Hooray for Nuclear Power

Discuss the application of the Dharma to situations of social, political, environmental and economic suffering and injustice.
Pero
Posts: 2225
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Pero » Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:26 pm

Grigoris wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:31 pm
Exactly.

The sooner we admit to ourselves that this lifestyle is not sustainable (especially at a global level), the faster we can arrive at real solutions.
I think it'll never happen. So we're pretty much done barring a deus ex machina type thing and since we're not living in a fiction story it doesn't seem very likely. Although... There is that increased reporting of UFO's. Perhaps someone will lend us a hand. :lol:
Also there is this thing that climate change would eventually happen anyway... Maybe we just accelerated our demise.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:57 am

Pero wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 8:26 pm
Grigoris wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 4:31 pm
Exactly.

The sooner we admit to ourselves that this lifestyle is not sustainable (especially at a global level), the faster we can arrive at real solutions.
I think it'll never happen. So we're pretty much done barring a deus ex machina type thing and since we're not living in a fiction story it doesn't seem very likely. Although... There is that increased reporting of UFO's. Perhaps someone will lend us a hand. :lol:
Also there is this thing that climate change would eventually happen anyway... Maybe we just accelerated our demise.
In a larger sense yes, but carbon free state power generation is very easy and millions live that way already. It's not our fault you suck.
Image

Entire nations actually. For decades.
Image

Suck it up and admit the only countries that are doing it right are using nuclear.
Image

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:10 am

Nemo wrote:
Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:16 pm
I lived off grid for years and built the system that provided the power. I also invested many thousands in energy storage solution start ups. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and in this Nicholas is correct. Without nuclear there is no way to effectively combat climate change with current technology. The big problems being vehicles and energy storage. 20% of energy generation from renewables is easy. After that running a reliable grid becomes exponentially harder. Many natural gas on demand turbines are required. This is just for our current energy consumption that does not include transportation or heating.

To meet the growing threat of climate change which is currently following the very worst case scenarios thought up in the 80s we also need to electrify vehicles and home heating. Conservatively this means doubling our current output. There is no way to get there by efficiency anymore. So barring an epic discovery in electricity generation or storage we are screwed. Nuclear is sadly the only option available. One that with public perception will be too little too late. I suggest buying high ground in a northern climate that will escape the worst of the destruction.

Elon's energy storage solutions are over priced garbage. I could build you better out of laptop batteries for 35% of the cost. They only last 3-5 years and create no energy. Making them requires massive amounts of energy. They solve nothing. I can see renewable hitting at best 40% of generation but after that it can't scale. France and my province of Ontario prove nuclear works great. It actually works in the real world. Unlike your pretend renewable scenarios that don't understand physics. Renewables don't work for an entire grid. Look at Germany. ...
Canada is exceptional in how much renewable energy is easily available and useable, Nemo, and I expect that colours your thinking more than you recognise.
From where I sit in the dry tropics of a country which is very similar to yours in most ways other than climate, solar power is by far the most obvious path to decarbonising the economy, and the only delay in scaling it up is the need for storage. As I said a little while ago, solar power can be up and running in months. The technology is getting cheaper all the time (unlike nuclear) and already undercuts new coal power (and sometimes undercuts even the cost of keeping old coal-fireed power stations running). Tesla's batteries are a step towards beating the intermittency problem, and if you can make them better and cheaper, please do) but molten salt (as in concentrated solar thermal) and pumped hydro look to me like more sustainable solutions. (Bear in mind, too, that the need for storage only became really obvious when wind and solar became a significant part of our generation mix, so it's early days yet.)
Wind power still has lot of potential (and just as much in Canada as here, unlike solar) but is even more intermittent than solar, so will need even more storage.
Transport? That's just a matter of compact energy storage, so EV's are fine. Maybe hydrogen or compressed air (look up Tata) for things like urban buses.
Home heating? Passive solar + good insulation goes a long way, but (again) solar works well in most most parts of the world. Where I live, heating is not the issue - cooling is, and everyone installs rooftop solar to more-than-cover their airconditioning costs.
Above all of these, demand reduction is essential.

