Alternative vs fossil vs nuclear power options (split from Wind Power in Spain)

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do we have a commercially viable thorium reactor yet?

Nope!


But, since Americans basically invented them about 50 years ago, it wouldn't be
very hard start work on them again.

Or, we could just wait for China to start building export models..
(We gave them the blueprints).

Now that I think about it, thorium reactors are the "Silver Bullet",
we need to save us from pollution etc..

It's too bad we didn't start using them 30 or 40 years ago...

[nexsuperne]

I'm glad that I already have my own solar pv, solar thermal, woodburner, ashp, wind turbine, rain water harvesting and full long term survival systems in place. At the moment, they all just save a huge amount of money, but when it really starts to go wrong, at least I know my children will be just fine.

[Piwoslaw]

Originally Posted by nexsuperne

Nuclear is supposed to be a clean fuel, yet they still cannot safely deal with the waste, even after all this time. If the waste could be effectively neutralised, then it really would be the perfect alternative to fossil fuel. After all, it has a phenominal power output vs the raw material input.

If the waste could be effectively neutralised, then that would still leave the whole process of mining, transporting, refining/enriching, transporting again, etc., to clean up. We keep hearing about a leak in some nuclear plant's cooling system, but how often do the media tell us about the health problems of African uranium miners? Or how much energy has to be put into turning ore into fuel? Or how much is spent on protecting it along the way, both from protesters and from terrorists?

Nuclear is often cited as being the cheapest source of power, but only when it is heavily subsidized by governments - "Here, we'll give you land and help you build the plant, give you all the water and air for your needs, then protect your fuel and waste shipments, and protect your plant from terrorists. And if you ever have a problem, we'll help you clean it up and use the public health care system to treat your workers and neighbors. Oh, and we'll call nuclear green since the plant itself doesn't emit much CO2, then the power you produce will get subsidised."
Of course, it's the same for big time polluters like coal mines and power plants (maybe without the protection of fuel shipments).

Originally Posted by MN Renovator

Oh, I'll add another note: LFTR cannot be used as a weapon as other nuclear grade material is, therefore it is undesirable to the US to go this route and eventually obsolete something that can protect the country.

How can a nuclear warhead be used to protect a country? By setting it off where the enemy is invading? The only "safe" (for the country that is using it) use of nuclear weapons is by sending them over to someone else to do their job. Now, if I'm not mistaken, this is not called defense, but attack.

[Xringer]

Originally Posted by Piwoslaw

If the waste could be effectively neutralised, then that would still leave the whole process of mining, transporting, refining/enriching, transporting again, etc., to clean up. We keep hearing about a leak in some nuclear plant's cooling system, but how often do the media tell us about the health problems of African uranium miners? Or how much energy has to be put into turning ore into fuel? Or how much is spent on protecting it along the way, both from protesters and from terrorists?

Nuclear is often cited as being the cheapest source of power, but only when it is heavily subsidized by governments - "Here, we'll give you land and help you build the plant, give you all the water and air for your needs, then protect your fuel and waste shipments, and protect your plant from terrorists. And if you ever have a problem, we'll help you clean it up and use the public health care system to treat your workers and neighbors. Oh, and we'll call nuclear green since the plant itself doesn't emit much CO2, then the power you produce will get subsidised."
Of course, it's the same for big time polluters like coal mines and power plants (maybe without the protection of fuel shipments).


How can a nuclear warhead be used to protect a country? By setting it off where the enemy is invading? The only "safe" (for the country that is using it) use of nuclear weapons is by sending them over to someone else to do their job. Now, if I'm not mistaken, this is not called defense, but attack.

Most of the problems associated with old-tech reactors are addressed by
using Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology.
Thorium: Green Friendly Nuclear Power, The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, LFTR, LiFTeR, Thorium fuel

But, we will not be able to build them in the USA, due to the political landscape.
We will only act on our problems AFTER there has been a major disaster,
caused by power loss in the gird.

