5 ms·

Although many of the Fukushima stories may have been sensationalist I welcomed them. Because in a way nuclear energy generation is also a status quo industry an

Although many of the Fukushima stories may have been sensationalist I welcomed them. Because in a way nuclear energy generation is also a status quo industry and an idea, although less so than coal. But we needed something to nudge people into wanting solar power, even over nuclear. The more demand there is for it, the more research will be made for it, and new ways will be found to make solar more efficient and cheaper. We already hear about such new discoveries every few months now. Imagine if many more countries and Government were committed to solar energy and would make the solar industry boom because of it. We're still very early in this, and the potential is enormous.

DanBC 14y ago
What's wrong with nuclear? Concentration on solar is great but has some sub-optimalities. Concentration on an energy industry that could also provide materials for a cold war arms race was clearly a bad idea. Why aren't people working on thorium reactors?
- lliiffee 14y ago
  Interesting. Are you saying that the technology for thorium reactors wouldn't be so closely related to weapons technology?
  - jpk 14y ago
    In fact, that's one of the advantages of thorium reactors and fuel cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_a...
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Thorium can't, as far as I know, be used for bombs. Unlike plutonium or uranium.
    - SagelyGuru 14y ago
      And there you have the real answer why it is not used and why uranium/plutonium is. It has very little to do with the economics and safety of energy production.
    - ams6110 14y ago
      It can still make a nasty mess, though.
- cygx 14y ago
  Why aren't people working on thorium reactors? Wikipedia lists current projects in the US (~2015), India (~2013) and China (~?). The reason for India's interest in the technology should be obvious, and it's quite probable that we'll see further development on that front.
- pgeorgi 14y ago
  Concentration on solar is a media myth - maybe because, next to wind mills, photovoltaics is the most visible generator, and unlike wind mills (quite expensive, lots of space needed), pretty much every house owner could invest a relatively modest amount to put PV on their roof. IMHO the success story isn't solar, it's lots of tools (PV, wind, water, burning waste, storage) building an energy market with many participants where for nuclear, a few large corporations can control it all. That's what's happening in Germany, and the Big Four definitely don't like that. It's not all roses, but I prefer the situation now over the several decades of subsidies + no liability for an industry club of 4.
- bjelkeman-again 14y ago
  What is wrong with nuclear is that it has not turned out to be cost effective relative other options. The Economist, which has had a strong pro-nuclear stance for decades recently changed its mind. "Whether it comes to benefit from carbon pricing or not, nuclear power would be more competitive if it were cheaper. Yet despite generous government research-and-development programmes stretching back decades, this does not look likely." http://www.economist.com/node/21549936 http://www.economist.com/node/21549936 And the special report on that: http://www.economist.com/node/21549098 http://www.economist.com/node/21549098
spenrose 14y ago
Nuclear doesn't play nice with big solar and wind because nuclear plants don't want to turn on and off rapidly. See http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445 http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload... an many others.
- kijin 14y ago
  There are many ways to store leftover capacity so that nuclear plants can operate all the time even when combined with renewable sources. For example, you could use leftover capacity to drive pumped storage plants. Pump storage plants operate at 70-87% efficiency [1] and can produce gigawatts of power on demand (in fact, within seconds). They are effectively the largest batteries in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    What's the net capacity of pumped storage though? Other problems: you require a pretty significant hydrological infrastructure for PS: upper and catchment resevoirs, and a sufficient gradient to provide a net energy differential. The logistics make multi-purpose use of PS systems (vs. typical flood-control or irrigation reservoirs) somewhat problematic as water levels may fluctuate dramatically over a brief period of time, and spillways/headways constitute a significant flash-flood drowning risk unless access-controlled. Still, yes, pretty efficient energy storage systems overall.
- pjscott 14y ago
  There are types of nuclear plants that can load-follow much more easily, but it's not a design goal right now. The cost of nuclear energy is almost entirely construction and red tape; once you have a nuclear plant, the marginal cost of producing another megawatt-hour is so low that you want to run them as close to 100% as you can. If more of our electricity came from nuclear, load-following would become more of a design priority. Or we would build some highly adjustable loads that can take a bunch of excess power when it's there, like aluminum smelting or electric car charging.
kijin 14y ago
> Imagine if many more countries and Government were committed to solar energy and would make the solar industry boom because of it. We're still very early in this, and the potential is enormous. Here's one possibility: Sunny countries will begin to make a lot of money generating solar power and selling it to cloudy countries. North Africa, for example, could easily support all of Europe's electricity needs if we find some way to keep sand off the solar panels. But all of that money goes into the pockets of African and Middle Eastern autocrats, and the world enters a new era where everyone tries to grab the sunniest parts of the world ... umm ... wait a second, those are the same areas where we're currently killing people for oil. tl;dr: History repeats itself. But on the flip side, solar energy would allow humanity to make good use of some of the most barren parcels of real estate in the world. Instead of using fertile fields to produce biofuel, we could use those fields to produce actual food and leave power generation to places like Arizona.
- gliese1337 14y ago
  If we find some way to keep sand off the solar panels, and some way to efficiently transport it across the Mediterranean. That's certainly not impossible, but the technology for things like long-distance seafloor superconducting cables is even less mature than solar power plants. It'd be way cool to see all of that come together In The Future, but in the near-term, surplus solar power in Africa is not going to help Europe, unless they use it indirectly by using solar electricity to synthesize oil or something.
  - kijin 14y ago
    > long-distance seafloor superconducting cables The strait of Gibraltar is only 14km across. So maybe not all of Europe, but Spain could easily connect with African grids even with conventional equipment.
  - jsilence 14y ago
    High Voltage DC cables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
  - 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

What's wrong with nuclear? Concentration on solar is great but has some sub-optimalities. Concentration on an energy industry that could also provide materials for a cold war arms race was clearly a bad idea. Why aren't people working on thorium reactors?

lliiffee 14y ago
Interesting. Are you saying that the technology for thorium reactors wouldn't be so closely related to weapons technology?
- jpk 14y ago
  In fact, that's one of the advantages of thorium reactors and fuel cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_a...
- DanBC 14y ago
  Thorium can't, as far as I know, be used for bombs. Unlike plutonium or uranium.
  - SagelyGuru 14y ago
    And there you have the real answer why it is not used and why uranium/plutonium is. It has very little to do with the economics and safety of energy production.
  - ams6110 14y ago
    It can still make a nasty mess, though.
cygx 14y ago
Why aren't people working on thorium reactors? Wikipedia lists current projects in the US (~2015), India (~2013) and China (~?). The reason for India's interest in the technology should be obvious, and it's quite probable that we'll see further development on that front.
pgeorgi 14y ago
Concentration on solar is a media myth - maybe because, next to wind mills, photovoltaics is the most visible generator, and unlike wind mills (quite expensive, lots of space needed), pretty much every house owner could invest a relatively modest amount to put PV on their roof. IMHO the success story isn't solar, it's lots of tools (PV, wind, water, burning waste, storage) building an energy market with many participants where for nuclear, a few large corporations can control it all. That's what's happening in Germany, and the Big Four definitely don't like that. It's not all roses, but I prefer the situation now over the several decades of subsidies + no liability for an industry club of 4.
bjelkeman-again 14y ago
What is wrong with nuclear is that it has not turned out to be cost effective relative other options. The Economist, which has had a strong pro-nuclear stance for decades recently changed its mind. "Whether it comes to benefit from carbon pricing or not, nuclear power would be more competitive if it were cheaper. Yet despite generous government research-and-development programmes stretching back decades, this does not look likely." http://www.economist.com/node/21549936 http://www.economist.com/node/21549936 And the special report on that: http://www.economist.com/node/21549098 http://www.economist.com/node/21549098

spenrose 14y ago

Nuclear doesn't play nice with big solar and wind because nuclear plants don't want to turn on and off rapidly. See http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445 http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload... an many others.

kijin 14y ago
There are many ways to store leftover capacity so that nuclear plants can operate all the time even when combined with renewable sources. For example, you could use leftover capacity to drive pumped storage plants. Pump storage plants operate at 70-87% efficiency [1] and can produce gigawatts of power on demand (in fact, within seconds). They are effectively the largest batteries in the world. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  What's the net capacity of pumped storage though? Other problems: you require a pretty significant hydrological infrastructure for PS: upper and catchment resevoirs, and a sufficient gradient to provide a net energy differential. The logistics make multi-purpose use of PS systems (vs. typical flood-control or irrigation reservoirs) somewhat problematic as water levels may fluctuate dramatically over a brief period of time, and spillways/headways constitute a significant flash-flood drowning risk unless access-controlled. Still, yes, pretty efficient energy storage systems overall.
pjscott 14y ago
There are types of nuclear plants that can load-follow much more easily, but it's not a design goal right now. The cost of nuclear energy is almost entirely construction and red tape; once you have a nuclear plant, the marginal cost of producing another megawatt-hour is so low that you want to run them as close to 100% as you can. If more of our electricity came from nuclear, load-following would become more of a design priority. Or we would build some highly adjustable loads that can take a bunch of excess power when it's there, like aluminum smelting or electric car charging.

kijin 14y ago

> Imagine if many more countries and Government were committed to solar energy and would make the solar industry boom because of it. We're still very early in this, and the potential is enormous. Here's one possibility: Sunny countries will begin to make a lot of money generating solar power and selling it to cloudy countries. North Africa, for example, could easily support all of Europe's electricity needs if we find some way to keep sand off the solar panels. But all of that money goes into the pockets of African and Middle Eastern autocrats, and the world enters a new era where everyone tries to grab the sunniest parts of the world ... umm ... wait a second, those are the same areas where we're currently killing people for oil. tl;dr: History repeats itself. But on the flip side, solar energy would allow humanity to make good use of some of the most barren parcels of real estate in the world. Instead of using fertile fields to produce biofuel, we could use those fields to produce actual food and leave power generation to places like Arizona.

gliese1337 14y ago
If we find some way to keep sand off the solar panels, and some way to efficiently transport it across the Mediterranean. That's certainly not impossible, but the technology for things like long-distance seafloor superconducting cables is even less mature than solar power plants. It'd be way cool to see all of that come together In The Future, but in the near-term, surplus solar power in Africa is not going to help Europe, unless they use it indirectly by using solar electricity to synthesize oil or something.
- kijin 14y ago
  > long-distance seafloor superconducting cables The strait of Gibraltar is only 14km across. So maybe not all of Europe, but Spain could easily connect with African grids even with conventional equipment.
- jsilence 14y ago
  High Voltage DC cables: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
- 14y ago