In the end, there is no single "best" technology and we will always have a mix. Globally, that has to be majority renewables asap, with the rest coming from fossil fuels (all on their way out) and nuclear. Locally? Some places may be more nuclear than renewables, as you already are, but relying on growing nuclear fast enough to meet the climate challenge is (IMO) even more unrealistic than relying on some magical new technology. It's renewables or bust, really, and the bust would be so ugly that I'm not prepared to sit around letting it happen.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Nicholas Weeks
Posts: 3537
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:21 am
Location: California

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nicholas Weeks » Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:10 am

MIT has been studying in their Future of series, all sorts of options since 2003, here is part of their conclusion; go to DW Engaged for the thread containing a link to the full report:

http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/upload ... ummary.pdf

https://dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4427
Glorious one, creator of all goodness, Mañjuśrī, his glorious eminence!
Manjushri-namasamgiti

User avatar
well wisher
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:57 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by well wisher » Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:33 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Jul 03, 2019 2:10 am
Above all of these, demand reduction is essential.
I agree whole-heartedly, demand reduction is absolutely vital for long term solutions, and is actually one of the most feasible and achievable solution we have through mass efforts.
This goes in hand with More efficient energy appliances, smarter building designs conversing energy.
Maybe even resort to good old fires and sticks if need be - for the wild natural campers out there.

Some of the over-consumption in modern age is really wasteful - consider the cases of big mansions upkeep, or huge office buildings that's not even occupied all the time. There's definitely more than enough electricity to go around if those waste were reduced.
The real uphill battle is to convince the over-indulgent wealthy & political elites to correct their wasteful ways - and I don't think they will be willing to change without a big fight, even if a really big existential threat is hanging over he rest of humanity.

Green nonrenewable energy sources is definitely much more preferable than polluting ones for obvious reasons. Hazardous nuclear waste is a big cause of concern.

User avatar
well wisher
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:57 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by well wisher » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:17 pm

Also, I want to point out that some poor folks has much better ways (in terms of carbon-neutrality) to keep cool in hot summers compared to the wasteful ways of the over-indulgent wealthy that usually involves mass-blasting air-condition units.
Methods such as skinning dipping into clear lakes& rivers, wet towels evaporation do not require any electricity at all. Also poverty-monks & ascetics meditate under cool tree shades to stay cool, really inspirational. Sometimes simple natural / old historical solution are the best, and sometimes even out of necessity (as income inequality & unfair wealth concentration via rich hoarders is one of the biggest problem in modern ages).
I suppose we Canadians should be thankful for being surround by abundant amounts of freshwater natural resources - useful for cooling, electricity-generation and everyday survival purposes. Although those who had suffered from flood might beg to differ ;)

For example, check out this cool gadget, portable river turbine.


If portable green renewable energy generators (eg. solar/wind/water) can be cheaply massively produced and adapted for the general market, then I think this is a great way for the masses to rise up against government & big corporations economic tyranny and cost-inflation, as many Canadians suffers through high electricity bills & fees& taxes at the hands of government-controlled electricity agencies. Imagine, powering up your home just by running the bathtub! :tongue:

Pero
Posts: 2225
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 8:54 pm

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Pero » Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:20 pm

well wisher wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:33 am
Some of the over-consumption in modern age is really wasteful - consider the cases of big mansions upkeep, or huge office buildings that's not even occupied all the time. There's definitely more than enough electricity to go around if those waste were reduced.
The real uphill battle is to convince the over-indulgent wealthy & political elites to correct their wasteful ways - and I don't think they will be willing to change without a big fight, even if a really big existential threat is hanging over he rest of humanity.
That goes for our entire "developed" civilization, not just some political and wealthy elites. How many of us are even aware there is a need for changing our way of living? How many of those are actually willing to change? Not many I think.
Although many individuals in this age appear to be merely indulging their worldly desires, one does not have the capacity to judge them, so it is best to train in pure vision.
- Shabkar

User avatar
well wisher
Posts: 230
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2018 3:57 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by well wisher » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:18 pm

