How To Make Electricity With Zero Risk Of That Nasty Radioactive Crap Escaping....

[Turborama]

(Click on image above for more details)

http://www.magenn.com/"> (<---Click on image for more info)

http://www.regenedyne.com/">
(Click on image above for video)

[Tx4obama]

1. +1000000000000000000000000000 n/t

[Control-Z]

7. X10 n/t

[daleanime]

2. What?

No life threatening byproducts?:evilgrin:











Huge K & R!:applause:

[glinda]

61. I think some bird catching but if sound is applied it would be okay.

[A HERETIC I AM]

3. Nope....sorry.

Dams inundate arable land and make it impossible for fish to travel upstream.

Tidal generators cut fish up as they travel to estuaries.

Wind turbines kill migratory and other birds that fly into them.

Any more bright ideas?






...



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Do I REALLY need the fucking sarcasm smiley?

[freshwest]

9. Only nukes are good...

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. No..the point is...

According to the reading I've done on this board over the years...


NOTHING is truly "good"

[jonthebru]

88. Well then,

You should turn off your computer and all lights, go outside and plant a garden for food, then get some sheep to make wool with. Then grow cotton for more clothes. Then cut down trees to burn to cook food and heat your abode. Then walk everywhere, that is everywhere. And then expect everyone else to do the same. Sorry to sound cynical, but nuclear up to now has been the most expensive but productive source of "clean" constant utility power. I feel we must do many different things as well as conserve use. The utilities job is to provide power to the consumer. The consumer must step up to the plate and demand cleaner reliable sources and expect to pay more. (Sometimes the wind don't blow and the sun don't shine.) I figure is an area had a variety of sources including constant ones like geothermal and every roof was covered with PV panels charging vehicles and clean powered mass transit was widely available and homes were built for energy conservation...
You get the gist of it. Then we may have a chance. And expect to pay more.
Not meaning to attack or argue. Where I live they are doubling a large wind plant but the wind stops sometimes for weeks on end so along with the new towers comes a new diesel plant as a standby... that constantly runs...
I like the solar plant that uses salt slurry to collects and stores heat that runs the generators at night, under a thousand acres would provide all the power for every home on Maui, where I live.

[Aaria]

107. The turbines need to compress air,

it has been shown to be the most efficient way to store energy. Then when the wind stops the stored air takes over.

[lbrtbell]

15. But nukes and coal don't harm nature AT ALL

Sarcasm smiley right back at ya.

Did you even SEE the diagram of the high-altitude wind turbine that's safe for birds and bats?

It'd be a hell of a lot easier for engineers to figure out how to keep fish safe, etc., than to deal with the nightmare we have right now.

If you're concerned about birds being killed by machines, keep in mind that they're frequently killed by airplanes.

And by Randy Johnson. :rofl:

[madokie]

22. and automobile windshields and grills

[kristopher]

50. Comparing the environmental consequences of nuclear v. renewables is like...

...comparing an amputation to a hangnail.

[NBachers]

70. Man, I want to live in the Metropolis world of high-altitude Zeppelin generators

Just don't let one of 'em get away . . .

[trud]

91. nukes vs. coal

Coal has killed thousands of people more than nuclear power has, but don't let that interfere with your thought processes.

[Turborama]

17. Are you being sarcastic? n/t

[skepticscott]

37. You forgot to mention

that drilling and injection for geothermal energy is known to trigger earthquakes. Ironically, you are right...nothing is 100% safe and without side effects. It's all a matter of weighing risks and benefits.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Tidal generators do not need to be in estuaries

Wind generators do not kill migratory birds on any scale remotely close to airplanes, which suck oil while doing so.

Or is your post meant to be sarcastic?

[Shallah Kali]

4. tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication

sorry couldn't resist :o

wave farm:

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. Why...OH WHY...won't you think of the fish?!?!

