5 ms·

Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-so

by umsm 13y ago

Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-solar-power-instead/ http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-sol...

ZirconCode 13y ago
Not to speak of education, or gasp preventing famine. The military budget of the US alone ($+1trillion [1]) would eradicate world hunger ($44 billion [2]) more than 20 times over and still have money left to build them housing. I know it's not a realistic example but it's purpose is simply to add some perspectives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... [2] http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-needed-to-eradicate.html http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-need... (UN-FAO)
Lazare 13y ago
> Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take. It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...) The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this. And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...) TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  I know that nuclear power is broadly seen as clean here, but the perception in Japan right now is quite different from the things I have read. A lot of diligence, commitment, money and long term storage is required to make it clean. Japan was found wanting.
  - Lazare 13y ago
    Perception is one thing, but safety and emissions are objective facts. And nuclear power is both clean and safe. You're right that the Japanese are now very skeptical of nuclear power. But it's also an objective fact that this skepticism is dangerous, is costing real lives, and is damaging to the environment. Nuclear power is just that much safer and cleaner than the alternatives. Even after Fukishima, nuclear power is still ten times safer...than sticking solar panels on rooftops (on a per TWh basis). Cite: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
- jsilence 13y ago
  You forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear are much less impressive.
  - Lazare 13y ago
    Actually, I said something about "Even with operating and decommissioning costs", so I hardly "forgot" them, I just didn't bother digging them up. And solar has some ongoing costs too, including for dismantling the panels at end of life, repairing storm damage, etc., etc. And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
stfu 13y ago
In my opinion this whole thing doesn't work because renewable energy is still for many some sort of hippie talk. If it were about become-independent-and-never-pay-electric-bills again there would be potential for a much wider adoption. But the save the whales perspective just doesn't work especially for many in the single-home-owner areas.
- nsxwolf 13y ago
  Indeed, there seems to be an open hostility towards that approach. It's like the greens don't want the technology to spread outside their little club, which means it will never have real ecological benefits. I will buy a Tesla as soon as I can afford it, and it has nothing to do with a desire to save the Earth.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  No. It's because there are legitimate hurdles to going 100% green, mainly power storage. Because both solar and wind generate lots of power sometimes, and no power at other times, there needs to be a way to generate electricity when the solar panels aren't producing, and a way to store it when the panels are producing too much. On a small scale this is do-able, but not on a massive scale.
  - jsilence 13y ago
    While it might be hard to go 100% green, it is doable to go maybe 50% green and desirable too. It is a popular verbal feat by the fossil fuel energy industry to state: "Yes, but we can't go 100% because of x.", to chill the discussion and the momentum of renewables.
  - yorak 13y ago
    In fact I just discovered that there are Pumped-storage hydroelectricity plants (PSPS) because they were planning to build one also to Finland into a old mine (with mile long shaft). PSPS could solves the power storage problem for wind and solar as long as there is enough suitable locations to use as PSPS reservoirs.

by umsm 13y ago

ZirconCode 13y ago

Not to speak of education, or gasp preventing famine. The military budget of the US alone ($+1trillion [1]) would eradicate world hunger ($44 billion [2]) more than 20 times over and still have money left to build them housing. I know it's not a realistic example but it's purpose is simply to add some perspectives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... [2] http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-needed-to-eradicate.html http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-need... (UN-FAO)

Lazare 13y ago

> Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take. It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...) The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this. And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...) TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.

lostlogin 13y ago
I know that nuclear power is broadly seen as clean here, but the perception in Japan right now is quite different from the things I have read. A lot of diligence, commitment, money and long term storage is required to make it clean. Japan was found wanting.
- Lazare 13y ago
  Perception is one thing, but safety and emissions are objective facts. And nuclear power is both clean and safe. You're right that the Japanese are now very skeptical of nuclear power. But it's also an objective fact that this skepticism is dangerous, is costing real lives, and is damaging to the environment. Nuclear power is just that much safer and cleaner than the alternatives. Even after Fukishima, nuclear power is still ten times safer...than sticking solar panels on rooftops (on a per TWh basis). Cite: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...
jsilence 13y ago
You forgot to include the costs of insurance, disposal of waste and dismanteling the nuclear plants after usage. If you include those, the numbers for nuclear are much less impressive.
- Lazare 13y ago
  Actually, I said something about "Even with operating and decommissioning costs", so I hardly "forgot" them, I just didn't bother digging them up. And solar has some ongoing costs too, including for dismantling the panels at end of life, repairing storm damage, etc., etc. And if you want to be picky, the best data we have says that, even if you include all the costs of nuclear, it's still much cheaper than the best case for solar (and the suggestion of "a solar panel on every roof" isn't the best case for solar). For more estimates than you can shake a stick at (although they all broadly agree) see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

stfu 13y ago

In my opinion this whole thing doesn't work because renewable energy is still for many some sort of hippie talk. If it were about become-independent-and-never-pay-electric-bills again there would be potential for a much wider adoption. But the save the whales perspective just doesn't work especially for many in the single-home-owner areas.

nsxwolf 13y ago
Indeed, there seems to be an open hostility towards that approach. It's like the greens don't want the technology to spread outside their little club, which means it will never have real ecological benefits. I will buy a Tesla as soon as I can afford it, and it has nothing to do with a desire to save the Earth.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Mikeb85 13y ago
No. It's because there are legitimate hurdles to going 100% green, mainly power storage. Because both solar and wind generate lots of power sometimes, and no power at other times, there needs to be a way to generate electricity when the solar panels aren't producing, and a way to store it when the panels are producing too much. On a small scale this is do-able, but not on a massive scale.
- jsilence 13y ago
  While it might be hard to go 100% green, it is doable to go maybe 50% green and desirable too. It is a popular verbal feat by the fossil fuel energy industry to state: "Yes, but we can't go 100% because of x.", to chill the discussion and the momentum of renewables.
- yorak 13y ago
  In fact I just discovered that there are Pumped-storage hydroelectricity plants (PSPS) because they were planning to build one also to Finland into a old mine (with mile long shaft). PSPS could solves the power storage problem for wind and solar as long as there is enough suitable locations to use as PSPS reservoirs.