This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Nuclear Energy vs Other Non-Fossil Fuel based energy sources
I believe that we need to invest in and deploy nuclear energy. We have a much better chance of innovating and surviving our way through a nuclear energy era than we do through the current fossil fuel era extended for a couple of hundred more years. What do you believe?
Merlina Castro
Today, the facts show us, that this is not a solution and we continue investing money in future problems.
We have to pay attentions of this advices and change a lot of things. It´s the time to do it!
Adam Burk 500+
http://poptech.org/blog/ecomaterials_lab_a_fake_leaf_with_real_potential
Mark Garcia
Thanks,
Mark
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/amory_lovins_on_winning_the_oil_endgame.html
Lukas Müller
here are a few things you can look up on the internet:
- The yearly UN International Energy Agency statistics PDF file - google for: IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2010
- For additional information regarding the current status of nuclear and renewables, take a look at the Wikipedia articles regarding nuclear energy, wind energy and offshore wind energy.
You can find additional comments, summaries and interpretations of the numbers behind these links in some of my earlier postings.
Lukas
Dewey Thompson
Business truth. You cannot conserve your way into growth. (It is not a long term solution).
Population increases, electrical toys increase, and we are becoming more environmentally concerned so we are shutting down some of the older coal plants. That puts pressure on the business model.
Have a happy.
d
Lukas Müller
Almost expectably I might want to say, the first traces of plutonium have now been found outside the plant:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/28/japan.nuclear.plutonium/index.html?hpt=T2
(which indicates that reactor 3 may be leaky)
PU has a half-life of 24.000 years but luckily is a very heavy element too, which makes it a bit harder to be distributed by air as far as I understand it.
In a totally related subject the results of some regional German polls happening earlier this week are in, showing a doubling to tripling in support for the German Green Party, making Winfried Kretschmann the first green governor in Germany. :-)
Graphics of the poll-results:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,753235,00.html
Mark Garcia
Lukas Müller
Robert Shaffer
Adam Burk 500+
Dewey Thompson
Second, anyone reading this thread is doing so on an expensive computer of some kind. We are the rich. Who are we to be deciding what the rest of the world has to pay for their energy?
My point? Cost matters, and you can not escape that. Right now, wind is more expensive to build and get return on investment than either coal or nuclear, and there are reliability issues. Solar is hugely more expensive.
Continue the R&D. Push hard. Fund some projects in wind and solar. (Let T. Boone Pickens make a pile on his wind farm and show us how to do it). But keep the costs in view. Personally, I think for now, nuclear will be a needed.
Adam Burk 500+
Dewey Thompson
And, no I'm not saying that subsidization is bad - In fact if you read my original post I support it. IN AN INCUBATOR capacity. Not as public policy.........Public policy needs to weigh all factors balanced. Cost is one. Risk is one. Reliability is one. And so on. Have a happy.
Lukas Müller
may I ask you, whether your conclusions and assumptions are based on any actual statistics?
I know the stats and I've postet links to them in some of my earlier postings.
Because I draw different conclusions from them, I would very much like to get to know the data upon which your argument is based.
In case you don't have such, I would kindly ask you to question your own beliefs.
Thank you!
Anna Keenan
> not true. This would only be true if the 'big' and 'small' suppliers were making the same technology.
"Right now, wind is more expensive to build and get return on investment than either coal or nuclear, and there are reliability issues. Solar is hugely more expensive."
> actually, this is also not true. Wind and solar are both (right now!) cheaper than nuclear energy, and are rapidly approaching cost-competitiveness with coal. It won't show up on your electricity bill, but as taxpayers, our tax dollars subsidise nuclear (and coal!) for exploration, mining, research, insurance, liability for major disasters (like Fukushima...), security, regulation, decommissioning, and for (eternal) storage of nuclear waste.
Dewey Thompson
And you don't have it right on electricity production costs either. From low to high (USA numbers) ......Hydro, Natural Gas, Nuclear and Coal are about equal, Wind, Off Shore Wind, Solar Thermal, and finally Solar PV. For the US market, Natural Gas is hugely undervalued right now, utilities making base load Natural Gas are going to have a price shock when the laws of supply and demand come into play.
I think you have it upside down on the subsidy issue too. Right now, wind is being built only because of huge subsidies. (If I could get 65%-75% of my capital costs covered by the taxpayer, I would build wind towers too). Some subsidy is fine of course. There are indications on solar PV that are encouraging. It may be soon that for new construction it would make little sense to build a house or commercial building without solar PV panels. But. The technology is NOT there yet.