You are heartless.
That is the only conclusion

[diane in sf]

12. Yeah, the fish like that nice warm radioactive water that comes out of the nuke plants.

[A HERETIC I AM]

13. Radioactive water?

Yes. Of course. All water that exits a Nuke plant is radioactive.

This website is a never ending font of knowledge.

[LAGC]

16. Funny isn't it?

I've been here since the beginning (2001) and I've never seen so much scientific ignorance displayed on this site until the topic of nuclear power became an issue.

Still not sure how the "anti-nuke" position became a leftist rallying cry -- I mean, France is quite liberal and quite pro-nuke. They're not going to turn their backs on all their success in reducing their reliance on fossil fuels. Hopefully we don't either.

[Wilms]

18. The OP isn't about the use of fossil fuel. So what are you referring to?

"Liberals" and others have been concerned about the dangers inherent in nuclear fuel production, use, and long term storage for decades.

And what, specifically, is the "scientific ignorance displayed"? Have you not spent a lot of time on this forum? There have long been heated debates about risks/benefits of nuclear power. Why the finger wagging now?

[LAGC]

20. The ignorance being displayed is...

That we can somehow transition immediately to 100% renewable energy without expensive and time-consuming upgrades to our electrical grid, let alone storage (battery) capacity. Solar/wind/tidal all sound fine and good on paper, until you realize that you need to be able to pipe that energy clear across the country, and in the case of solar/wind STORE the energy for times when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

Don't get me wrong, the dominance of renewable energy is inevitable, just not practical yet. We should move in that direction, but nuclear is still much more cost-efficient when you need a reliable, sustainable, and considerable output that can be localized to the existing grid in each state. We're just not quite ready for large-scale renewables yet, without spending ALOT of money to make it viable. (The amount of money that could cure poverty in America.)

Because that's one thing the renewable folks never talk about, is the cost to consumers. The poor spend a big enough portion of their income on energy needs, we don't want to put more of a burden on them when cheaper intermediate means are available. One the true cost of wide-scale renewables comes down as manufacturing processes and storage mediums become more efficient, THEN we wean ourselves off nuclear. Not sooner.

[Turborama]

21. And nuclear is *the* quick, cheap and easy solution?

Nuclear power stations take on average 10 years to build, probably longer now after what has happened in Japan.

I'm sure you know how much they cost, right? Not cheap and probably a lot more expensive after what has happened in Japan. Here's a clue regarding how much the projected cost was in February last year...

Original message
Obama to announce financing for two nuclear reactors

Source: AFP

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will announce on Tuesday plans for the government to help finance the construction of two nuclear reactors -- the first in nearly 30 years, a top US official said.

Obama, who has advocated reducing foreign energy dependency and cutting back on greenhouse gases, will use a 2005 law that authorizes the Energy Department to guarantee loans to projects that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama "has long believed that nuclear power should be part of our energy mix," a senior administration told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The 18.5 billion dollars in existing loan guarantee authority will be used to help finance the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a Southern Company plant in Burke, Georgia.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4270354

As you can see in the tables below, most of the technologies I posted in the OP were already cheaper or roughly equal to the cost of "Advanced Nuclear" before the disaster in Japan and before they themselves had the title "Advanced" bestowed upon them...

[LAGC]

24. None of what you posted deals with transmission/storage costs.

Building tidal plants is great to offset coastal states' energy needs, but what about all those states inland? Not to mention the potential harm to sea-creatures and ocean habitat if deployed on a large scale.

The problem with solar/wind is they only work when the sun shines or the wind blows. But you're shit out of luck at night and on calm days. Our energy needs DEMAND that we have a steady stream of continuous power. Until you can figure out a way to cheaply store all that excess energy, you can't compete with the convenience of nuclear, I'm afraid.

[Marblehead]

25. my thought

store energy as compressed air instead of batteries, cheap, safe, unlimited energy storage. Also fly wheel technology.

[LAGC]

27. That's an interesting idea.

I've never heard of that before. I wonder how efficient the process would be though? How much loss might there be in converting the energy?

[Marblehead]

32. charge a battery or charge a tank

a large tank could be buried beneath a wind turbine and could be pressurized to thousands of lbs., that is a lot of energy.

[Schema Thing]

76. You never heard of that before? The poster didn't just dream those up.

Those are working technologies. The ignorance being displayed is....

[kristopher]

66. With or without renewables we are upgrading to a smart grid.

"Building new nuclear reactors would be the one of the most expensive and inefficient ways to power our economy. To construct 100 new nuclear plants in the United States would cost $1.9 TRILLION to $4.4 TRILLION more over the life of the 100 reactors than generating the same amount of electricity from efficiency and renewable measures."

Mark Cooper, The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, Vermont Law School, June 2009,
Download: http://www.vermontlaw.edu/it/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf

Or read online:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[Turborama]

71. You were mainly talking about the time and cost. Those tables are "Total system levelized cost"

U.S. Department of Energy estimates

The tables below list the estimated cost of electricity by source for plants entering service in 2016. No subsidies are included in the calculations. The tables are from a December 16, 2010 report of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Total System Levelized Cost (the rightmost column) gives the dollar cost per megawatt-hour that must be charged over time in order to pay for the total cost. Divide by 1000 to get the cost per kilowatt-hour (move the decimal point 3 places to the left).

Go here for the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Let's also include efficiency into the equation...

Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institute points out that in industrial settings, "there are abundant opportunities to save 70% to 90% of the energy and cost for lighting, fan, and pump systems; 50% for electric motors; and 60% in areas such as heating, cooling, office equipment, and appliances." In general, up to 75% of the electricity used in the U.S. today could be saved with efficiency measures that cost less than the electricity itself. The same holds true for home-owners, leaky ducts have remained an invisible energy culprit for years. In fact, researchers at the US Department of Energy and their consortium, Residential Energy Efficient Distribution Systems (REEDS) have found that duct efficiency may be as low as 50-70%. The US Department of Energy has stated that there is potential for energy saving in the magnitude of 90 Billion kWh by increasing home energy efficiency.

Go here for references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_energy_use#Overview

Also, regarding the potential location/harm/problems you bring up in the body of your post, of course I'm only proposing a sustainable/suitable/careful combination of all of the above renewable energy solutions in the OP.



Please see the answers below from other DUers for good suggestions/feedback about the transmission/storage thing.

[kristopher]

67. That isn't the half of it...

CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

Oh yes, the only projects underway are in places where the taxpayers are on the hook for 80% and the ratepayer re liable for 20%. With Construction Work In Progress laws in place in many of the Red State, they start charging during construction and ratepayers pay even if there is no electricity ever generated.

[Wilms]

26. I don't see anyone seriously claiming it would be quick, cheap or easy.

They argue that it's possible to begin, in earnest, to move in a better direction.

[LAGC]

28. And I agree.

Renewables are definitely going to be taking more and more of a dominant role in our energy needs.

I just don't see being able to rely exclusively on them until all the associated costs come down.

[Wilms]

29. Not so much the cost as some of the practical aspects of implementation.

Indeed, there are wrinkles to be ironed out. Storage a big one. As this transition (potentially) moves along, costs will come down. Meanwhile, costs for nuclear may well go up in light of the response we may well see to the current mess in Japan. It wouldn't surprise to see upgrades required at nuclear plants.

I also suspect the possibility that the TRUE cost of nuclear power might become more apparent to the public, especially the cost of decommissioning and cleanup of the accident in Japan.

[kristopher]

68. The most comprehensive analysis is by Severance

Here is a nice overview of the entire issue from Climate Progress, with a link to the paper by Severance in the text.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/14/nuclear-power-pause-affordable-safe-clean-electricity-plan/

PDF link below.

Severance
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

[liberation]

36. Cost is a subjective and illusory term. With little correlation with reality

Coal and oil would not be "cheap" if the producers had to pay the actual cost of energy production using those two sources: in terms of the externalities associated with coal and oil extraction, refinement, the cost in pollution once they are burned, etc. Never mind the actual cost in military expending required to secure cheap sources of oil.

Same can be applied to the nuclear industry, which would be prohibilitely expensive if nuclear producers had to pay the actual cost of the energy they produced: most nuclear research is paid by public funds, things like the Manhattan project which enabled the technology, most nuclear plants have to be financed and insured via public money/grants initially, and lets' not talk about the externalities in terms of costs induced by nuclear catastrophes, the maintenance required per hour of operation for most nuclear plants, the cost of mining, processing, and transporting nuclear fuel, and most importantly the costs and issues associated with the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

It is time to stop using monetary costs as gospel. Capital is a fairly subjective, one dimensional metric, with little correlation with reality. Just like the other kind of gospels ;-)

[Stumbler]

43. Ah, but you forget:

'Capital' and 'immediacy' are the only considerations our nation must use when formulating it's energy policies. Not energy conservation, nor long-term sustainability, pollution risks, threats from terrorism or any other hippy-tree-hugging "concern" that might arise in the liberal lame-stream media...

[Starboard Tack]

105. The costs are in direct proportion to the consumption

Our home is completely off the grid, as it is not attached to the land. All solar powered, PV for electricity and passive for water heating. Total cost about $2000. All the power we need to run 3 computers, flat screen TV, refrigeration and freezer.
We do use propane for cooking (about $5/month) and have emergency backup diesel generator for successive cloudy days (5-10 dollars a month on fuel).

[alfredo]

46. What has happened with the Thorium reactors, they still

in consideration/development?

[AlbertCat]

49. The ignorance being displayed is...

That we can somehow transition immediately to 100% renewable energy without expensive and time-consuming upgrades to our electrical grid,

**********

Who said that? I missed it.


Hey.... that might create some jobs...y'think?

[RoccoR5955]

65. You don't have to pipe that electricity all over the place,

if the source of generated energy is de-centralized, and created on many smaller "generators," locally. You don't need large scale plants, if everyone had a little bit of generating capacity in their back yard, rooftop, on the roof at work, etc. Scale the whole thing down, and make EVERYONE a producer as well as a consumer of energy, and there would be little need to upgrade the grid, with the exception of a smart metering system, which would be relatively easy to recoup the price of.

Nuclear is NOT cost effective, if you consider the cost of storing and/or reprocessing the waste.

There will also be an announcement whereby it will be cost effective to consider hydrolysis of water, into its component parts, and use the hydrogen for fuel cells. Hint- If you use wind or solar as the power source to perform this hydrolysis, it becomes cheaper and cheaper. Wait for it this summer.

[Jamastiene]

74. I once saw a story on TV years ago where

a family of four lived in a house with solar panels attached to batteries. On sunny days, they used whatever electricity they needed and whatever else was generated charged the batteries for night use. That was at least 10 years ago. There was no problem with line drop, because there was no great distance to be traveled between the roof of their house and the shed where the batteries were stored. A simple step up transformer and a step down transformer between the house and the shed would have solved that problem anyhow, if they had it.

I wish I could remember which show it was. I want to say it was either on Discovery Channel or PBS. I know that much because back when my family had 200 channels, I still only watched those two channels for the most part.

What kills me is that there is a dam about 100 yards from my house that isn't being used to produce electricity, because the mill it was originally built to power burned down and was never rebuilt way way back when. The one hydroelectric dam we do have in this county (that is in operation) produces just *almost* enough energy to power our entire county. It produces 22 Megawatts and according to Progress Energy, 1 Megawatt will power 730 homes. We have just over the 16060 homes (close to 18,800) in this county. Even if rural counties like mine made better use of what we have, county by county, in areas that do have the wherewithal to use hydro could go "off the grid" of the rest of the country and make our own power.

As far as powering larger cities, there are thousands of rooftops in large cities just sitting there doing nothing but collecting bird poop. The subways could be used to generate power as they move along the tracks. Sure, the bottom is used to go along the tracks, but the sides could be used to generate electricity by induction as they travel. Sure, turning them into a sort of perpetual motion machine is impossible, but they could generate some electricity to make up for what they use. Sure, some of these ideas sound crazy to most people, but what if just one of them turned out to be a good idea?

Until we do come up with a be all end all solution, we may just have to piece together a household by household solution where possible. Larger cities are the tricky part.

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

51. France support for nuclear powr is LOWER than the US....

Q: Should the current level of nuclear energy be decreased, maintained at the same level or increased?

In France the share of respondents surveyed who believe that the share of nuclear energy should be increased: 12
Special Eurobarometer 324, 2009


Q: Would you support or oppose building more nuclear power stations in the United States?
In the US similarly worded questions score at about 21%
-Angus Reid Public Opinion Mar 10, 2010

Please, tell us more about how the French experience has taught them to love nuclear.

[Wilms]

52. Add a link please.

It will help to make the point.

[kristopher]

54. I don't have links, but the cites are included.

My energy library has literally thousands of documents in it. These are PDFs that I'm sure can be tracked down. If I were using it often I'd dig out the links, but for a one off argument, if I don't have it I don't usually look for it.

[Wilms]

55. Whhhaaaat?

You have that unverified info in your head? Where did you get it?

[kristopher]

56. Reread my previous post - info added.

[Wilms]

59. What previous post?

You DO have a link for that. Right. :shrug:

Muckin' about really doesn't help.

[Turborama]

58. Could you do a screen shot of the PDF and upload it to a photo sharing site like image shack?

That's what I did for this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x677397

[kristopher]

62. Or you might google it...

Cite and search term: Special Eurobarometer 324, 2009

Result: http://www.google.com/search?q=Special+Eurobarometer+324%2C+2009&hl=en

[Turborama]

69. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate what you've posted.

But, with all due respect, if you don't have the time to do the screenshot thing, you could have added that link to go with it.

I Googled a selection of what you posted earlier and found this, BTW...

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=In+France+the+share+of+respondents+surveyed+who+believe+that+the+share+of+nuclear+energy+should+be+increased+&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

[RoccoR5955]

64. Please... I am quite versed in Science (MA in Geology) and am anti-nuke.

An old Physics professor of mine, is quite anti-nuclear. Perhaps you have heard of him. His name is Michio Kaku, who has a PhD in Theoretical Physics.

[AlbertCat]

48. tide goes in, tide goes out

Yeah.... but how?

And how'd the moon get there?

[Schema Thing]

77. no one knows

[Moostache]

85. Jeebus put it there...

and Angel tears of endless joy create the rains and the tides...

Any more questions smarty pants?

No, then please carry on...nothing to see here folks, please disperse.

[ClayZ]

6. Giant K and R

:woohoo:

[freshwest]

8. Beautiful and the technology is here now.

[Sherman A1]

11. K&R

[Turborama]

14. Oops, sorry. That Biowave image was supposed to be a live link to their site

Not sure what happened because I'm certain I double checked.

Anyway, here's the link for anyone who's interested in finding out more: http://www.biopowersystems.com/

[Kablooie]

19. What? You are saying nuclear energy is a good choice?

And I agree, as long as the nuclear energy source is as far away as the sun.

[madokie]

23. The way is not the problem and never was

it's the will that present the snafu.

I don't know much but one thing I do know for a fact is we don't need nuclear energy with all of its downfalls. Maybe in time they will develop fusion but I have my doubts about that even.

When I read about the nuclear power people I see in my mind's eye the crazy professor from back to the future. If you get my drift :-)

[girl gone mad]

34. Fusion..

One of my quantum professors was always really big on fusion, and he was definitely "out there". He even looked like Doc from Back to the Future, now that I think about it. We've spent decades and billions of dollars on the research, and I don't think we're much closer to making it happen (by that, I mean getting more energy out than we put in).

