yet, strip away their delusions about climate science being a left green beat-upand end their loyal support for fossil fuel based businesses and you will find a political backer for nuclear. Without climate as their motivation, they will not support nuclear in Australia. Without it they also will not be active in pushing for international action or agreements on emissions either and will likely work to undermine, dilute, compromise and otherwise sabotage such efforts. I fear that if that position doesn't change Australia will end up as a Pariah state as consequence as climate change plays out.

    So, Harold, care to say whether you think the climate problem is a serious and urgent imperative? Or real but not so serious or that urgent? Or a green-left beat up? I notice you point to other proponents of nuclear as examples of them taking climate seriously but you didn't say you were one of them.

    Kojax, the key to this is the collapse of organised climate change denial advocacy and it's support by mainstream political parties along with a renewal of trust and respect for our scientists and scientific institutions. The unreasoning anti-nuclear machine, in the same way, will never be a match for a bipartisan approach that looks to those institutions first. In Australia, climate change denial has mainstream support because a mainstream political party of long standing has given it their approval and advocacy. The artificial division of left/climate problem/no nuclear and right/no climate problem/nuclear if there's a climate problem arose out of the choices of political organisations to position themselves strategically when climate made its way into the political realm. The green-left, no surprise, didn't hesitate to claim the climate problem as theirs but the anti-regulation right made a huge miscalculation by going along with framing the climate problem as green-left - but as green-left exaggeration and hype - in an attempt to marginalise the green-left influence. Doing so ultimately led to them turning against the respected and fundamental and conservative institutions of science in order to firm up the grounds on which that strategy was based. And, ironically, helped The Greens to grow into a political party that can't be dismissed and ignored. They may really have genuinely expected the scientific case for endangerment from warming the planet to collapse but their ideology clearly struggles to reconcile their anti-regulation fundamentals with a global environmental problem like this . When the scientific case firmed rather than collapsed that should have been the point where the strategy was rethought but they chose to extend and strengthen their support for campaigns attacking the science and scientists to shore up their failing attacks on the green-left.

    The Left has many failings, including a lot of unreasoning opposition to nuclear but in this case the most egregious errors of judgement have been from the Right. When the Right drops it's BS position that climate science is wrong then and only then will effective policies begin to emerge and have real prospects of being carried.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; November 17th, 2011 at 05:51 PM.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    My country also suffers from the insane position that nuclear is too risky. This is an impression created by political groups, including Greenpeace and the Greens political party. It is not based on data, but on emotional fearmongering. There are times I am ashamed of my own people, because of their overwhelmingly irrational attitude to nuclear power.

    The weird thing is that Greenpeace and the Greens also are rabidly anti-climate change and push for dramatic measures to reduce carbon emissions. They overlook the fact that nuclear power is one of the most potent measures for reducing the rate of climate change. New Zealand needs a new power station to cope with the projected increased energy demands of the next few decades. It would be relatively simple to build a nuclear power station somewhere near Auckland (on the shores of either Kaipara or Manukau Harbours) and supply our biggest power users. Instead, we will be burning a lot more coal or natural gas. Not a very rational approach for a country that claims to be environmentally responsible!

    I am fairly sure that humanity will eventually overcome climate change, but the current signs are that the full solution will be so delayed that major problems will occur first. I suspect that, over the next 100 years, coastal cities will be either building massive dykes to keep the sea out, or abandoning buildings near the sea, and building further inland. Either way represents a massive $$$ cost.
     

  77. #76  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post

    Kojax, the key to this is the collapse of organised climate change denial advocacy and it's support by mainstream political parties along with a renewal of trust and respect for our scientists and scientific institutions. The unreasoning anti-nuclear machine, in the same way, will never be a match for a bipartisan approach that looks to those institutions first. I
    The problem is you've got to make two sales at once.

    #1- Overcome the optimism of climate change denial in a world that's facing a long recession.

    #2 - Convince people nuclear is safe, when the average person doesn't even realize you can't create nuclear explosions using low enriched uranium. They watch "Terminator" movies, where all the hero has to do is shoot the robot's nuclear power cell with a bullet, and the whole country side explodes. It's going to be an uphill fight.

