9 ms·

This is why I welcomed the backlash and even some of the sensationalism regarding the nuclear explosion in Japan. Even if I realize that nuclear energy could be

This is why I welcomed the backlash and even some of the sensationalism regarding the nuclear explosion in Japan. Even if I realize that nuclear energy could be safe and it's good to have an alternative that is cheap enough to compete with coal, I'd still wish we'd spend all those billions switching from nuclear and putting most of them into renewable energy technologies, which should be the future. The arguments against solar were that the tech is "not there yet", so then it's better to just focus on nuclear. I disagree with that. I believe that if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster. We would have a lot more companies exploring different ideas that make them more efficient and cheaper. Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century. But I just don't want it to be the holy grail of the energy industry and see the vast majority of investments go into that. I want renewable energy technologies to be that.

white_devil 15y ago
> if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster This is probably true. But as always, the problem is money. More specifically, the money that entrenched interests possess (and throw around). I'd love for solar energy to happen as soon as possible too. It shows great promise. But it might not happen for a while. > Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century. 100 years is a mighty long time. Who knows, nuclear reactors might be completely replaced by renewable energy sources within the next fifty years. Let's hope for the best.
greedo 15y ago
The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated. Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sources. I wish we could all live in a world powered by solar cells etc, but it just isn't going to happen.
- danielharan 15y ago
  Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from computers to TVs to washing machines. Look out for 35 years. Is it still minuscule?
  - tsotha 15y ago
    In some respects wind is like hydro, in that there are a limited number of good places to site a wind farm. As the number of turbines grows there will be diminishing returns as the new sites are less good because they have less wind, longer distances to existing power infrastructure, more damaging weather incidents, etc.
    - danielharan 15y ago
      We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
      - ams6110 15y ago
        Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?
        danielharan 15y ago
        None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.
  - 15y ago
jcfrei 15y ago
currently the vast majority of power comes from fossile sources (coal, gas, petrol). just imagine what amounts of gasoline are used every day for transportation. there's no way in the near future, that we're gonna replace this amount of energy with solar energy. no way. we either switch to a nuclear powered, hydrogen based economy (once we run out of gasoline) or we say goodbye to mobility. and by the way, this isnt a really a question of price. solar energy is highly dependent on current daylight, we would have to rethink our entire energy distribution, building either much cheaper batteries, to provide a constant level of energy on the grid or create some sort of highly efficient global energy grid. those problems are far from solved. at least not at an affordable rate.

white_devil 15y ago

> if the energy industry changed focus to solar panels and other renewable energy technologies, we would get there a lot faster This is probably true. But as always, the problem is money. More specifically, the money that entrenched interests possess (and throw around). I'd love for solar energy to happen as soon as possible too. It shows great promise. But it might not happen for a while. > Nuclear technology will probably never be gone, or at least not within the next century. 100 years is a mighty long time. Who knows, nuclear reactors might be completely replaced by renewable energy sources within the next fifty years. Let's hope for the best.

greedo 15y ago

The idea that solar, wind and geothermal energy can replace nuclear power for electricity generation in my lifetime (the next 35 years) ignores the reality of how much electricity we consume and how it is currently generated. Here's a link to a graph created by the Lawrence Livermore Lab that quickly illustrates the miniscule impact of doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the three primary alternative energy sources. I wish we could all live in a world powered by solar cells etc, but it just isn't going to happen.

danielharan 15y ago
Only we're doubling production of wind turbines every 2-3 years. With each doubling, prices come down, as they do with every other manufactured artifact from computers to TVs to washing machines. Look out for 35 years. Is it still minuscule?
- tsotha 15y ago
  In some respects wind is like hydro, in that there are a limited number of good places to site a wind farm. As the number of turbines grows there will be diminishing returns as the new sites are less good because they have less wind, longer distances to existing power infrastructure, more damaging weather incidents, etc.
  - danielharan 15y ago
    We're nowhere near that limit. From Wikipedia: According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the contiguous United States has the potential for 10,459 GW of onshore wind power. The capacity could generate 37 petawatt-hours (PW·h) annually, an amount nine times larger than current total U.S. electricity consumption. The U.S. also has large wind resources in Alaska, and Hawaii. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
    - ams6110 15y ago
      Since we're engaging in fantasy (for now) what would happen if we DID extract that much energy (or even a significant fraction of that) from the atmosphere? What kind of climate change would that precipitate?
      - danielharan 15y ago
        None. The amount of energy extractable by wind turbines is only a tiny fraction of the total, close to the surface.
- 15y ago

jcfrei 15y ago

currently the vast majority of power comes from fossile sources (coal, gas, petrol). just imagine what amounts of gasoline are used every day for transportation. there's no way in the near future, that we're gonna replace this amount of energy with solar energy. no way. we either switch to a nuclear powered, hydrogen based economy (once we run out of gasoline) or we say goodbye to mobility. and by the way, this isnt a really a question of price. solar energy is highly dependent on current daylight, we would have to rethink our entire energy distribution, building either much cheaper batteries, to provide a constant level of energy on the grid or create some sort of highly efficient global energy grid. those problems are far from solved. at least not at an affordable rate.