Seriously thoughtful Will more nuclear power plants be built?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by kcarscadden

David MacKay, a Professor in the Department of Physics at the University of Cambridge, has produced a book that discusses the prospects for sustainable power generation (sustainable defined as lasting at least 1000 years) - wind, solar, tide, wave, bio, nuclear, fusion, etc. and concludes that the only reasonable choice is nuclear.

There is a review of the book at http://www.boingboing.net/2009/04/09...-energy-w.html.

You can download a pdf of the book from his website at http://www.withouthotair.com/

Does the book actually say there's enough plutonium in the ground to provide our power needs for the next 1000 years? Because if it does, that goes against some claims I've heard elsewhere recently (though I'd have to search to remember where). And I'm curious as to why he thinks solar, wind and tides won't be workable long-term, when they will require far less and less intensive maintenance than nuclear...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Does the book actually say there's enough plutonium in the ground to provide our power needs for the next 1000 years? Because if it does, that goes against some claims I've heard elsewhere recently (though I'd have to search to remember where). And I'm curious as to why he thinks solar, wind and tides won't be workable long-term, when they will require far less and less intensive maintenance than nuclear...

Uranium, please, not plutonium . There are certainly estimated to be sufficient reserves of easily-obtainable uranium to last for many centuries.

As I've just explained on another thread, you cannot use wind and solar power for your "base load" power generation requirements, which is what coal stations are used for today. Nuclear really is the only viable alternative for that.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I've just explained on another thread, you cannot use wind and solar power for your "base load" power generation requirements, which is what coal stations are used for today. Nuclear really is the only viable alternative for that.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment... which thread did you discuss this in?

[HarryT]

Here:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...t=44453&page=8

Post #108 onwards.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Here:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...t=44453&page=8

Post #108 onwards.

Oh, that one. Sorry, I'm not going back in there. Carry on.

[HarryT]

Feel free to comment here, Steve; it's perfectly on-topic.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Feel free to comment here, Steve; it's perfectly on-topic.

My only comment about not being able to use renewable source as "base loads" is that adding storage to the renewable source makes it accessible when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing. And combining methods (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and power storage) means that when any one is not available, the others are.

Also: If every home could produce some of its own power, using renewable sources, and store some of that power for use later, the country's power needs would not be so critical, and we might not need nuclear plants (or more of any other plants, for that matter) to provide a base load.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Oh, that one. Sorry, I'm not going back in there. Carry on.

Too bad. We miss your contributions -- or at least I do -- whether we agree or not.

Xenophon

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

My only comment about not being able to use renewable source as "base loads" is that adding storage to the renewable source makes it accessible when the sun isn't shining, or the wind isn't blowing. And combining methods (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and power storage) means that when any one is not available, the others are.

Also: If every home could produce some of its own power, using renewable sources, and store some of that power for use later, the country's power needs would not be so critical, and we might not need nuclear plants (or more of any other plants, for that matter) to provide a base load.

It's not possible to use wind, geothermal, or tidal sources for base power. There is no way you can generate enough of it for it to be worthwhile. And the other downside of wind is the environmental damage. The best places to put a windmill is also where birds like to fly (bird+windmill=bad).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The best places to put a windmill is also where birds like to fly (bird+windmill=bad).

That's why many wind farms in the UK are now being built off-shore - it's windier out at sea, and there's much less environmental impact. One of the benefits of living on an island .

You're right, though; you cannot use wind and solar power for base load power generation (although you can use geothermal power in some part of the world - eg Iceland generates most of its power that way). Nuclear stations really are the only "green" alternative to coal.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

[SNIP observations about wind farms]

You're right, though; you cannot use wind and solar power for base load power generation (although you can use geothermal power in some part of the world - eg Iceland generates most of its power that way). Nuclear stations really are the only "green" alternative to coal.

HarryT -- I think you are speaking a general truth. But the statement appears to be a bit too general. Might it not be more accurate to say something like:

Wind and solar power aren't a good match for base load power generation on their own, because they do not provide constant power 24/7. With the addition of some form of energy storage they could, in theory, be used for base load power generation. In practice, adding the energy storage component (usually) increases costs so much that it makes wind and solar prohibitively expensive for base load usage. Nuclear stations really are the only "green" alternative to coal. All statements made considering current and near-future technologies.

...or something like that. Right?

Or have I misunderstood again?

I'll add, from my own understanding, that current energy storage techniques decrease energy efficiency as well as adding financial cost. This, too, makes wind and solar less attractive for base load generation. Not fun to realize that you're losing 50% or more of the generated power to the storage setup!

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

One thing rooftop solar is really good for -- at least in the US South West -- is peaking power production in urban areas. The days when all those air conditioners kick in on max are exactly the days (and times!) when the rooftop solar is producing peak generation. An excellent match! Now we need to get the costs down to the point where folks who are not early adopters can afford to join the party.

Xenophon

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

One thing rooftop solar is really good for -- at least in the US South West -- is peaking power production in urban areas.

I think in the south east too... and in all of the South. As you say, here is FL when the sun is strong and it is very hot out is when I need my A/C most. I heat my pool with solar now and I have yet to get a bill from the sun. It is very econmical. Each year the cost per BTU gets cheaper.

BOb

[wodin]

There are many areas on the Big Island of Hawaii that are not served by the HELCO "grid". Homes in these areas are said to be "off the grid". There are two ways to be off the grid, the poor person's way of candles, kerosene lanterns and Honda generators; and the rich person's way of solar voltaic, solar hot water, back yard windmills and storage batteries.

The last time I checked (about twenty years ago) it cost around $30,000 to be off the grid the rich way. That amounts to a twenty five year pay back in a tropical, A/C not required climate. As technology advances and prices decline (or the cost of electricity goes up), if that price could be brought to a five or ten year payoff, HELCO might have a little more difficulty selling power.

Being off the grid becomes less viable as climate becomes more extreme, but being partly off the grid, and relying on the grid instead of batteries for peak surges and nighttime loads still makes economical sense.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

The U.S. is obviously capable of providing a LOT more power from renewable sources than it does presently, between its open lands, offshore territories, and more than a few rooftops. Storage certainly needs to be worked out for almost all of those (though tidal is essentially constant, and could be a "base load" without storage), and it's an area where research has been lax for a very long time.

But even if storage adds financial cost, it could still be cheaper than coal or oil-based power, given that those technologies are already heavily subsidized, and most significantly, their costs to the environment are presently "hidden"... remove their subsidies, and make those plants pay for their environmental cleanup, and we'd be looking at a much more even playing field.

Waste products from coal and oil plants do so much environmental damage that, although it may be harder to quantify than a bird carcass at the base of a windmill (and it isn't always harder to quantify that damage... ask someone in West Virginia), it may be easily as significant... I could easily believe it to be more. When we take into account the total cost of oil- and coal-based power, we will see that the costs to go renewable aren't as high as we think... in some cases, would be significantly lower than staying the course.

Although traditional windmills are certainly a threat to birds, the problem has recently been reported to be exaggerated (not completely wrong, just exaggerated). A few new windmill configurations being experimented with, however, are designed to minimize the hazard to birds... the "standard" field-based windmill design may turn out to be very different than the "big propeller" we are all used to.