    Solar/Wind only has to overcome #1.

    In Australia, climate change denial has mainstream support because a mainstream political party of long standing has given it their approval and advocacy. The artificial division of left/climate problem/no nuclear and right/no climate problem/nuclear if there's a climate problem arose out of the choices of political organisations to position themselves strategically when climate made its way into the political realm. The green-left, no surprise, didn't hesitate to claim the climate problem as theirs but the anti-regulation right made a huge miscalculation by going along with framing the climate problem as green-left - but as green-left exaggeration and hype - in an attempt to marginalise the green-left influence. Doing so ultimately led to them turning against the respected and fundamental and conservative institutions of science in order to firm up the grounds on which that strategy was based. And, ironically, helped The Greens to grow into a political party that can't be dismissed and ignored. They may really have genuinely expected the scientific case for endangerment from warming the planet to collapse but their ideology clearly struggles to reconcile their anti-regulation fundamentals with a global environmental problem like this . When the scientific case firmed rather than collapsed that should have been the point where the strategy was rethought but they chose to extend and strengthen their support for campaigns attacking the science and scientists to shore up their failing attacks on the green-left.
    The worst part is, after it blew up in their faces, the right just plain started attacking the academic community at large, trying to convince people to forgo listening to scientists in general about all topics, and just read their bibles. Hopefully the newly expanded war will be too much for them, and they'll have to reset. Conservatism itself can't (and shouldn't) die, but the current direction of some of its movements is probably beyond saving.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Ken, I don't really care what you think of my credibility, of the credibility of anybody with whom I may be associated. I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I would hope you independently verify any factual information that is presented by me or anybody else participating in the discussion. This is how science works.

    Do you give extra credibility to environmental activists just because they believe in climate change legislation? If you do that, you are setting yourself up to be fooled. So, don't believe them either, but verify the facts instead.
    AGW is an unrelated topic, but nuclear DOES NOT produce excessive amounts of the DREADED CARBON DIOXIDE, so believers in this dubious hypothesis, to be consistent, should endorse the source most heartily.

    Shibboleth - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Regarding education of nuclear plant operators, Prince sees this as a plus. As a society we should have MORE educated, better informed populace for multiple reasons, maybe they would elect better candidates for sounder reasons, examine more critically various policies, and stop watching so much goddam television.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Skeptic, I think the influence and impact of Greenpeace and others is overstated. I think even they imagine their influence is greater than it is. You are wrong that they are why nuclear is not on the agenda in NZ or Australia. They have been allowed to run their course on nuclear largely unchallenged because the electricity industry, inextricably linked to coal and coal mining, prefers coal. When push comes to shove it will reveal itself to be a true and implacable enemy of nuclear. As they have been all along IMO. Coal mining here is booming, and is making record profits and appears to have no problem with nuclear, but seriously, they will not go along with a nuclear program intended to put them out of business, not even if Greenpeace gave it the nod.

    The green-left can be marginalised in a moment if the Right drops it's denial of climate - and could have been 2 decades ago had mainstream science on climate been accepted by them and acted upon. It's absolutely essential that they do so because the problem, far from going away, is being made ever worse. When the Right drops the BS climate denial campaign the whole situation changes. It will lay the groundwork for acceptance of nuclear and puts it onto the table. It will also, because a straight reading of what's likely under unchecked climate change is alarming, increase the depth of concern heighten concern and alarm. Greater acceptance of nuclear will be one outcome, but also greater tolerance for less than perfect solutions. Renewable will have a head start, with strong public support and subsidies as well, because, sorry pro-nukers, that's the political reality.

    Renewables will have their day to prove their value. Or not. That I think renewables can and will make make creditable contributions of useful energy in a nation like Australia is irrelevant; I truly cannot see a more direct road to nuclear than the Right abandoning climate change denial and opposition to strong regulation on emissions.

    What I foresee is that the pro-nuclear people who deny or underestimate climate change will strongly oppose going down that route - being themselves that part of the Right that is opposed to regulation of emissions. Harold is wrong that the position on climate is irrelevant to support for policies leading to adoption of nuclear or that it's the green-left anti-nuclear thing that's the stumbling block. As long as the middle ground is divided they will appear to be much more influential than they really are. Those that take the advice of bodies like IPCC, NAS or Royal Society as the most likely truth will have climate as strong and urgent motivation and will - might - compromise, knowing that the seeds for nuclear will get sown into fertile ground. The pro nuclear folk who don't have climate as motivation will not be sufficiently motivated to compromise and will continue to give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry. They have no direct way to get to where they want to go but will refuse the indirect route. Because, without climate as motivation they lack sufficient sufficient motivation.

    The green left aren't the stumbling block, the climate denial right are. Without climate as motivation there will not be nuclear in Australia.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Ken

    I suspect that you are right in the requirement for a change in global warming appreciation by the Australian public and government.

    I doubt that the coal mining lobby will be able to stop nuclear power, though, if the first condition is met. After the Surgeon General's report on smoking and health in the USA in 1964, in spite of the heavy tactics used by the tobacco industry, smoking dropped as a percentage of the American population from 40% to 23% today. The coal lobby would, no doubt, do what it could to stop nuclear power, but would lose.
     

  82. #81  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    for Solar to become cost effective, it's going to have to be done on a large scale instead of a small scale.
    It is done on the scale of the Pacific Ocean, we just aren't using it. Solar energy evaporates water off that enormous surface, much of that is transported to the Pacific Northwest, where the formerly solar energy is channeled (I mean literally *streamed*) between mountains. We need only stick a turbine in the path, to get the cheapest electricity on Earth.

    I know that's little interest where your distance from this potential powerhouse means prohibitive transmission losses. But wait - fuel for internal combustion engines need not be gasoline shipped from Kuwait. It may be liquified hydrogen shipped around the world from BC and Alaska. This is how we'll export our energy without transmission loss.

    The scheme should work so long as people drive cars.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    for Solar to become cost effective, it's going to have to be done on a large scale instead of a small scale.
    It is done on the scale of the Pacific Ocean, we just aren't using it. Solar energy evaporates water off that enormous surface, much of that is transported to the Pacific Northwest, where the formerly solar energy is channeled (I mean literally *streamed*) between mountains. We need only stick a turbine in the path, to get the cheapest electricity on Earth.

    I know that's little interest where your distance from this potential powerhouse means prohibitive transmission losses. But wait - fuel for internal combustion engines need not be gasoline shipped from Kuwait. It may be liquified hydrogen shipped around the world from BC and Alaska. This is how we'll export our energy without transmission loss.

    The scheme should work so long as people drive cars.
    Wind simply isn't as reliable as solar. I see solar as a very good way of harnessing energy in the future, when it is more affordable. If we only place rooftop production on homes, it will dramatically decrease the dependance of other energy options. We can also do large scale in the deserts. I say forget wind. It is ugly, unreliable, and more dangerous.
     

  84. #83  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    I didn't mean wind. I mean the naturally focused *streams* of energy on Earth's surface.

    EDIT: And to be very clear, people anywhere may get this because it'll be converted to hydrogen fuel and shipped. You don't need an inefficient local solution. Chile and British Columbia may practically monopolize this next and ultimate generation of gas... forever. The USA may come onboard because the Alaskan Panhandle also has energy streams.
    Last edited by Pong; November 19th, 2011 at 05:14 AM.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    Kojax, Skeptic and others - I see nuclear as an inevitability in the struggle to limit dangerous climate change but without that motivation it would not get my support; why would it from someone in a nation that practically floats on top of layers of coal? Enough here to add several degrees to the globe I should think. Most of it needs to stay in the ground for the sake of our future. I have my misgivings about nuclear but climate change with no serious attempt to restrain emissions truly terrifies me.

    The essential issue and primary motivation for me is climate not nuclear power and my support - well, tolerance - for nuclear as an important part of the solution is a compromise I'm prepared to make because the issue is too important not to. Will I be at the forefront of pro-nuclear campaigning? No, but if and when the Right takes the problem seriously and that leads to nuclear making it onto the table in Australia I won't be campaigning against. An automatic vote winner? No, because the Right here has as colourful a history of irrationality (besides climate), screw ups, crony-ism, rent-seeking, making promises they have no intention of keeping... more than equal to the Green-Left's - but they have been doing politics a lot longer!

    Without the Right giving up supporting climate science denial nuclear will not be built in Australia.
    Without climate as motivation, nuclear will not be built in Australia.
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    for Solar to become cost effective, it's going to have to be done on a large scale instead of a small scale.
    It is done on the scale of the Pacific Ocean, we just aren't using it. Solar energy evaporates water off that enormous surface, much of that is transported to the Pacific Northwest, where the formerly solar energy is channeled (I mean literally *streamed*) between mountains. We need only stick a turbine in the path, to get the cheapest electricity on Earth.

    I know that's little interest where your distance from this potential powerhouse means prohibitive transmission losses. But wait - fuel for internal combustion engines need not be gasoline shipped from Kuwait. It may be liquified hydrogen shipped around the world from BC and Alaska. This is how we'll export our energy without transmission loss.

    The scheme should work so long as people drive cars.
    Prince is a little unclear about the finer points of plan- do you mean that there are untapped hydropower reserves or what? These energy "streams" or whatever the fuck they are.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    Kojax, Skeptic and others - I see nuclear as an inevitability in the struggle to limit dangerous climate change but without that motivation it would not get my support; why would it from someone in a nation that practically floats on top of layers of coal? Enough here to add several degrees to the globe I should think. Most of it needs to stay in the ground for the sake of our future. I have my misgivings about nuclear but climate change with no serious attempt to restrain emissions truly terrifies me.

    The essential issue and primary motivation for me is climate not nuclear power and my support - well, tolerance - for nuclear as an important part of the solution is a compromise I'm prepared to make because the issue is too important not to. Will I be at the forefront of pro-nuclear campaigning? No, but if and when the Right takes the problem seriously and that leads to nuclear making it onto the table in Australia I won't be campaigning against. An automatic vote winner? No, because the Right here has as colourful a history of irrationality (besides climate), screw ups, crony-ism, rent-seeking, making promises they have no intention of keeping... more than equal to the Green-Left's - but they have been doing politics a lot longer!

    Without the Right giving up supporting climate science denial nuclear will not be built in Australia.
    Without climate as motivation, nuclear will not be built in Australia.
    Your position linking "climate science denial" and "nuclear" is profoundly illogical. Burning coal when nuclear power is available is similarly illogical. Coal produces pollution by mercury, arsenic, sulfur, and other elements, including radioactive ones. In fact, modern environmental movement began in Old Blighty in 1952 after a killer coal-smog. Does Australia mine and export uranium? Yes. Does Australia use said uranium for domestic benefit? No.

    Illogical.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Ken is an advocate for the unreliables (aka renewables). He knows that the only way to get the unreliables built is by climate change legislation. He hates both nuclear and coal, but he hates coal a little bit more. Therefore he is willing to drop his opposition to nuclear, or tone it down a little anyway, if only the pro-nuke people go along with his climate legislation. If not, he will continue to oppose nuclear, like a dog in the manger.
    The Finger Prince likes this.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    A roundabout way of asking if you really accept it's as serious mainstream science says it is or if you think the problem is real but overstated in seriousness and urgency - sorry, but lots of people say they accept it but actually don't.
    So, only the most hysterical alarmists have any credibility? Regardless of the EVIDENCE?

    Sounds like a CULT, o True Believer. GO THOU AND PROSELYTIZE!!!

    And great summary, Harold.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    This is all about climate. That FP and Harold fail to see that the fossil fuel lobby, not the anti-nuclear left, are the impediment to takeup of nuclear is no surprise and they predictably oppose any roundabout route to nuclear - because they don't have sufficient motivation. They fail to see that the Right's irrational support for climate denial is in any way culpable, and that, at it's foundations, the Right's climate denial is a declaration of support for fossil fuel interests not nuclear.

