4 ms·

And that's where the global warming theory came from : opposition to coal plants, in favor of Nuclear plants. Since then it has been picked up an run with by e

by brc 16y ago

And that's where the global warming theory came from : opposition to coal plants, in favor of Nuclear plants. Since then it has been picked up an run with by everyone as a reason to use their product / not use a competitors. The resulting water is so muddy nobody can see through. I would have thought that the non-greenhouse pollution from coal, plus the deaths caused from mining put Nuclear in front. Even in the extremely rare events of Nuclear accidents the total deaths are lower than the ongoing toll from coal mining and shipping. But nobody wants to discuss that, all we get now is OMG NUCLEAR WASTE and OMG GREENHOUSE GASES! The worst outcome of it all is the obsession with wind power over all else, despite all the drawbacks as mentioned in this paper : land use, siting issues with regards to transmission to demand areas, wildlife impact, noise pollution and what happens when the wind stops. The greenhouse gas debate started as a support to transition from coal/oil to nuclear, and we ended up talking about going from coal to wind power because the wrong interest groups got control of the dialogue.

miratrix 16y ago
For the human species to survive on Earth over the long haul, we need a way to sustain our lifestyle with the energy coming from the Sun. In Oil / Gas / Coal, we're just living off previously stored solar energy. There is only a limited amount of nuclear fuel on Earth (not counting something like deuterium deuterium fusion reactions which likely will never be feasible in full scale) - granted, the amount of fuel we have with right technology (fast breeder reactors, thorium reactors, etc) will last a period measured in centuries, not decades. Even as someone who's working in the wind energy industry, I believe that nuclear power is clean and safe energy source that we should be actively developing and perfecting, and I'm in agreement with you that nuclear option has gotten the short end of the shaft. However, the pure renewables like Wind and Solar do have a place in the conversation, and many of issues you cite are overblown (wildlife impact/noise) or technically solvable (wind stopping - there are papers showing that by tying the entire eastern seaboard into a single grid, you can ensure certain amount of base load capacity). There are still unexplored places for wind energy (deep offshore, high altitude) that hold a lot of promise, with technology that already have been developed. If we have the will to go ahead with a full blown nuclear option, then by that time, we'd have the will to go ahead with updating our transmission infrastructure. And if we ever end up in a pure electric transportation sector, we'll have 250 million batteries-on-a-wheel that can soak up the extra generating capacity on windy/sunny days and dump it out on cloudy/still days, with nuclear likely providing the baseload capacity. I see transitions from coal to natural gas, then to nuclear, but as a stepping stone while we perfect the pure renewable solution which is the only thing that will ensure the survival of human species unless we decide to go gallivanting across the universe collecting resources from other planets. Even then, energy dense nuclear fuel will be too valuable to waste in heating up homes and food - they'll be closely guarded as a means to get to those said energy dense planets.
- brc 16y ago
  These are the points I strongly disagree with: >many of issues you cite are overblown (wildlife impact/noise) Pelicans get covered in oil and die = bad, evil, oil drilling. No pelican should die from oil drilling! Eagles and bats get hit by wind generators = overblown and acceptable loss, some birds will get hit, oh well. This particular issue really gets me riled up. Noise is an issue for people who live close to the generators. I've heard them going and it's not a pleasant noise. >There are still unexplored places for wind energy (deep offshore, high altitude) that hold a lot of promise, with technology that already have been developed No they don't, not at least on any sort of acceptable cost basis. It's just pure fantasy to build offshore wind turbines in deep water and think they are going to be economical as compared with any of the other onshore options. Deepwater offshore oil and gas platforms rigs cost a fortune to build and run, but they effectively produce millions of joules of energy during their lifetime. There's simply not enough harvestable energy in the wind to justify anything like that sort of spend for a fraction of the energy produced. It's also fantasy to think you can cover an entire coastline in wind generation and think it's going to come out at anything like a cost effective solution, and particularly when two or three nuclear generators would provide the same coverage with less environmental impact. Wind energy is an interesting niche product useful for certain areas. It's current status is largely as a result of tax incentives, and it has all the hallmarks of an industry that is overinvested because of available government subsidies. Once those subsidies die (and they will) the market mostly dissappears. I commend you for coming out in defense of your industry but disagree with pretty much everything. And as for nuclear fuel only lasting a couple of centuries - for a start I highly doubt the accuracy of that - and further, a couple of centuries is plenty enough time to develop other alternative energy sources. Large scale energy as we know it is barely 100 years old. The big problem 100 years ago was what to do with all the horseshit in the streets, and whether there was enough whale oil around to light reading lamps. The problems facing society 200 years ago are unrecognisable and unthinkable today. It is arrogance in the extreme to think that technology and society in 200 years is going to hinge on decisions made today. It's pointless and a misuse of our time on earth to try and make decisions with that sort of time frame in mind.
  - miratrix 16y ago