Pero wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:20 pm
well wisher wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 6:33 am
Some of the over-consumption in modern age is really wasteful - consider the cases of big mansions upkeep, or huge office buildings that's not even occupied all the time. There's definitely more than enough electricity to go around if those waste were reduced.
The real uphill battle is to convince the over-indulgent wealthy & political elites to correct their wasteful ways - and I don't think they will be willing to change without a big fight, even if a really big existential threat is hanging over he rest of humanity.
That goes for our entire "developed" civilization, not just some political and wealthy elites. How many of us are even aware there is a need for changing our way of living? How many of those are actually willing to change? Not many I think.
Yes unfortunately, attachment to luxury and enjoyment is more of the norm. Resisting the urge to cutback, and calling it unnecessary austerity.
One of the Ideal dream of capitalism would be to raise everyone's living standards to higher degree.
But the problem is: Earth, our current world, has lots of unwanted limitations. Example: limited land available for solar, finite water resources (need time to recycle via rain), winds may not blow all the time, pollution, energy capacity and loss issues, wildly fluctuating climates & temperatures ... etc...
Thus you have the more the more wealthy living at higher standards (and more wasteful), at the expense of the poorer people & animals & environment.

But just maybe: more innovative technologies can provide more abundance to each and every individuals without causing more conflicts about limited shared resources, like portable energy chargers of various methods (just need more capacity)... etc.
My opinion is: we really need break the bondage and control of unjust authority, and give more power to the individuals (paired with sensible responsibility)

Anyways, this is also why some people have much respect for the true ascetics & monks (maybe even some enviro-hippies) so much, willing to give up worldly possessions and wealth, to live a simpler life. They are truly less greedy & selfish! That is the power of renunciation.

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:13 pm

In the meantime since there are thousands of metric tons of weapon grade HEU(highly enriched uranium) and plutonium that needs to be blended down into fuel and burned maybe we can keep the lights on in a few reactors? Fission is the road to fusion and fusion reactor fuels that produce no radioactive isotopes have already been developed. Why live on crappy solar panels(which I did for years) when you could have fusion? Energy too cheap to meter using the same process the sun does too good for you? To do otherwise sounds Malthusian. Asceticism too strict can never last for very long.

Solar panels suck. They need tons of space, use massive amounts of energy to make(first 2-4 years for current multicrystalline-silicon PV), only last 25 years and need massive battery banks that only last maybe 5 years with current tech. If you have actually used panels good luck going 10 years in the real world.

Hydro is pretty snazzy and provides 23% of total production in my province. Good luck in the desert though. I've seen some German made turbines that still work after 100 years and are in operation today.

The problem is capitalism. Profit driven madness cannot lead to a fair outcome. All it can do is produce. It cannot distribute. We need new forms of currency that can only be spent on carbon neutral goods. When capitalism meets automation there are no longer consumers with jobs. We will need a guaranteed basic lifestyle that includes food, energy, internet and housing or there will be a messy revolution.

User avatar
Ayu
Former staff member
Posts: 7104
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:25 am
Location: Europe

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Ayu » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:22 pm

The people who advertize for nuclear power cannot count. This electricity is not cheap as soon as you add the costs for the storage of the waste.
I have decided to stick with love.
Hate is too great a burden to bear.
- Martin Luther King, Jr. -

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:39 pm

Ayu wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:22 pm
The people who advertize for nuclear power cannot count. This electricity is not cheap as soon as you add the costs for the storage of the waste.
We stick it in a pool for 7-10 years and then put it over 680 metres below the surface into 450 million year old impermeable bedrock. We put it back where we found it. Seems to work OK and it isn't that expensive. Hardest part was designing the signage. Canada is the perfect place for nuclear. Your mileage may vary. Most countries don't even have 450 million year old geologically stable bedrock. Now that we have robots that can survive extreme radiation we can mine the best seams of uranium. We could run on unenriched domestic uranium for a millennia. You could even hit a CANDU with a nuke and it wouldn't melt down. Control rods are held out by electromagnetism. EMP scrams the reactor automatically and rad hardened bubble memory opens the helium gas valves even if everyone is vaporized. The walls are filled with water. This is not some RBMK or General Electric garbage. India even converted CANDU for thorium use since they have almost no domestic uranium.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:48 pm

Nemo wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:13 pm
In the meantime since there are thousands of metric tons of weapon grade HEU(highly enriched uranium) and plutonium that needs to be blended down into fuel and burned maybe we can keep the lights on in a few reactors? Fission is the road to fusion and fusion reactor fuels that produce no radioactive isotopes have already been developed. Why live on crappy solar panels(which I did for years) when you could have fusion? Energy too cheap to meter using the same process the sun does too good for you? To do otherwise sounds Malthusian. Asceticism too strict can never last for very long.