    The fossil fuel guys pointed and called out 'Look over there! Dangerous and irrational greenies!" whilst stabbing nuclear in the back. Jooked em that easy. FP and Harold, you are still looking over there. Not killed, but bleeding badly which is okay with them; they can tolerate some nuclear. I suggest you watch your backs because the irrational Right is much more fossil fuel's ally than nuclear's and until and unless they drop the disbelief in the climate problem it will stay that way.

    Harold, FP, you really think it's the green-left (and me) that are irrational? You can't even convince the Right to drop their support for fossil fuels over nuclear, so why would you imagine your arguments would persuade the green-left? The Right won't accept the scientific advice of the US leading science advisory body, the National Academy of Sciences! That is not rational and it's a far worse and damaging kind of irrationality than the green-left's.

    The mistakes of the green-left over nuclear can only be relatively shortlived but the consequences of unrestrained emissions growth will be permanent and irreversible. Their position does have a consistent logic that the Right's position, and yours, lacks, that the excesses of consumption and need for continuous growth that we of the wealthy West take to be a right is inconsistent with a finite world and that there are costs and consequences that can and are worth some sacrifices to avoid. The fossil fuel interests need to be put on notice now, through carbon pricing. The preferential flow of support to renewables that goes with it in the current climate is not sufficient reason IMO to oppose carbon pricing. For the developing world (mostly tropical) solar is still the most immediate deliverer of power for lighting communications and small powered devices where the fossil fuel powered grid hasn't reached and it's a significant step up for the recipients even with less than adequate storage. Nuclear will still be decades away for them and, given the climate problem, entrenching more new fossil fuel infrastructure with 50 plus years of working life is dangerously irresponsible.

    Drop the irrational position on climate and growth of nuclear will be inevitable.

    And in all this debate I have not heard Harold, FP or others describe a realistic and achievable route to reach their claimed aim that doesn't give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry. Or that could reach that aim at all! Greenies' fault? No, it's the irrational Right's fault!

    Kojax - people like FP and Harold will not recognise fossil fuel interests as the true enemy of nuclear or that denial of the climate problem is a manifestation of the Right's support for those interests - and those choices have nothing to do with the theoretical weighing up of advantages and disadvantages of wind, solar and nuclear. For the foreseeable future wind and solar will be the winners and nuclear will continue to bleed. Fossil fuels will continue to grow as long as the Right opposes carbon pricing and chooses doubt, deny and delay as their climate policy.
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Good summary, Ken.
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Nice way to duck the observation that this trend is much older than Fox news. We see it in Massachusetts, where coastal folks rejected the installation of wind power far off their homes because they might see it on clear days and considered it unsightly.
    In another non-Fox News watching area, near Seattle, where I now live, there's considerable resistance to renewables. Most housing communities would reject solar, wind, or effecient house design--too high, too small, too "ugly," too "unconventional" compared to their stick and frame energy pig-for-homes.
    It's true there is some resistance, but I think it's much more address-able. If a few key celebrities start showing off their solar/wind power like it's stylish or something, the various flocks of fan-sheep that follow them around will find it to be all the rage pretty quickly. It's just not been stylish in the past.

    NBY has problems that go far beyond aesthetic objections.
    Friend kojax, is true that certain celebrities have already clasped solar energy to figurative bosom, such as Ed Begley Jr. and Clint Eastwood.

    Ed Begley Jr. Flips Out On Fox: Climate Change Is Real (VIDEO)

    As for aesthetic objections they are being addressed. If only problem of puny, unreliable output were as easy to solve! Nevertheless:

    http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_inte...lass_Sheet.pdf
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    This is all about climate. That FP and Harold fail to see that the fossil fuel lobby, not the anti-nuclear left, are the impediment to takeup of nuclear is no surprise and they predictably oppose any roundabout route to nuclear - because they don't have sufficient motivation. They fail to see that the Right's irrational support for climate denial is in any way culpable, and that, at it's foundations, the Right's climate denial is a declaration of support for fossil fuel interests not nuclear.

    The fossil fuel guys pointed and called out 'Look over there! Dangerous and irrational greenies!" whilst stabbing nuclear in the back. Jooked em that easy. FP and Harold, you are still looking over there. Not killed, but bleeding badly which is okay with them; they can tolerate some nuclear. I suggest you watch your backs because the irrational Right is much more fossil fuel's ally than nuclear's and until and unless they drop the disbelief in the climate problem it will stay that way.