"How can a nuclear warhead be used to protect a country? "

Haha, if you grew up in the USA in the 1950s, you would know.
It's a MAD idea.. Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear deterrents might have been what prevented a world that glows in the dark.

[Xringer]

News from Spain, relating to wind power in a way..

Spain

Last week the energy regulator recommended that the government lower regulated payments to power companies, delay investment in new capacity and use revenue from the sale of carbon-emission permits to cover some of the cost of renewable- energy subsidies.


Seems like they got on an unsustainable path and now are looking for some daylight.

[Xringer]

Matt is a funny guy! He wants one turbine left up, as a history lesson..


It is precisely this consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting environment where the greatest errors can be made. There are some 3,500 wind turbines in Britain, with hundreds more under construction. It would be a shame for them all to be dismantled. The biggest one should remain, like a crane on an abandoned quay, for future generations to marvel at. They will never be an efficient way to generate power. But there can be no better monument to the folly of mankind.

Matt Ridley: The Beginning Of The End Of Wind


I guess cleaning up the mess isn't so funny. I hope they don't cost as much to clean up,
as they did to install..



Or, is the cleanup built into the original cost?

[roflwaffle]

I wouldn't rely on information from a "think tank" that receives about 10k pounds a year in membership fees and 500k pounds a year from "secret" donors.

Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[AC_Hacker]

Originally Posted by Xringer

But there can be no better monument to the folly of mankind.

Xringer,

If you had as much money as Lord Lawson (the guy that started the GWFP blog from which you are drawing your dis-information), you wouldn't be favorably disposed toward efforts to develop alternative energy on a large scale either.

But you aren't rich and you aren't royal, you are just a retired guy living in a humble house, trying to get by.

But amidst your display of the durability of ignorance (speaking of monuments), you have inadvertently exposed an important truth, when you were commenting on Spain's temporary shift in energy policy:

Originally Posted by Xringer

Seems like they got on an unsustainable path and now are looking for some daylight.

Spain is in terrible economic trouble, unemployment is very high and now they are in the midst of a devastating collapse of their own housing bubble, and will suffer terrible dislocations as is the US, probably to a much worse degree.

(* If you really want to affix blame accurately, forget your fixation with Spanish windmills, go after the elite financial system, starting with the US *)

This is all completely unrelated to the development of large scale alternative energy, with the exception that now Spain doesn't have the budget to continue the aggressive development of AE that they had before.

Yes, in fact, alternative energy is not as cheap as fossil fuel, and yes, in fact, wind energy is not as constant as power output from a fossil fuel plant.

It will take a huge amount of work, a huge amount of money and most importantly a huge amount of energy to put in place a global AE system. The global AE system will never be able to supply the level of energy that we have habituated to... not even close.

It shouldn't be surprising to you that the amount of economic and technical and industrial activity that a society is able to engage in, is directly tied to available energy (more accurately excess available energy). Developing a new global AE system will require EXCESS available energy.

NOTE:

There was a report, now referred to as the 'Hirsch Report', commissioned by the G.W.Bush administration to investigate this matter (yes, even Republican administrations actually know all about this stuff). When the administration realized the very serious conclusions reached by the report, they put a lid on it, but it just so happened that a high school teacher had used the report in a class lesson and had put a link to it on the Internet, so you can now see it too. There is a good explanation of the report on Wikipedia. You should read the Wikipedia entry first and then try to tackle the original report. Now I know that it might be difficult to really read and actually understand this information, but it will not hurt as much as you might suppose.

NOTE ALSO: The report outlines several time-line scenarios, so it is important when you read the report, to realize that significant time has elapsed since it was written.

If we run our global supply of dense fossil energy down before it dawns on us all that we need to do things differently, it will be so late that the AE system will not ever reach the scale that it could otherwise. This will mean that the dislocations will be devastatingly large (the Hirsch Report mentions this). Don't be afraid, it won't affect you, you will most assuredly be compost by then, but it will affect the quality of life or existence of life of your daughter, and most certainly your grand children, and their children.

But Lord Lawson will be sitting pretty and so will his heirs... aristocracy seldom suffers.

-AC

[AlanE]

Originally Posted by AC_Hacker

It will take a huge amount of work, a huge amount of money and most importantly a huge amount of energy to put in place a global AE system. The global AE system will never be able to supply the level of energy that we have habituated to... not even close.

This is a religious statement. It simply takes an article of faith as given, we MUST have a global AE system, and then dispenses with any examination of WHY this must be so. God exists. Don't bother me with questions on whether God exists, for those questions are immaterial. One must live his life so that God is happy with one's conduct.

It shouldn't be surprising to you that the amount of economic and technical and industrial activity that a society is able to engage in, is directly tied to available energy (more accurately excess available energy). Developing a new global AE system will require EXCESS available energy.

I know what you're trying to say but you're missing the mark. There is no Excess Energy in the world. All the energy that is produced is consumed. There is Excess Capacity to produce energy so that when energy is needed it can be made available. Secondly, it's not really capacity that drives society forward, it's the cost of energy. Perform a thought experiment - if energy prices were 600% higher than today but there were no shortages, how would the economy cope compared to a time when energy costs were only 20% of the costs of energy today? Your family budget would have to allocate 6x more for heating and transportation than you do today, so that money would have to be taken from other uses. The same with commerce, industry, and research - money spent on energy means that the money can't be spent elsewhere. Energy is a component in everything we use, so when the price of energy increases so too does the cost of everything we use. If you're a diabetic, the cost of your insulin and needles and cotton swabs and alcohol disinfectant will increase, so too will your cost to get yourself to the doctor, so too will your doctor's bills for he has to heat his office, drive to work, pay his nurses more, etc.

High energy costs depress economic activity and make life worse for people.

If we run our global supply of dense fossil energy down before it dawns on us all that we need to do things differently, it will be so late that the AE system will not ever reach the scale that it could otherwise.

Again, this is simply a statement of faith. It's like saying that a woman who was raped MUST fall in love and marry the man who brutally raped her. That is an axiomatic position, meaning that it is not examined, it is simply assumed to be true. Now with that being the case the believers in that faith-based argument shall go forth and try to cram it into society where ever they possibly can because the outcome is desired for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence and reason. All the resistance from the victims of rape must simply be overlooked and overcome. All the reasons which point out why this faith-based position doesn't make sense will deflect off of the advocates because they didn't arrive at their position through reasoning, this is why an atheist arguing the existence of God with a believer is an exercise in futility - believers of all stripes belief in propositions on the basis of faith, not reason and evidence, so deploying reason and evidence against their axiomatic positions is an exercise in folly.

[Xringer]

"Perform a thought experiment". Don't have to. I just watch the news.

Because of the price of gasoline, people have started to cut back
on luxury items, like going out to eat, movies, cable and phone services..
Just those few items are going to "depress economic activity", even more.

If gas gets up to 6 or 8 bucks a gallon, those folks that drive 100 miles
a day back and forth to work, might be in serious trouble.
They are going to have to disconnect their cable and use an antenna!
Forget buying anything but what's needed to survive.

I went to a movie a couple weeks ago. I liked it, but it was kinda weird.
No line to buy a ticket.?.
I sat there in the middle of a Tuesday afternoon and watched a very popular movie.
Chronicle - Rotten Tomatoes

But, I was totally alone in the theater. I've never been to a movie
where there weren't at least a couple dozen people in attendance.
(I've been going to the local movie houses for about 40 years).
I realize that only a few elderly people were running the whole place,
(AMC Burlington Cinema 10) but how can they afford to stay open
with such low attendance?
Before I left, I noticed there was only 15 or 20 cars in the lot.
Most times, the lot is over-flowing into the long-walk parking.

Anyways, when I left the movie that day, I was wondering if this was going to be a trend.?.