In fact, I will leave you with this riddle....IF solar and wind were that promising, why did the USA not adopt it from the 1973 energy shock? Carter ranted and raved about becoming less dependent upon foreign energy. Just where are we now??????? (The answer is that the technological issues of cost and reliability have not been worked out.)
Cost matters.
Lukas Müller
Because of this, some renewable technologies - that do not rely on the use of fossils in their production too much - are going to become more and more competitive.
But in the mid-term it is only going to be about one abstract thought only: where energy is and how we can harvest it in a way that doesn't cost us more than it brings in. And obviously every day unimaginable amounts of energy from the sun are wasted. Just think about it. Take an astronomy class.
The time of complete transition is going to come, because it has to.
My argument is that we have to embrace research and investment in renewable technologies instead of waiting until it is too late and we run out of energy, or others have the technologies.
There are good reasons to invest in renewables and it doesn't matter that much whether those investments are private or public, because the latter simply is a gigantic economic force that exists. What matters is only that those investments are taking place. Why?
Imagine the world without fossils. Cities and societies would collapse.
Imagine a world with efficient technologies to harvest the energy of the sun, opening gigantic opportunities of growth.
Now in what world do you want to live in?
And do you want to be the one with the key to this world, or do you prefer to wait and sit around, hoping that eventually someone opens that door for you?
Sure we don't know if it is possible - but that doesn't mean we'd know that it isn't.
Cost matters. I agree, but draw different conclusions.
Anyhow, now that the discussion is over in a few hours, I'd like to say that it was a pleasure talking to you as well as everyone else throughout the course of this discussion. I hope that I was able to inspire some to rethink established beliefs through my postings..
Let the sun shine with you. ;-)
Rita Tell
To cut the story short, I´m totally against nuclear enegy.
Barry Day
A rethink needed there Bill.
Just look at the Ice core records there HAS ALWAYS been a catastrophic disaster after NATURAL Co2 reaches around 400ppm. In the last 12 catastrophic disasters,there has been a correlation of;
A SEISMIC Co2 rise=THIS TIME,YES.
A spiral arm encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.
A Galactic Equator encounter,= THIS TIME,YES.
A magnetic reversal,= THIS TIME ““IS IMMINANT”“,SO YES.
A deep ice age after,= TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.
An extinction event, = TIME FRAME EVIDENCE AGREES,!! SO YES.
An encounter with a Photon Band =THIS TIME YES.
A Harmonic convergence = THIS TIME YES.
At the EXACT same position in space where there has two major extinction events, Cambrian and Permian Now join to that fact, this interglacial warm period is due to end circa 2012 and we just happen to be crossing the thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane circa 2012,plus a ““magnetic reversal imminent”” circa 2012 says National Geographic.
The Oceans warming IS the source of the carbon dioxide rise.
Barry Day
How does one person get life-threatening information that you know to be profoundly true,across to the rest of the world in a hurry?,I don't know,but I am trying to anyway.
Dec 2012 will be the end of the World as we now know it. It’s just Is history repeating it’s self…. AGAIN?
We ARE in the SAME location as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN.
We ARE in the SAME spiral arm as the end-Permian extinction….. AGAIN
We are crossing the SAME thin magnetic disc of the Galactic Plane equator .....AGAIN
We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in Volcanic activity as the end-Permian extinction…. AGAIN
We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in Co2 as the end-Permian extinction ....AGAIN
We ARE experiencing the SAME increase in OCEAN temperature just before the end-Permian extinction ...AGAIN
http://tinyurl.com/2d5fwrz http://tinyurl.com/23dfm2n
http://tinyurl.com/2d5fwrz
http://tinyurl.com/23dfm2n
=====================
Co2 RISE IS FROM INCREASED SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC- EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY JUST AS IAN PLIMER HAS STATED IN “HEAVEN AND EARTH” YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MORE EVIDENCE FOR PROOF OF INCREASED SEISMIC,SUB-MARINE VOLCANIC OR EARTHQUAKE ACTIVITY THAN THE OCEANS WARMING AND AN INCREASE OF CO2.
Long term Seismic activity trend Monthly number of volcanic earthquakes at Nyamuragira, 1960-92
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0203-02=&volpage=var
JUST AS IT HAS BEEN THE REASON FORTHE RISE BEFORE EVERY>> ““DEEP ICE AGE”“ OUR 5% to 10% range is less than the variation range of natural sorces. SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Global freshwater not showing an upward trend,PROVES it is not greenhouse related.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/
Revett Eldred 10+
Given that the probability of all nuclear weapons and power stations being dismantled in the next 21 months is somewhere between zero and nothing, what do you suggest we should do?
Ted Anderson
The real issues are:- The human race is not getting smaller in terms of population, our whole economic model is based on increased consumption.
Therefore we need increasing amounts of energy, oil & gas will not last forever and they, along with coal, at the moment are our biggest providers of energy. While climate change and it's link to CO2 is a still really not a fact but a theory, do not believe we can keep on polluting the atmosphere with CO2 and have no impact.
Other forms of energy wind, solar and bio have inate problems. Wind - only available approx. 30% of the time, solar - only when its daylight and bio - why grow food when you can grow energy.
Therefore there is a requirement to provide energy for a globally increasing poplulation without producing CO2 and making it reliably without wasting valuable crop space.
Atomic power is the answer, I appreciate there are risks but the risks of continuing to burn fossil fuels mean the risks of atomic power are worth taking. Couple this with the recyclability of the fuel and the use of waste to power breeder reactors and I think the case is a compelling one.
I realise some of my thoughts may be controversial, but lets debate.
Ternura Rojas
Even the Japanese, who have shown a great deal of discipline lately, after the earthquake are unable to perform and guarantee proper maintenance of their nuclear plants.
Therefore, unless we change the subject matter into control for proper management, the human species will not earn our right to harness this energy.
Very similar situation we have with the monetary/economic subject, the wrong hands=the worst outcome attained.
duncan wilson
This makes this film a container of vital evidence of the inherent problems with nuclear power and renders any 'pro' arguments from the modern industry & 'experts' as 'mark II opinions', many deeply embedded with pro-numbers dogma without any objectivity, loaded, lobbied and often plain wrong about the facts.
The film also contains the actual dictaphone message accidentally recorded at Three Mile Island as well as various ominous General Electric Nuclear adverts from the time too.
It more than details the fundamental reactor design issues that when considered, makes ALL nuclear reactors by design default, inherently unsafe. The repercussions of which Japan is currently encountering and suffering with - directly.
I believe anyone who watches will have to concede the core safety issue (when taken just from the standpoint of submarine-safe limit of 60mw to say, 600mw alone) renders any talk of the 'safety' of new mark IV reactors totally obsolete.
Well worth watching - whatever your standpoint I believe that safety cannot assured on any level, watch directly here from the horses mouths. This would also explain the hasty global enquiries happening into the Nuclear industry from individual nations right now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html
Edward Carter 50+
My heart is crusched for the Japanese.
Placing 5 Nuclear Facilites on a shoreline facing an active volcanic trench... some less than 2000 feet from shore. What were they thinking? They have Typhoons too! and Godzilla!
Mothera can only do sooooo much!
Abdul-Rahman El-Ammari
another point i would like to discuses that there are tow types of nuclear power nuclear fission and nuclear fusion i read once that the great deference is that the nuclear fusion wastes takes less period to be decay ( decompose ) i think the fusion takes about 30 to 40 year but fission may stay for mare than 100 year
Adam Burk 500+
Petr Frish 100+
".. nuclear fusion wastes takes less .. etc "
is not that simple. End result of fusion is helium, which is nor radioactive. However, in the process of fusion
other materials (walls of the chamber etc) may be irradiated and become radioactive. How much, we do not know as yet, as process is still in the early research stage.
The case of fission is even more complex. Current reactors produce lot of 'waste', which may be active for 1000 years IF left to its natural process.
However, next generation of fission reactors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactors
produces much less, of short lasting waste, AND - it can burn the existing 'waste'.
Bill Barhydt 100+
Here are the results:
Energy Source - Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average - 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China - 278
Coal – USA - 15
Oil - 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas - 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar (rooftop) - 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind - 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro - 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) - 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear - 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
My interpretation of the results is that eliminating all forms of energy above the solar line should be our collective goal. I believe that can only be done with an emphasis on nuclear. Many here disagree. The good news is that all of our choices in this thread appear to be safe in terms of mortality rates. Let the attacks re-commence...
Thanks everyone for your passionate input on this debate.
Adam Burk 500+
While this is a most interesting data set on energy production, I have questions. What are the deaths attributed to solar, wind, and hydro attributed to? Worker accidents? Widening the scope of assessment, we know that carbon based energy systems and nuclear have the most damaging environmental and human impacts. This assessment includes not only death but also disease, quality of life. We know that we have no idea what to do with spent nuclear materials, and they hazards they poise not only for health, but also for national security. Within this more holistic picture, I cannot advocate for nuclear knowing that safer (within these metrics) options exist.
I like your assertion "that eliminating all forms of energy above the solar line should be our collective goal." I would support this with the addition of "through the use of existing nuclear power and the development of our renewable energy capacity. Furthermore, with the ultimate goal to decommission and cease the use of nuclear power once renewable energies have been scaled." As it is said, "follow the money." If we put the money into truly renewable energy now instead of nuclear we can achieve a safer, cleaner future sooner. Otherwise we will continue investing in the degradation of our ecological and human health, while producing more nuclear material to potentially be used in weapons.
What are your thoughts considering these wider impacts on the earth and its inhabitants?
Bill Barhydt 100+
Regarding spent nuclear fuel and its impact on the earth, I can only point you to France as an example. They got it right. It scales and it is safe. Here is an article from the WSJ on this topic: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690627522614525.html
From the article: "France, which completely reprocesses its recyclable material, stores all the unused remains -- from 30 years of generating 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy -- beneath the floor of a single room at La Hague."
Adam Burk 500+
Lukas Müller
How can you assess the danger of one technology under todays conditions, if conditions might change?
Wouldn't it be naive to believe, just as Japan did, that nothing could happen, because nothing did happen so far?
Do these statistics include the deaths - and - illnesses of mine-workers, natives and the Children of Chernobyl?
Because it is not just about deaths. It is not just about what can be counted and what not.
It is about life - and that doesn't just mean not to be dead.
Lukas Müller
The following posting contains information from the main Wiki-articles on wind power, nuclear energy and off-shore wind energy:
Off-shore wind power indeed has been tested especially by scandinavian countries.
A few 200-300MW parks have already been built. while some dozens of parks in the 400MW capacity range, with a few going up to as high as 1000-2000MW, let alone in Germany are currently under construction or in approval process. (according to offshore-wind.de)
While wind energy in general accounts for ~2% of world electricity, it doubled during the last 3 years. (according to Wikipedia, which might not be 100% up do date)
In comparison, nuclear power declined a few percent in the past years, while intriguingly no new plants at all were built in 2007. (see "use" paragraph of nuclear power wiki-article)
Those trajectories make quite clear which technology holds the future. Not to talk of other possible renewables.
John Gallop
Charles Ma
duncan wilson
'A is for 'Atom'. Its the equally fascinating and troubling history of the industry with interviews by enlarge with all the original scientists - as well as the actual dictaphone message accidentally recorded at Three Mile Island as well as the ominous General Electric Nuclear adverts from the time too.
Well worth watching.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html
gale kooser
Just a thought & suggestion folks.
Adam Burk 500+
If we aren't going to talk about efficiency and conservation, either, than let's be clear about that too.
Here is an example of an alternative to fossil and nuclear fuel that has real promise to meet the modern world's needs without the modern world dieting its energy consumption. Deep Off-Shore Wind. There is almost 4 times as much energy available 50 nautical miles off the United States shores as the country uses. I highlight the United States, because this article does and because we are the current model for modern development. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-much-will-offshore-wind-really-cost/
duncan wilson
on a basic approach 'tsunami' or 'hurricane' or 'earthquake' or 'global warming' really means 'water'. Looking at the feats of engineering achieved already in Japan, China & in the world as a whole - it would seem that however we respond or risk-manage, water is the key.
I will read your link with enthusiasm as every time I see a disaster emerge, the 'common sense' voice in my head says wouldn't it be great if we GENERATED power during the most fragile time instead of it 'crippling' the infrastructure & relative energy grid?
I am sure the Japanese would take an incredible hydro-project over reactor 7+ being built at Fukushima right now.
Bill Barhydt 100+
You, correctly in my opinion, insinuate that we have a resource-abuse problem. I couldn't agree more. I don't know how to solve that problem. Maybe when our generation dies off our kids and their kids will be smarter about conserving resources then we were.
For better or worse I've seen nothing of any realistic nature in the many great postings here to convince me that any other technology can scale to meet our needs on a global basis, to replace fossil fuels, the way nuclear can.
I read the article you sent on off-shore wind. If one country would deploy it at scale it would sway my thinking. Your probably saw Gate's TED talk from last year on building better, cheaper and even more productive nuclear reactors (that he is investing in). In case you missed it: http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2010/02/bill_gates_goes.html
Lukas Müller
I'm not against development and research in nuclear, though I'm very skeptical about pressure to actually apply those technologies which might arise as an economical imperative from high investments, as it is claimed by the BBC documentation mentioned earlier to have been the case in the ninteen-sixties.
But as far as I know, there is a long record of highly promising, yet unsuccessful research projects which stretches through the past decades. Thus, I have come to the conclusion that it is common for such projects to be portrayed as the future of energy, without ultimately being able to deliver on that promise so far.
Because of this, I believe enthusiasm for such ideas does not help a rational weighing of options. ;-)
Adam Burk 500+
Regarding your comment: "For better or worse I've seen nothing of any realistic nature in the many great postings here to convince me that any other technology can scale to meet our needs on a global basis, to replace fossil fuels, the way nuclear can."
How does the evidence that there is enough wind energy 50 miles off the coast of the United States to produce 4x the energy currently used in the entire US, not provide evidence that the opportunity exists to scale wind turbine technology to meet the world's energy needs?
If scaling of alternative energy is largely funded by government streams, and government funding is largely determined by political will (and hopefully some common sense and logic), then don't we the people need to make sure we are helping to set the course for our energy future?
Regarding your comment: "You, correctly in my opinion, insinuate that we have a resource-abuse problem. I couldn't agree more. I don't know how to solve that problem."
We need to make this correction in our own lives and choices, and demand policies that will also realign us to fundamental ecological truths we exist within. Do these solutions not seem reasonable to you?
Bill Barhydt 100+
Just because the energy is there does not mean it can be easily tapped and brought to people at scale. As I said, if one government were to run a real world test and show that it works at scale, I'd probably become a supporter. I'm skeptical, but always open to a better way.
Andrew Close
http://www.wwf.org.uk/wwf_articles.cfm?unewsid=4584
It basically argues what most people have already stated: "Before pouring billions into creating a new generation of nuclear or gas power stations, we need to ask whether that money would be better invested in other, more sustainable energy technologies"
Bill Barhydt 100+
Thanks for posting this!
bashar anbtawe
i think the most suitable energy is nuclear energy since very small mass can generate huge amount of energy with low cost and it can be spread around the world under global supervision .
Bill Barhydt 100+
http://www.mavenresearch.com/blog/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear/
Tao P 30+
Also, energy efficiency in our cars, homes and businesses is the most cost effective way to go. Watch Amory Lovins talk 'how to win the oil end game' and see how close we came to eliminating our dependence on foreign oil in the 70's.
Bill Barhydt 100+
However, I simply don't see how countries like the US, China, India, Russia, etc can deploy wind, solar and hydro-electric at a large enough scale to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear, vis-a-vis, the French example seems to be the only viable option that scales.
William Hart
Bill Barhydt 100+
duncan wilson
It is obviously going to be a hectic (nuclear included) system, with compensatory base-load sourcing globally for many years - but what I and I think many others distress at is that whilst we have harnessed the powers of the sun in terms of hydro-carbons (burning wood, plant energy and only relatively recently coal & oil - the heart of the problem now) we then 'jumped' a rung on the energy ladder by attempting to copy the sun. With the finance (including 50 years of failed fusion too) I feel humanity has been forced to reach too far by not balancing the investment in autonomous solar power as the evolution oil companies, wars and therefore often sciences most misaligned progress as well as events like Tunguska sped up the capital research into nuclear (hence the age of the reactors, financing and enormous times-cales involved in building & safety aspects that would NEVER be allowed in other industry) This funding should now be focusing on this gap we jumped into developing within a decade - %100 safe, renewable & economically viable solar unit energy first. It is a moral obligation & opportunity to re-discover, re-fund & inspire 12 year olds now into being involved in these break-through labs, not risking their lives in 25 years aboard a 2010 constructed floating radioactive powerstation, as Japanese engineers currently are.
I appreciate you allowing a series of very well informed responses on here & I wish the Japanese people all the best will in the world in rebuilding & restoring their world.
Nathali Robledo
Swarna Jana
Lukas Müller
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html#
It goes into detail on the design flaws of reactors such as the ones at Fukushima and the decision-making that led to those.
Guneet Narula
If the source of energy or the process by which it becomes usable harms human life directly (for instance nuclear radiation
) or indirectly (fossil fuels harm the environment we live in) then its pointless to put so much effort into it.
Yes, I agree that we had no alternate in the past. But now we do, renewable energy has more potential, is cleaner and is getting efficient by the day. Its just "expensive" .. I don't think notes of cotton and linen with numbers written on them is enough reason to not shift to a better future.
But thats just my humble opinion. :)