    Harold, FP, you really think it's the green-left (and me) that are irrational? You can't even convince the Right to drop their support for fossil fuels over nuclear, so why would you imagine your arguments would persuade the green-left? The Right won't accept the scientific advice of the US leading science advisory body, the National Academy of Sciences! That is not rational and it's a far worse and damaging kind of irrationality than the green-left's.

    The mistakes of the green-left over nuclear can only be relatively shortlived but the consequences of unrestrained emissions growth will be permanent and irreversible. Their position does have a consistent logic that the Right's position, and yours, lacks, that the excesses of consumption and need for continuous growth that we of the wealthy West take to be a right is inconsistent with a finite world and that there are costs and consequences that can and are worth some sacrifices to avoid. The fossil fuel interests need to be put on notice now, through carbon pricing. The preferential flow of support to renewables that goes with it in the current climate is not sufficient reason IMO to oppose carbon pricing. For the developing world (mostly tropical) solar is still the most immediate deliverer of power for lighting communications and small powered devices where the fossil fuel powered grid hasn't reached and it's a significant step up for the recipients even with less than adequate storage. Nuclear will still be decades away for them and, given the climate problem, entrenching more new fossil fuel infrastructure with 50 plus years of working life is dangerously irresponsible.

    Drop the irrational position on climate and growth of nuclear will be inevitable.

    And in all this debate I have not heard Harold, FP or others describe a realistic and achievable route to reach their claimed aim that doesn't give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry. Or that could reach that aim at all! Greenies' fault? No, it's the irrational Right's fault!

    Kojax - people like FP and Harold will not recognise fossil fuel interests as the true enemy of nuclear or that denial of the climate problem is a manifestation of the Right's support for those interests - and those choices have nothing to do with the theoretical weighing up of advantages and disadvantages of wind, solar and nuclear. For the foreseeable future wind and solar will be the winners and nuclear will continue to bleed. Fossil fuels will continue to grow as long as the Right opposes carbon pricing and chooses doubt, deny and delay as their climate policy.
    Once again inaccurate, Ken Fabos, Prince is aware that coal interests are opposed to nuclear, while seemingly unconcerned about solar being realistic rival. Why? Perhaps they have done homework better than you and iceaura. The advantages of nuclear power are such that the issue of CO2 emissions is TRIVIAL, as are human produced volumes of CO2 and the atmospheric role of CO2 upon climate from all sources- water vapor is a more potent and abundant "greenhouse gas" about which you lot care little, hmmmm, what is up with that?

    CARBON DIOXIDE VS. WATER VAPOR AS GREENHOUSE GASES

    http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/...tervapour.html

    Such is Prince's hypothesis.

    If you wish to argue about supposed merits of AGW hypothesis, please do so on another thread, as there are an amplitude of same here on TSF.

    Allow Prince to submit Exhibit A refuting your charge against him:

    Smoking Gun Part 16 – Leader of British National Union Of Miners Demands CCS and Nuclear Shutdown | Atomic Insights

    http://atomicinsights.com/2007/07/sm...ob-threat.html
    Last edited by The Finger Prince; November 20th, 2011 at 12:34 AM.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    For Exhibit B, see posts #13 and 14 on "coal vs matter" thread. Coal contains a number of contaminants, heavy metals and sulfur to varying degrees. Mercifully these are absent from natural gas for the most part. All fossil fuels are not created equal, and neither are arguments. Yours need work, Ken Fabos. They are long on dogma and short on FACTS. This is SCIENCE forum, so EVIDENCE is what counts here.

    If you want to be Al Gore, position is already taken.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    If I'm understanding Ken correctly, that link you provided completely supports his position. Nuclear power is the only viable threat to the fossil fuel industry (oil, gas & coal), because, at present, it's the only viable alternative to base loading the grid.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    Good summary, Ken.
    Except that charges of "irrationality" lack originality as well as foundation. Other than that, rant is perfect.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    If I'm understanding Ken correctly, that link you provided completely supports his position. Nuclear power is the only viable threat to the fossil fuel industry (oil, gas & coal), because, at present, it's the only viable alternative to base loading the grid.
    They are rivals, it is true. What, you want Prince to LIE and say solar and wind are realistic alternative? Hardly the "aid and comfort" to fossil fuel industry alleged by Ken Fabos.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  98. #97  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    Regarding education of nuclear plant operators, Prince sees this as a plus. As a society we should have MORE educated, better informed populace for multiple reasons, maybe they would elect better candidates for sounder reasons, examine more critically various policies, and stop watching so much goddam television.
    Odds are, we'd end up with the same number of qualified people, but have to pay them a much higher salary due to the increased demand for their services. (So the price of nuclear might go up a bit.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    What I foresee is that the pro-nuclear people who deny or underestimate climate change will strongly oppose going down that route - being themselves that part of the Right that is opposed to regulation of emissions. Harold is wrong that the position on climate is irrelevant to support for policies leading to adoption of nuclear or that it's the green-left anti-nuclear thing that's the stumbling block. As long as the middle ground is divided they will appear to be much more influential than they really are. Those that take the advice of bodies like IPCC, NAS or Royal Society as the most likely truth will have climate as strong and urgent motivation and will - might - compromise, knowing that the seeds for nuclear will get sown into fertile ground. The pro nuclear folk who don't have climate as motivation will not be sufficiently motivated to compromise and will continue to give aid and comfort to the fossil fuel industry. They have no direct way to get to where they want to go but will refuse the indirect route. Because, without climate as motivation they lack sufficient sufficient motivation.

    I don't think it's constructive to accuse pro-nuclear folk of being part of the right. We have to get beyond the idea that anyone who doesn't favor our particular path to zero-emissions is unenvironmental or something. Everyone opposed to coal and natural gas is going to need to unite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    for Solar to become cost effective, it's going to have to be done on a large scale instead of a small scale.
    It is done on the scale of the Pacific Ocean, we just aren't using it. Solar energy evaporates water off that enormous surface, much of that is transported to the Pacific Northwest, where the formerly solar energy is channeled (I mean literally *streamed*) between mountains. We need only stick a turbine in the path, to get the cheapest electricity on Earth.


    I know that's little interest where your distance from this potential powerhouse means prohibitive transmission losses. But wait - fuel for internal combustion engines need not be gasoline shipped from Kuwait. It may be liquified hydrogen shipped around the world from BC and Alaska. This is how we'll export our energy without transmission loss.


    The scheme should work so long as people drive cars.
    It's good to have you back, Pong.

    There are other storage mediums beyond just Hydrogen. You can also make Ammonia from Nitrogen and Hydrogen together, which is a lot easier to transport. I'll quote Finger Prince for that.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince View Post
    http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/nuclear-ammonia-2011-sendrev.pdf


    Even if the rest is rubbish, it mentions the beloved LFTR so dear to Prince's heart!


    What?
    Also, if you can get a good source of pure CO2, then it's possible to convert the energy directly into Methane or Methanol. Methanol will burn in an ordinary combustion automobile with only minimal modification.

    You've mentioned these mountainous rivers in Canada before. Could you give any more information about them? Which part of Canada are they in?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    If more competent operators lead to safer production of power then investment is a good one, no? Of course, improvements in design should not be neglected by any means.

    Thanks to kojax and all participants for most enjoyable discussion, long life and good health to all.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it.- Thucydides
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    I think nuclear's proponents, whether accepting or otherwise of the climate problem, have the political Right most to blame for nuclear not being able to take advantage of the greatest opportunity the industry has ever had - climate change.

    Did the Right look to facts and logic on whether nuclear was better than coal in light of emerging science on climate? They did not. The Right chose instead to back fossil fuels all the way and are prepared to deny science based reality on fossil fuels behalf rather than go by things like hard facts and logic about good nuclear. What the Right did was more than turn it's back on nuclear, it betrayed nuclear.

    Why pro-nukers aren't furious at the decision of the political Right to deny the climate problem away on behalf of fossil fuels rather than turn to nuclear is a real question. The Right isn't even prepared to use the truth about climate to support nuclear let alone go in to bat like they have for fossil fuels and deny reality on it's behalf!

    The Right has used phony climate denial to kill your nuclear renaissance. Why aren't you mad as hell about that? Blame the green-left all you like but the simple truth is the Right chose fossil fuels over nuclear and dropped nuclear in the proverbial creek.

    How any of you here could seriously believe that it was a small bunch of extremist anti-nukers of the Left that put nuclear in the pit and not the pro-fossil fuels Right it's is an interesting question. Anyone care to take a stab, ha ha, at why this backstabbing betrayal of nuclear doesn't have nuclear proponents baying for blood?

    Kojax, why any pro-nuker would think it was constructive to be part of the Right is a real question. You are right that not everyone who is pro-nuclear is of or sympathetic to the political Right but I suggest that few see the Right for the backstabbing betrayers of nuclear that their climate position shows them to be.

    Bunbury, thanks. I really think the repetitions of the same old back and forth between pro-nuclear and pro-renewables positions are a waste of effort. How do we get there from here is what matters; 'there' being a still benign climate for our future and 'here' being the impasse the debate's devolved into. The support of climate science denial from within mainstream political parties Republicans in the USA, the Liberal/National Coalition in Australia, is why the problem looks so intractable but it's actually the key to breaking through the deadlock.

    The Right has stolen two decades from real efforts to avoid dangerous and irrevocable climate change but their position is irrational and the world's climate itself will have to be what breaks down the climate denial delusion if the Right fails to reposition itself on the issue. But it will be that change of mind by the Right that will open the way to real solutions. Everything changes the moment it does and the greatest impediments to action on emissions will crumble.
    Last edited by Ken Fabos; November 20th, 2011 at 06:37 AM. Reason: Clarity
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Bunbury, thanks. I really think the repetitions of the same old back and forth between pro-nuclear and pro-renewables positions are a waste of effort. How do we get there from here is what matters; 'there' being a still benign climate for our future and 'here' being the impasse the debate's devolved into.
    Agreed; but it may already be too late. If we were serious about maintaining a benign climate we should have acted twenty years ago. Now we can only hope to mitigate the worst of it and adapt, but of course there are billions who do not have the wherewithal to adapt and we will therefore fight wars.

    The support of climate science denial from within mainstream political parties Republicans in the USA, the Liberal/National Coalition in Australia, is why the problem looks so intractable but it's actually the key to breaking through the deadlock.
    It is really sad and depressing that the science of climate change and its relation to human activities cannot simply be treated as science. While the political right is perfectly entitled to put forth their ideology, they are woefully wrong in ignoring, distorting and lying about the established science in order to further that ideology. That is what sickens me. I could even buy into some of the conservative ideology (I once voted for Margaret Thatcher) but I will never buy into lying about science for political and financial gain, which is why I can never foresee voting again for a conservative candidate within my lifetime.

    The Right has stolen two decades from real efforts to avoid dangerous and irrevocable climate change but their position is irrational and the world's climate itself will have to be what breaks down the climate denial delusion if the Right fails to reposition itself on the issue. But it will be that change of mind by the Right that will open the way to real solutions. Everything changes the moment it does and the greatest impediments to action on emissions will crumble.
    There is no change of mind on the horizon. It is up to the electorate to wake up to the lies they are being fed and vote the bums out. This thread however, through its belligerent title, was deliberately set up as an unproductive argument thread with an inevitable descent into politics. Nothing of value has or will come of it. Instead of posting politics in a science thread perhaps we should be reading up on what the rest of the world is doing. Spain, for instance, ran half of its electric power demand, the equivalent of 11 nukes, on wind power for a short time in 2009. How can that be when it’s supposed to be impossible to integrate wind into the grid?
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Wind?
    By AlphaParticle in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 17th, 2011, 11:38 AM
  2. Solar wind questions
    By Olly in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 12th, 2010, 06:06 AM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 10:41 PM
  4. Wind turbines
    By Nevyn in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 4th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •