3 ms·

Mankinds total energy consumption is on the order of 10^13 , 290 million new power ... about 34500 more of these required. Or to be really blunt: A new plant ev

Mankinds total energy consumption is on the order of 10^13 , 290 million new power ... about 34500 more of these required. Or to be really blunt: A new plant every day for 100 years.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted; this is sad, but true. Worldwide average power consumption is estimated to be 15 terawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption - with sources). Now obviously there is a great deal of waste we could engineer away, but that has to be offset against the growing demands of the developing world and a global population that is still growing, albeit set to level off by 2050 or so. I love renewable energy, and I purchase carbon offsets on my power bill each month to mitigate the fossil fuel I use. But it doesn't scale that well, and the environmental costs of manufacturing energy capture and storage technology need to be taken into account as well. We need to face up to this scale issue, which is something many green people don't like to do because that brings nuclear power into the conversation, but facts are facts.
- jdmichal 13y ago
  Total energy consumption is also very different from total electrical consumption, which is only at 14% of total energy consumption. I don't know of anyone who's targeting things like direct burning of fuel for, say, a steel foundry. Or anyone who would argue that PV can take that job over. Maybe concentrated solar could?
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Sure, but it's still a useful metric. Even if we assume that 14% as an upper bound, that's still over a decade of bringing on plants the size of this one at the rate of one a day. I just think the economics point strongly towards greater deployment of nuclear power.
mhurron 13y ago
Assuming no improvements in the technology. /and increases in power requirements but you were negative enough.
- maerF0x0 13y ago
  Yes, assuming a current efficiency of 20%, then potentially 1/5 of the number could be required (ie, if we got all the way to 100% efficiency somehow).
Zigurd 13y ago
How big is that compared to the capex to go nuclear with inherently safer new-design plants? or, for that matter, fossil fuel capital that's in place now?
soperj 13y ago
Except that a lot of this is already covered by renewables(ie: hydro).
- maerF0x0 13y ago
  Excellent point, I would love if you could provide a source that might indicate the amount currently provided by renewables? EDIT: the wikipedia page commented above says about 13% was renewables in 2008 ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption )

Mankinds total energy consumption is on the order of 10^13 , 290 million new power ... about 34500 more of these required. Or to be really blunt: A new plant every day for 100 years.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted; this is sad, but true. Worldwide average power consumption is estimated to be 15 terawatts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption - with sources). Now obviously there is a great deal of waste we could engineer away, but that has to be offset against the growing demands of the developing world and a global population that is still growing, albeit set to level off by 2050 or so. I love renewable energy, and I purchase carbon offsets on my power bill each month to mitigate the fossil fuel I use. But it doesn't scale that well, and the environmental costs of manufacturing energy capture and storage technology need to be taken into account as well. We need to face up to this scale issue, which is something many green people don't like to do because that brings nuclear power into the conversation, but facts are facts.

jdmichal 13y ago
Total energy consumption is also very different from total electrical consumption, which is only at 14% of total energy consumption. I don't know of anyone who's targeting things like direct burning of fuel for, say, a steel foundry. Or anyone who would argue that PV can take that job over. Maybe concentrated solar could?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Sure, but it's still a useful metric. Even if we assume that 14% as an upper bound, that's still over a decade of bringing on plants the size of this one at the rate of one a day. I just think the economics point strongly towards greater deployment of nuclear power.

mhurron 13y ago

Assuming no improvements in the technology. /and increases in power requirements but you were negative enough.

maerF0x0 13y ago
Yes, assuming a current efficiency of 20%, then potentially 1/5 of the number could be required (ie, if we got all the way to 100% efficiency somehow).

Zigurd 13y ago

How big is that compared to the capex to go nuclear with inherently safer new-design plants? or, for that matter, fossil fuel capital that's in place now?

soperj 13y ago

Except that a lot of this is already covered by renewables(ie: hydro).

maerF0x0 13y ago
Excellent point, I would love if you could provide a source that might indicate the amount currently provided by renewables? EDIT: the wikipedia page commented above says about 13% was renewables in 2008 ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption )