Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[Greg Anos]

There are temperature effeciency problems with solar. Silicon panels that produce at 14-18% effiency at 22C (72F) lose aound 50% of their output at 65C (150F). That's not an untypical on a US Southwest roof at max air temp (max load need). Cadmium Telleruide at about 7% effceint, and CIGS bounces all over the place.(that's always been the problem of CIGS) They claim to produce more that 12%, but actually see the product is more challenging.

There's lots of other methods in the pipeline, but with the current drop in energy costs, heading to the market has been slowed. Once the economy turns around, energy prices will climb and these will all get relatively cheaper.
Hopefully in 5-10 years we will have 10 year amort conversion....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There are temperature effeciency problems with solar...

A number of labs are working on various methods of solving these issues, including providing a coolant behind the cell that can provide heat for a solar water heater, and different designs and chemical bases designed to convert more of the light spectrum (including UV and IR). I used one of the ideas in Chasing The Light, essentially a "nano-antenna" designed to convert IR to electric power.

I expect a hybrid of compositions and configurations will eventually make solar cells much more efficient, perhaps 50% or more... and if mass-production can bring costs down, make them affordable for just about any home.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A number of labs are working on various methods of solving these issues, including providing a coolant behind the cell that can provide heat for a solar water heater, and different designs and chemical bases designed to convert more of the light spectrum (including UV and IR). I used one of the ideas in Chasing The Light, essentially a "nano-antenna" designed to convert IR to electric power.

I expect a hybrid of compositions and configurations will eventually make solar cells much more efficient, perhaps 50% or more... and if mass-production can bring costs down, make them affordable for just about any home.

If we can get them up to at least 15% efficency, and total cost cheaper on a 10 year amortization than current electricity bills, the market will explode. At least in the US southwest. The net efficency is very important, as a typical house only has so much rooftop to work with. Since this is economic waste space, loading it up with solar panels is one of those "no regret" changes. But only when it becomes cheap enough to do so...

[HarryT]

I was very pleased to see that yesterday the British government announced proposed locations for 11 new nuclear power stations, the first of which is due to come on-line in 2018.

[moz]

I prefer the more traditional nuclear power - fusion. It works, it's pretty safe and we know a lot about how it works (explosions are predictable and it's extremely unlikely that our existing one will ever blow up). Better, the waste products are both useful and for the most part easy to deal with.

Fission is just plain dumb. Not least because we still don't have a good way to deal with the waste. For the capitalists out there, I think it's significant that even with huge subsidies private companies just aren't interested in it. It also makes you a target for terrorists, especially state-sponsored ones.

In terms of accidents, the Japanese have quite a good reputation for reliable technology and an astonishingly bad history with nuclear power. The Russians are worse, of course, but they don't really have a reputation to lose.

Here in Australia we have a couple of small reactors that also have a history of leaking, breaking down and generally not working very well. Except as producers of radioactive waste, that part they do well.

The mining end is pretty nasty, we have three mines and none of them operate even within the lax environmental regulations they have. The worst is in Kakadu, the triply-listed world heritage area that has a road and mine excised from the middle of it so someone can mine uranium. I don't think they've got through a monsoon season without a tailings dam leak yet. So basically the mine is a way to spread radioactive heavy metals through a world heritage area. Yippee, hooray and all that.

Finally, there's the annoying habit that the US and Russia have of spreading nuclear waste around other countries without consent. Using depleted uranium munitions is pretty far up the "destroy their villages and salt their fields" scale, leaving a legacy of poison for generations.

So, why would I want to become part of that? Well, it's easier than changing my lifestyle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moz

So, why would I want to become part of that? Well, it's easier than changing my lifestyle.

Australia has the highest CO2 emissions on Earth, per head of population - all those nasty, dirty coal power stations. Don't you think that it would be a good idea to try and do something about that? Australia and the USA are unique among western nations in failing to ratify the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Australia and the USA are unique among western nations in failing to ratify the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol.

Ratifying is one thing, fulfilling another (e.g. Canada ratified the protocol, but has increased its CO2 by 60% instead of reducing it).

[HarryT]

Well, yes; it rather goes without saying that if a country ratifies a treaty then it should regard itself as obliged to satisfy it. One of the weaknesses of the Kyoto treaty is that it does not mandate any "punishment" for countries which fail to abide by their obligations under the treaty.

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was very pleased to see that yesterday the British government announced proposed locations for 11 new nuclear power stations, the first of which is due to come on-line in 2018.

Promoting electric and hybrid cars at the same time. Probably the events are connected.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I was very pleased to see that yesterday the British government announced proposed locations for 11 new nuclear power stations, the first of which is due to come on-line in 2018.

None, shamefully, located in Scotland - wonder how that'll work when they are attached to the National Grid...

[HarryT]

Regretably not - the Scottish Parliament is against nuclear power, as discussed in this BBC News article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8001526.stm

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...
Australia and the USA are unique among western nations in failing to ratify the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol.

I'd note Australia eventually ratified the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol with the last change of government in December 2007 (making it effective March 2008).

Cheers,
Marc

[tirsales]

I'd like to note, that nuclear power is (by far) not a perfect solution. Of course - nuclear power plants produce less CO2 then a coal plant (in fact a coal plant also produces more "free" radioactivity through the disposal of C14 and similar (more or less) radioactive isotopes).
But: The problems (e.g. what to do with the garbage?) with nuclear power are not solved. There is only a limited supply of (usable) resources - and the overall problem (limited resources vs ever-growing need for energy) is not solved. There are some safety considerations to take into account (also modern plants are very safe, older ones are not), etc
Oh and please DONT remember the cost of storing radioactive garbage. Nowadays companies dont have to pay those costs (at least in Germany) - the state (through this: the tax payer) has to carry those costs. Take them into account and the energy price calculations are far less convincing.

Dont get me wrong: I am not against nuclear power. But I believe that you really should remember the "dark side" of it. Whatever the industry might be telling - nuclear power is not perfect.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I'd note Australia eventually ratified the Kyoto Climate Change Protocol with the last change of government in December 2007 (making it effective March 2008).

Cheers,
Marc

Thank you, Marc, I didn't know that. Do you think that the treaty obligations can be met in the short time that remains?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I'd like to note, that nuclear power is (by far) not a perfect solution. Of course - nuclear power plants produce less CO2 then a coal plant

A nuclear plant produces no CO2.

But: The problems (e.g. what to do with the garbage?) with nuclear power are not solved.

The amount of "high level" waste produced is actually pretty small, and disposing of it not really very difficult. Dig a deep hole is a geologically stable area. Drop it in. Cover it with 100m of concrete. Problem solved.

Certain it's not perfect - no industrial plant can exist that doesn't have some adverse effect on the environment - but the environmental impact of a nuclear power station is a lot less than that of a coal station.