[skepticscott]

39. Fusion research is just barely to the point

of being able to initiate a fusion reaction that gives back more energy than is put in. Being able to sustain and contain a fusion reaction that produces enough energy to be commercially viable, and building reactors that won't fail because of degradation from neutron radiation are problems not even close to being solved.

Maybe in 50-100 years, fusion will be a practical, large-scale source of energy, but it certainly will not be in time to make up for dwindling oil.

[PamW]

84. Wrong again.

I don't think we're much closer to making it happen (by that, I mean getting more energy out than we put in).
========================================

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory expects to achieve "ignition" next year with the
National Ignition Facility:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/

As far as turning fusion energy into a useful powerplant, that is being addressed by
the LIFE program:

https://st.llnl.gov/?q=research-focused_investments-life

It's a fusion-fission hybrid system:

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/how_life_works.php

PamW

[One_Life_To_Give]

30. Radon??

Ok I know us Engineer types are a bit Anal. However boring holes into rock to channel water and support reservoirs is going to have some emissions. Granite and Ledge IIRC give off Radon, which is Radioactive and your Hydro Dams and Geothermal plants will expedite it's release into the environment.

How about we call it a Substantially Reduced Risk instead of Zero Risk?:evilgrin:

[txlibdem]

31. We need all of those energy sources and as much of each as possible

But leaving out advanced nuclear power plants forces you to start off at negative 20% of our energy needs: you'll have to bring these renewable sources from 1% all the way to 20% *just to get back to the starting line*.

We won't rid ourselves of fossil fuels in time to avoid catastrophic climate change without nuclear power working right along with all of those others.

[nilram]

33. Oh, but those are so *expensive* and *unreliable*!!!

:sarcasm:
 

[DissedByBush]

35. With anyone of those you'll have environmentalists screaming

They're never happy.

[grahamhgreen]

40. The only people who scream are the nuke-nuts.

[Chan790]

72. Actually you're wrong again.

or did you miss the news stories about the environmental loons suing to block the construction of off-shore wind turbines in Massachusetts (not the threat to the seabirds surprisingly. They claimed the construction was tantamount to the rape of a pristine biome and an eyesore.) and environmental loons threatening to sabotage construction of tidal generators in Connecticut (threat to indigenous sea-life in LIS.)

Environmentalists and NIMBYs scream a lot more than us "nuke-nuts". (I still think the solution to the green problem is to treat them like domestic threats to national security...just like the FBI treats animal-welfare activists. You know...infiltrate, agitate and entrap into long prison sentences.)

[DissedByBush]

78. They're even screaming over the solar plants

Shading all that empty desert will apparently be destructive.

And I suppose you ignore the uproar when any dam is built, crying over the acres of land that will soon be underwater, and what about the poor fish!

[XemaSab]

86. Two things:

1. The desert isn't empty.

2. It's not the shading that's the concern, it's the blading.

[JackRiddler]

99. Total bullshit. Voodoo rhetoric. Clueless.

[Odin2005]

108. When ever a renewable source of energy becomes cost-effective the luddites turn on it.

[varelse]

38. Thanks for this :)

[grahamhgreen]

41. Big K&R. Nukes are a fools errand.

[NickB79]

42. Tidal hydro would probably be a bad idea in any areas where strong tsuanamis are possible

I can't imagine any tidal hydro farms would have survived the Japanese or Indonesian tsunamis, given the power of the waves as they hit.

[Turborama]

57. The likelihood of it happening is tiny. & if it did happen there'd be no nasty radioactive crap...

...to deal with.

Plus, they could be replaced quite quickly and easily.

[NickB79]

79. The likelihood of what, tsunamis?

We've seen several major ones in just the past few years. The same thought process that underestimated tsunamis is what got us where we are today with the current meltdown. They need to be considered, even if they are rare.

And as far as the tidal generators, yes any individual one can be replaced quickly and easily, but to replace the amount of power nuclear provides in Japan alone you would need MILLIONS of them. If you lose 100,000 tidal generators in one hit, it will take factories a LONG time, possibly many years, to build enough replacements.

[Turborama]

82. Yes. Anyway, tsunami prone areas can have tsunami proof wind farms out at sea

And/or new generation tidal power such as Biowave systems on the seabed: http://www.biopowersystems.com/

The exciting thing about renewable energy sources is that as there are so many choices it allows for flexibility and they can be used in combination with each other.

Also, there is a possibilty of having some spares stored on standby in case there was a natural disaster somewhere.

You can't have a spare nuclear power plant on standby, they take on average 10 years to build.

"to replace the amount of power nuclear provides in Japan alone you would need MILLIONS of them."

Please show me the mathematical equation you used to come to that conclusion. BTW The OP wasn't aimed at Japan specifically. I was talking about creating electricity generally.

Please name the several major tsunamis we have seen in just the past few years. I can only think of 2 in the past 7 years.

[XemaSab]

87. The recurrence interval of tsunamis is small

Even the Japanese had never experienced a tsunami like this one, and they're the country who gave us that word.

As far as intermittency goes, obviously tidal isn't going to power the whole country. Looking into my crystal ball, I see small-scale tidal projects powering cities such as Mendocino, Eureka, Crescent City, Coos Bay, Westport, Juneau, Dutch Harbor, and so forth. Most of these cities would still be connected to the grid, but the idea would be to work towards regional energy independence.

My crystal ball thinks that trying to power a region the size of, say, California, by fiat is going to be an uphill battle, but developing planning areas such as Del Norte, North Humboldt, Siskiyou, North Trinity, Alturas/North Lassen, Susanville/Plumas, West Shasta, East Shasta, and so forth in order to make each region "sustainable" is going to be the cap & trade to the "33% by 2020" command & control.

The only areas that I could see this breaking down are in counties such as Alameda and Sacramento, where there are few natural resources (short of a run--of-river push) and a high population.

[defendandprotect]

44. We're using NUCLEAR reactors to heat water to create steam .... Yikes!!

[Lugnut]

45. K&R n/t

[caseymoz]

47. Sorry, I just don't think it will provide enough.

We need a better designed nuclear reactor. One that has a real off-switch and doesn't require constant watering.

[JDPriestly]

53. I heard two impressive presentations at the First World Energy

Conference in London in 1974. One on solar energy, was presented by a team of MIT scientists. The other on energy from the tides, was presented by the Baron de Rothschild. I believe that it was Baron Guy de Rothschild. (Among other things I recall his beautiful, very gracious and poised wife, one of the few other women in the room.)

Both solar energy and energy from the tides are alternative quire viable energy sources. The only impediment is the reluctance of investors. If we taxpayers required nuclear, oil (including natural gas) and coal producers to pay their way, including paying for the cost of damage to the environment, air, water, land and also to the health of living beings, solar and tidal energy would be relatively inexpensive.

The problem is that we have bought into the propaganda of the nuclear, oil and coal companies.

[kristopher]

60. Compared to nuclear investors are flocking to renewables - really

They can't get private financing for nuclear plant even when we (the public) give them 80% loan guarantees.

Here is the CBO explaining why in a previous post I made:
CBO estimate on nuclear loan guarantees

For this estimate, CBO assumes that the first nuclear plant built using a federal loan guarantee would have a capacity of 1,100 megawatts and have associated project costs of $2.5 billion. We expect that such a plant would be located at the site of an existing nuclear plant and would employ a reactor design certified by the NRC prior to construction. This plant would be the first to be licensed under the NRC’s new licensing procedures, which have been extensively revised over the past decade.

Based on current industry practices, CBO expects that any new nuclear construction project would be financed with 50 percent equity and 50 percent debt. The high equity participation reflects the current practice of purchasing energy assets using high equity stakes, 100 percent in some cases, used by companies likely to undertake a new nuclear construction project. Thus, we assume that the government loan guarantee would cover half the construction cost of a new plant, or $1.25 billion in 2011.

CBO considers the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for this risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources. In addition, this project would have significant technical risk because it would be the first of a new generation of nuclear plants, as well as project delay and interruption risk due to licensing and regulatory proceedings.

Note the price - $2.5 billion was to be only for the first plant. Future plants were, according to the assumptions provided by the nuclear industry, expected to have lower costs as economy of scale resulted in savings.

In fact, since the report was written (2003), the estimated cost has risen to an average of about $8 billion.

Wonder what that does to the “risk is that … the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources”?

Does that risk diminish or increase when the price rises from $2.5 billion to $8 billion?

[DeSwiss]

63. K&R!!! n/t

[Arcana]

73. Companies like ExonMobil and GE keep claiming they are working on this, but where are they?

They're probably just sitting on a shitload of patents.

[Jamastiene]

75. It says I'm too late to Recommend, but

I'm not too late to :kick:

My home town uses Hydro. We have one dam that power our entire city and even some out further in the county. If we used just some of the other dams that are not in operation since the textiles mills went away, the entire county could be powered by hydro.

[Journeyman]

80. Thanks. An impressive collection of graphics and links. . .

food for thought, to be sure. . .

[Kablooie]

81. Electricity can also be made by using a flywheel ...

[madokie]

83. Exactly where we need to be going

If what is happening in Japan today isn't enough to scare the pants off just about anyone then nothing will. It would be one thing if the long term implications to the inhabitants of this world wasn't but the fact is that's not the case. I'll take my chances with CO2 any day over the worries of fission. We can and must do better as Turborama so clearly shows in these illustrations.
This incident in Japan clearly shows that the nuclear power industry has no clue as to what to do in a case such as whats happening today. We need to get off the nuclear tit as soon as we can.

[JohnWxy]

89. ...and there's no accumulating radioactive wastes - a problem which we still have no solution to.

recommended.

[Nihil]

90. Which button did you use?

i.e., to recommend a thread that's nearly a month old?

The one I use complains if the OP is even 24 hours old ...

[kristopher]

93. Perhaps you've been spending too much time bathing in the glow of the reactor...

The concept of recommending something predates DU by a substantial number of years, and in all that time it was managed without a specific button.

[trud]

92. nice try, no cigar

(1) hydropower - trashes the ocean environment.

(2) wind turbines - miserable to live near all the time for several miles in diameter.

(3) solar - quite decent, but generates pollution during its manufacture, and can't possibly supply enough energy to reduce the world's carbon footprint to prevent catastrophic global warming - only nuclear can do that.

(4) geothermal - quite decent, but also not enough energy to reduce the world's carbon footprint.

Do make an effort to learn the facts, and not form your opinion of nuclear power from 1950s' radioactive ants take over the New York subway movies.

[kristopher]

94. The nuclear industry perspective you offer has little to no acceptance.

Especially by those who are genuinely concerned about both a sustainable, dependable energy supply and the impact of that energy supply on the environment. It isn't a coincidence that no plan in the world sees fission as anything more than, at most, a minor contributor to the solution while most reject it completely as part of the problem.

http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/Publications/2011/battle-of-the-grids/

[JackRiddler]

100. Your personal and unfounded attacks on the OP and exterminators' logic don't cut it.

A set of half-chewed talking points to attack each item on the checklist of alternatives, followed by a malicious characterization of the OP. And what does this do, other than exposing you as a sophist with no interest other than providing low-level slogan-PR for the nuke industry in its time of crisis?

[Turborama]

101. Thanks

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Odin2005]

95. Very cool post, thanks.

[Turborama]

96. You're most welcome, thanks for taking a look.

And for the thanks. :hi:

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

102. Making electricity is easy.

Making enough is not.

[bananas]

103. k&r nt

[Roland99]

106. Great info!

[Odin2005]

109. I'm bullish on tidal enegy. that is some awesome stuff.