by brc 16y ago

miratrix 16y ago

For the human species to survive on Earth over the long haul, we need a way to sustain our lifestyle with the energy coming from the Sun. In Oil / Gas / Coal, we're just living off previously stored solar energy. There is only a limited amount of nuclear fuel on Earth (not counting something like deuterium deuterium fusion reactions which likely will never be feasible in full scale) - granted, the amount of fuel we have with right technology (fast breeder reactors, thorium reactors, etc) will last a period measured in centuries, not decades. Even as someone who's working in the wind energy industry, I believe that nuclear power is clean and safe energy source that we should be actively developing and perfecting, and I'm in agreement with you that nuclear option has gotten the short end of the shaft. However, the pure renewables like Wind and Solar do have a place in the conversation, and many of issues you cite are overblown (wildlife impact/noise) or technically solvable (wind stopping - there are papers showing that by tying the entire eastern seaboard into a single grid, you can ensure certain amount of base load capacity). There are still unexplored places for wind energy (deep offshore, high altitude) that hold a lot of promise, with technology that already have been developed. If we have the will to go ahead with a full blown nuclear option, then by that time, we'd have the will to go ahead with updating our transmission infrastructure. And if we ever end up in a pure electric transportation sector, we'll have 250 million batteries-on-a-wheel that can soak up the extra generating capacity on windy/sunny days and dump it out on cloudy/still days, with nuclear likely providing the baseload capacity. I see transitions from coal to natural gas, then to nuclear, but as a stepping stone while we perfect the pure renewable solution which is the only thing that will ensure the survival of human species unless we decide to go gallivanting across the universe collecting resources from other planets. Even then, energy dense nuclear fuel will be too valuable to waste in heating up homes and food - they'll be closely guarded as a means to get to those said energy dense planets.

brc 16y ago
These are the points I strongly disagree with: >many of issues you cite are overblown (wildlife impact/noise) Pelicans get covered in oil and die = bad, evil, oil drilling. No pelican should die from oil drilling! Eagles and bats get hit by wind generators = overblown and acceptable loss, some birds will get hit, oh well. This particular issue really gets me riled up. Noise is an issue for people who live close to the generators. I've heard them going and it's not a pleasant noise. >There are still unexplored places for wind energy (deep offshore, high altitude) that hold a lot of promise, with technology that already have been developed No they don't, not at least on any sort of acceptable cost basis. It's just pure fantasy to build offshore wind turbines in deep water and think they are going to be economical as compared with any of the other onshore options. Deepwater offshore oil and gas platforms rigs cost a fortune to build and run, but they effectively produce millions of joules of energy during their lifetime. There's simply not enough harvestable energy in the wind to justify anything like that sort of spend for a fraction of the energy produced. It's also fantasy to think you can cover an entire coastline in wind generation and think it's going to come out at anything like a cost effective solution, and particularly when two or three nuclear generators would provide the same coverage with less environmental impact. Wind energy is an interesting niche product useful for certain areas. It's current status is largely as a result of tax incentives, and it has all the hallmarks of an industry that is overinvested because of available government subsidies. Once those subsidies die (and they will) the market mostly dissappears. I commend you for coming out in defense of your industry but disagree with pretty much everything. And as for nuclear fuel only lasting a couple of centuries - for a start I highly doubt the accuracy of that - and further, a couple of centuries is plenty enough time to develop other alternative energy sources. Large scale energy as we know it is barely 100 years old. The big problem 100 years ago was what to do with all the horseshit in the streets, and whether there was enough whale oil around to light reading lamps. The problems facing society 200 years ago are unrecognisable and unthinkable today. It is arrogance in the extreme to think that technology and society in 200 years is going to hinge on decisions made today. It's pointless and a misuse of our time on earth to try and make decisions with that sort of time frame in mind.
- miratrix 16y ago