3 ms·

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,

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
  Most studies indicate between 2 and 3 bird strikes per wind turbine, with far more birds being killed by cats, buildings, glass, cars, etc. Turbines are also below 500m, which typically is the floor for the path of migratory birds. The noise for the wind turbine comes from mostly the gearbox, though there are efforts under way to reduce that, including completely eliminating the gearbox from the design. But at this point, I think debating with you on point to point is a little... pointless, so I'll just leave this: On earth, there are 5 sources of energy. Unlike in 1900, we now have a pretty damn good understanding of physics to know that this is all we get. - We have energy coming from the Sun. There's a fair bit of it, and there might be enough to sustainably allow us to live. This gives us Wind / Solar power. - We have energy coming from the moon. Tidal power does work in some places, but it's magnitudes smaller than the energy from the Sun. - We have carbon fuels - We have nuclear fuels - We have geothermal energy... though efforts to tap that has produced only earthquakes so far. That's all we get, unless someone goes out and develops cheap fusion power (highly unlikely situation - fusion reactions produce a lot of neutrons which are very difficult to deal with). I don't think there is any other "alternative energy sources".
  - ScotterC 16y ago
    I hope you understand that fission was the first time we have ever created energy. All other forms are just scavenging it from the sun. Nuclear fusion is unlikely but nuclear fission has been proven over the last 60 years and as Bernard Cohen lays out, could provide us with enough energy for millions of years (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html).
    - miratrix 16y ago
      And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5 sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in something like nuclear fusion. The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly inaccessible. I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft, and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to be. I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is available free on PDF at http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ . David is much more eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.
ScotterC 16y ago
Nuclear fuel isn't just uranium. With enough neutrons you can fission just about anything on down to lead. However, the most promising fuel is thorium. When Thorium-232 gets 1 more neutron it decays in 30 days to Uranium-233, the perfect nuclear fuel which almost burns completely and leaves minimal waste. A molten salt reactor with thorium as fuel was proven 50 years ago. For more info see this wired article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ and this site: http://energyfromthorium.com/ http://energyfromthorium.com/ Oh btw, there are literal beaches of Thorium in India. And it's a byproduct of most mining processes. The U.S. has about 3000 tons stockpiled doing nothing. 1 ton of thorium roughly equals 1 GW of power for a year.
- pjscott 16y ago
  > 1 ton of thorium roughly equals 1 GW of power for a year. Just so we're clear, that's a metric tonne -- 1000 kg. And that's one GW electric (GWe), so you can get more power if you're using it for heat, such as for ammonia synthesis. Also, for comparison, the conventional light water reactors we're using today require 250 tonnes of natural uranium to produce that 1 GWe-year of energy.
  - ScotterC 16y ago
    Thanks for adding that comparison

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
Most studies indicate between 2 and 3 bird strikes per wind turbine, with far more birds being killed by cats, buildings, glass, cars, etc. Turbines are also below 500m, which typically is the floor for the path of migratory birds. The noise for the wind turbine comes from mostly the gearbox, though there are efforts under way to reduce that, including completely eliminating the gearbox from the design. But at this point, I think debating with you on point to point is a little... pointless, so I'll just leave this: On earth, there are 5 sources of energy. Unlike in 1900, we now have a pretty damn good understanding of physics to know that this is all we get. - We have energy coming from the Sun. There's a fair bit of it, and there might be enough to sustainably allow us to live. This gives us Wind / Solar power. - We have energy coming from the moon. Tidal power does work in some places, but it's magnitudes smaller than the energy from the Sun. - We have carbon fuels - We have nuclear fuels - We have geothermal energy... though efforts to tap that has produced only earthquakes so far. That's all we get, unless someone goes out and develops cheap fusion power (highly unlikely situation - fusion reactions produce a lot of neutrons which are very difficult to deal with). I don't think there is any other "alternative energy sources".
- ScotterC 16y ago
  I hope you understand that fission was the first time we have ever created energy. All other forms are just scavenging it from the sun. Nuclear fusion is unlikely but nuclear fission has been proven over the last 60 years and as Bernard Cohen lays out, could provide us with enough energy for millions of years (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html).
  - miratrix 16y ago
    And I hope you stop putting words into my mouth. I just said that there are 5 sources of energy (solar, lunar, geothermal, nuclear, and fossil fuels) on earth. Also, you're also factually incorrect regarding the Sun being the only energy source. The lunar / tidal energy is due to the gravity between the earth and the moon, and the geothermal energy is due to the gravity of the earth itself. Fact of the matter is that there is no silver bullet that'll solve all our energy problems ala Star Trek unless there's a breakthrough in something like nuclear fusion. The paper you cite assume 100% uranium recovery from uranium contained within the Ocean waters, which holds most of recoverable uranium on Earth. The Japanese have some interesting research that they're doing to recover the seawater Uranium using a giant sponge like device, but it hasn't been proven yet whether it's possible to extract uranium from seawater in net-energy-positive manner, not to mention most of the seawater being fairly inaccessible. I don't understand your hostility, as I've mentioned over and over again that I am in agreement that Nuclear power has gotten the short end of the shaft, and that more investment is needed. All I was trying to do is to say that there are benefits of investing in pure renewables like wind and solar - wind energy is already almost cheap enough to compete with other conventional energy sources even without the PTC. And as a working engineer in a tiny startup struggling to fix the very issues that you bring up (and completely re-imagine the wind industry as it exists if we succeed), I'm not a mouth piece of this large wind power conglomerate that you seem to make me out to be. I'd highly recommend reading David MacKay's "Without the Hot Air" which is available free on PDF at http://www.withouthotair.com/ http://www.withouthotair.com/ . David is much more eloquent than me and has done far more research into the issues at play here.

ScotterC 16y ago

Nuclear fuel isn't just uranium. With enough neutrons you can fission just about anything on down to lead. However, the most promising fuel is thorium. When Thorium-232 gets 1 more neutron it decays in 30 days to Uranium-233, the perfect nuclear fuel which almost burns completely and leaves minimal waste. A molten salt reactor with thorium as fuel was proven 50 years ago. For more info see this wired article: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ and this site: http://energyfromthorium.com/ http://energyfromthorium.com/ Oh btw, there are literal beaches of Thorium in India. And it's a byproduct of most mining processes. The U.S. has about 3000 tons stockpiled doing nothing. 1 ton of thorium roughly equals 1 GW of power for a year.

pjscott 16y ago
> 1 ton of thorium roughly equals 1 GW of power for a year. Just so we're clear, that's a metric tonne -- 1000 kg. And that's one GW electric (GWe), so you can get more power if you're using it for heat, such as for ammonia synthesis. Also, for comparison, the conventional light water reactors we're using today require 250 tonnes of natural uranium to produce that 1 GWe-year of energy.
- ScotterC 16y ago
  Thanks for adding that comparison