Solar panels suck. They need tons of space, use massive amounts of energy to make(first 2-4 years for current multicrystalline-silicon PV), only last 25 years and need massive battery banks that only last maybe 5 years with current tech. If you have actually used panels good luck going 10 years in the real world.
As I said a while ago, you're biased by what works in your unique national circumstances. Solar panels are brilliant. 20% (and still growing) of Aussies have them on their roofs. We have unlimited space for solar farms in our vast dry, sunny inland. Panels last twenty years without any trouble, and in fact no-one I know has ever had to replace any (one person I know is still using panels that are over 30 years old, i.e. almost the first generation of commercially released domestic panels, so we don't yet know how long panels will really last). Admitted, storage is still a problem, but smart installations will still pay off without any storage at all.
Nemo wrote:Hydro is pretty snazzy and provides 23% of total production in my province. Good luck in the desert though. I've seen some German made turbines that still work after 100 years and are in operation today.
Of course. Wind is great, too, in the right location. So is geothermal (ask the Icelanders!).
Nemo wrote:The problem is capitalism. Profit driven madness cannot lead to a fair outcome. All it can do is produce. It cannot distribute. We need new forms of currency that can only be spent on carbon neutral goods. When capitalism meets automation there are no longer consumers with jobs. We will need a guaranteed basic lifestyle that includes food, energy, internet and housing or there will be a messy revolution.
Yes, probably, but that's another whole can of worms.
Nemo wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:39 pm
Ayu wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:22 pm
The people who advertize for nuclear power cannot count. This electricity is not cheap as soon as you add the costs for the storage of the waste.
We stick it in a pool for 7-10 years and then put it over 680 metres below the surface into 450 million year old impermeable bedrock. We put it back where we found it. Seems to work OK and it isn't that expensive. Hardest part was designing the signage. Canada is the perfect place for nuclear. Your mileage may vary. Most countries don't even have 450 million year old geologically stable bedrock. Now that we have robots that can survive extreme radiation we can mine the best seams of uranium. We could run on unenriched domestic uranium for a millennia. You could even hit a CANDU with a nuke and it wouldn't melt down. Control rods are held out by electromagnetism. EMP scrams the reactor automatically and rad hardened bubble memory opens the helium gas valves even if everyone is vaporized. The walls are filled with water. This is not some RBMK or General Electric garbage. India even converted CANDU for thorium use since they have almost no domestic uranium.
Again, you're biased by what works in your unique national circumstances.
Just over your border ...
The United States is home to 21 “stranded” nuclear-waste storage sites, according to a congressional researcher who was quick to add that “stranded does not imply that the waste has been abandoned or lacks regulatory oversight.”

It means those 21 sites are no longer attached to reactors that are producing electricity or revenue, environmental policy analyst Lance N. Larson writes in a May report to members of Congress. The stranded sites are costly for the federal government, which has spent $7.4 billion to nuclear utilities and other reactor owners, according to CRS, to offset its responsibility to store the waste.

The 21 are among 80 sites Larsen drew together in a map that shows where the country's nuclear waste is distributed while it awaits construction of a permanent repository.

"No country, including the United States, has a permanent geologic repository for disposal of commercial SNF (spent nuclear fuel) and other HLW (high-level waste). Currently, commercial nuclear power plants generally store SNF on site, awaiting disposal in a permanent repository," Larsen writes.
:reading: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... ec0e6c2cf7

Here ...
Australia has accumulated almost 5,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste (around the volume of two Olympic size swimming pools). This does not include uranium mining wastes, which are disposed of at mine sites.

Australia does not have a central facility for the storage or disposal of radioactive waste, which is currently held at more than 100 locations around Australia. Many organisations are using storage areas that were not designed for long term storage of radioactive waste. For example, under international safety standards, long term waste management facilities should be in geologically stable areas with low population density and not prone to flooding.

Past attempts to site a national waste repository, including near Woomera in South Australia and Muckaty in the Northern Territory, were unsuccessful, due to community concern, and resistance from state governments and affected local and Indigenous communities. This time, however, site selection has been underpinned by a voluntary nomination process.
:reading: https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... ctiveWaste

But, bad as it is, waste management is almost irrelevant, firstly because there isn't enough high-grade ore (ever, anywhere) to supply enough reactors to replace much of our global coal usage and secondly because they could not be built quickly enough to reduce our emissions in time. Our time-frame now is 5 - 10 years (mostly because we didn't act when we first knew we had to), and nuclear power stations typically take 7 years to build. Renewables are the only technologies which can plausibly be ramped up quickly enough. There's more on these points at DWE, especially from https://dharmawheel.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4427#p9672 onwards.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:21 am

Hi Kim
Solar works great on paper in Canada but I know a number of people in the alternative power community and installs seem to only last about 10 years here before they are ripped out. I wish that wasn't the case but it doesn't work like they say in the sales brochures. Output is good in winter though if you put your panels perpendicular. Snow reflection and better efficiency at low temps. Maybe the weather is too extreme. Batteries are crap everywhere though. Replacing battery banks sucks. Grid intertie is great up to a point. Rooftop installs suck too. Working on them in winter is dangerous and replacing a 20 year roof with solar is a total nightmare.

Geothermal is crap so far. I lived with the engineers who were trying to fix the plants. Hydrogen sulphide eats the pressure pipes. Not even Siemens can solve that problem yet. That is why Iceland sold the plant to some suckers. Tried the same in the Ph but no takers. They rust out too fast to be economical.

The older American GE nuke reactors are terrifying. They need to be closed immediately.

Canada had a community volunteer to take the waste so problem solved.

Renewables can't do the job either. Not enough lithium in the world to make enough batteries. America alone would need $2.5 trillion in batteries just for the existing grid to be 100% renewable. You can't do that in 7 years even if you had the lithium. I invested in battery startups and lost my shirt. This is the main hurdle. I did put my money where my mouth is when it comes to energy storage and attempting to stop global warming. For Canada nuclear is the best option for now. Other countries, not really.

Local is the operative word. So many things being enacted here are from California initiatives. Low flow toilets are ridiculous here. We don't even use 1% of the main river running past my city and there is a second river as well. All that happened is we had to change the user fees on water since we were using less. It provided almost no benefit.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:46 am

Nemo wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:21 am
Hi Kim
Solar works great on paper in Canada but I know a number of people in the alternative power community and installs seem to only last about 10 years here before they are ripped out. I wish that wasn't the case but it doesn't work like they say in the sales brochures. Output is good in winter though if you put your panels perpendicular. Snow reflection and better efficiency at low temps. Maybe the weather is too extreme.
I'm a bit surprised that solar works even as well as you say it does in Canada. I would have guessed that seasonal variation would be the killer, giving you maximum output when it's least useful and minimums when you could really use it all for heating.
Here, we value it most for cooling in summer, when output is best. :smile:
Also, our seasonal variation is very slight - day length only goes from 11.5 hours to 12.5, solstice to solstice, and we get less cloud in winter. A 1.5 KW rooftop system will put out an average of 6 KWH per day, and the variation is only +/- 25% of the average.
Batteries are crap everywhere though. Replacing battery banks sucks. Grid intertie is great up to a point. Rooftop installs suck too. Working on them in winter is dangerous and replacing a 20 year roof with solar is a total nightmare.
Again, our experience is different, and again it's partly because our big demand is for cooling. We need that most during the day, so storage hardly matters. In fact, schools are a terrific match for solar - all those big flattish roofs, and almost no power consumption outside sunlight hours - and have picked it up enthusiastically.
Winter? That's now. 25 C in the daytime going down to 15 C overnight, blue skies ... our favourite season. I just spent nearly an hour on the roof, cleaning gutters, in short pants and short-sleeved shirt. As I said, local factors. :smile:
Geothermal is crap so far. I lived with the engineers who were trying to fix the plants. Hydrogen sulphide eats the pressure pipes. Not even Siemens can solve that problem yet. That is why Iceland sold the plant to some suckers. Tried the same in the Ph but no takers. They rust out too fast to be economical.
I'm sorry to hear that.
The older American GE nuke reactors are terrifying. They need to be closed immediately.

Canada had a community volunteer to take the waste so problem solved.

Renewables can't do the job either. Not enough lithium in the world to make enough batteries. America alone would need $2.5 trillion in batteries just for the existing grid to be 100% renewable. You can't do that in 7 years even if you had the lithium. I invested in battery startups and lost my shirt. This is the main hurdle. I did put my money where my mouth is when it comes to energy storage and attempting to stop global warming.
I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, but I have to say, also, that your insistence on batteries is a bit puzzling. What we need is storage, and batteries are only one kind of storage, e.g. pumped hydro is good in many locations. Also, smart grid design can reduce the need for storage: over a big enough geographical area, the intermittency of wind and solar is much reduced.
For Canada nuclear is the best option for now. Other countries, not really.

Local is the operative word. So many things being enacted here are from California initiatives. Low flow toilets are ridiculous here. We don't even use 1% of the main river running past my city and there is a second river as well. All that happened is we had to change the user fees on water since we were using less. It provided almost no benefit.
Agreed. And what we've been presenting to each other here are cases in point.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1122
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Nemo » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:34 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 5:46 am
I'm sorry it didn't work out for you, but I have to say, also, that your insistence on batteries is a bit puzzling. What we need is storage, and batteries are only one kind of storage, e.g. pumped hydro is good in many locations. Also, smart grid design can reduce the need for storage: over a big enough geographical area, the intermittency of wind and solar is much reduced.
It's all about vehicles. Some prototype energy storage matrices have had the energy density of dynamite. They were as explodey as nitro in the old movies we watched as kids though. Affordable high density storage is the Rosetta stone that could kill fossil fuels. I don't see a clear way forward without it. Unless you want to make nuclear jets. Which lunatics actually made in the 50s. I often wonder if we would have fusion by now if we went all in on nuclear. Image

There are fuels equivalent to gasoline made from captured carbon now. Again, more local stuff from Canada. We can convert excess renewables into liquid fuels. It could also turn nuclear generation into transport fuels. It's inefficient so far. You lose roughly half your energy input making the fuel. If you tax carbon fairly they are affordable now. Batteries are a better long term solution since the carbon is not released. Carbon free transport requires doubling generation capacity. With this solution you can utilize existing vehicles and fuel infrastructure.
https://carbonengineering.com/

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Former staff member
Posts: 3883
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Hooray for Nuclear Power

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:56 pm

Nemo wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:34 pm
It's all about vehicles. ...
There are fuels equivalent to gasoline made from captured carbon now. Again, more local stuff from Canada. We can convert excess renewables into liquid fuels. It could also turn nuclear generation into transport fuels. It's inefficient so far. You lose roughly half your energy input making the fuel. If you tax carbon fairly they are affordable now. Batteries are a better long term solution since the carbon is not released. Carbon free transport requires doubling generation capacity. With this solution you can utilize existing vehicles and fuel infrastructure.
https://carbonengineering.com/
Okay, now I see where you're coming from. I thought you were advocating batteries for general use.

Yes, batteries are (so far) one of the best solutions for transport, for reasons you give.
Replacing fossil fuels with energy-expensive synthetic fuels and then burning them to produce yet more CO2 doesn't seem smart to me on any level, since you still have the emissions :toilet: but you have increased costs. :toilet: It's a bridging solution at best.

What else can we do? Lots of things:
• Trains and trams, which can easily be electrified (many already are.
• Hydrogen power for high-capacity short-route transport e.g. city buses, delivery trucks. (Hydrogen is a storage technology, of course, not a fuel.)
• Wind power for ships.
• and, overwhelmingly, demand reduction! :tantrum:
Aussie primary produce is shipped to Asia and back to us for sale. Ditto steel, which comes back as Chinese whitegoods. We import French wines, although ours are excellent. We eat every fruit year-round, by importing from the northern hemisphere when they are out of season here. That's nutty. :toilet:
One car, one person. That's nutty. :toilet:

:reading:
This section of the wikipedia article is a collection of starting points for further reading for anyone who is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainab ... Objectives
This site is good, too, though a bit out of date (2008-2012) https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5717

:namaste:
Kim

Post Reply

Return to “Engaged Buddhism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests