Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - 7 Myths about Alternative Energy

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

7 Myths about Alternative Energy
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:40 am Post subject:

gakduki wrote:

I don't get nuclear power...The stuff is more useful for medicine and bombs. Allegedly there is a shorter supply of Uranium than oil anyways.

I'm going to follow up on the above replies to this.

1)Uranium isn't the only fuel that can be used.

2)Breeder reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) are far more efficient at using it than most current 'once through' designs. The reason we don't exclusively use breeders is political, not technical.

3) Uranium is several orders of magnitude more energy dense than any other currently usable fuel. We don't need an awful lot of it.

4) There's enough Uranium in current reserves (ie economic at current prices) to last for decades. Multiply that by 50 or so if we're using breeder reactors. Then we could always go out and mine less economic reserves.

5) There's roughly 4.5 Billion tons dissolved in seawater. At prices roughly 2-4 times higher than current market levels this becomes economic. Since the cost of the fuel is marginal compared to the capital cost of the nuke plants, a price difference of a few hundred dollars a kilo matters not at all in a practical sense.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:45 am Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Nuclear energy is a cheap energy source only if you count the cost of the uranium, not the cost of building the plant. Nuclear fuel is cheap, but nuclear power plants are extremely expensive to engineer, build, and keep to a timeline. You can build an oil burning electricity plant for approximately $200 million; to build the same amount of installed capacity in a nuclear power plant costs approximately $5-10 billion.

In addition, uranium is not a zero-greenhouse gas emission product; it takes a lot of energy to extract uranium from the ground and process it, which requires fossil fuels. For every dollar invested in nuclear power plant production, you can get seven times as much reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with the equivalent dollar investment in energy conservation.

I'd hazard a guess that market reasons (economies of scale) and misguided environmental protests are behind a considerable portion of that cost difference. I saw an interview with a guy in the nuke business where he claimed that it took at a minimum at least as long to get approval and do the paperwork etc, as it does to actually build the thing.

I'd also hazard a guess that if we were to look at the amount of fossil fuel use per kilowatt hour equivalent of Uranium extracted it's a hang of a lot lower than nearly anything else out there. Especially if we're to extract it from seawater.

seonsengnimble

Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 7:42 pm Post subject:

What about hydroelectric power? Dams have their own set of environmental problems, but they're pretty localized and reduce C02 emissions considerably. I think Washington state is a pretty good example of the sweetness of dams. We provide power to most of the west coast, and there are only a few environmental issues with the grand coulee dam. The biggest issue is salmon, and there are measures that can reduce the impact on fish passage. Even Woody Guthrie was down with hydroelectric power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZffI6by3A

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:00 pm Post subject:

I'm strongly in favor of hydroelectric. But, as usual, the extremist leftists stand in the way....

Some quotes from Terrestrial Energy.....

Quote:

Hydro-electric dams constitute more than 90% of what we call renewable energy. Remarkably, they have also been long opposed by nature-orientated organizations such as the Sierra Club. This effort has now expanded into an effort to tear down existing dams.

Quote:

John Muir, a naturalist, and President Roosevelt found themselves painfully at odds over the Hetch Hetchy dam. To Roosevelt, the dam was the ultimate wise use of natural resources. To Muir, it was the ultimate sacrilege, defiling a "precious mountain temple"

Quote:

From a 1998 issue of Sierra magazine.....

Quote:

Around the country, dams are falling like dominoes in the name of river restoration.....dismantled in an effort to rescue fisheries.

Why the heck we tolerate these mentally ill parasites, I have no clue

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:12 pm Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

I'm strongly in favor of hydroelectric. But, as usual, the extremist leftists stand in the way....

I think you're confusing Leftists and Environmentalists. Although people are a times members of both groups, they are two distinct things, and one can be a part of one group without being a part of the other.

As a Left-leaning individual, I'm certainly in favor of hydroelectric power generation; it has an environmental impact, but not an excessive one, and as seonsengnimble points out, steps can be taken to minimize such impacts.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:22 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

I think you're confusing Leftists and Environmentalists.

I did emphasize extremist leftists.

Konglishman

Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

gakduki wrote:

I don't get nuclear power...The stuff is more useful for medicine and bombs. Allegedly there is a shorter supply of Uranium than oil anyways.

I am glad that you posted these points. I was thinking of pointing out some of these things as well. Admittedly, I am not an expert on nuclear energy, but I do know more than the average layman due to my father being a nuclear engineer.

It is truly unfortunate that so much hysteria exists in the media with regards to nuclear energy. For example, one time, I got into a debate about nuclear energy with a couple friends of mine. At one point, I made the point that the Three Mile Incident was quite contained and had no effect on the surrounding community. Then, one of them said something to effect, "Oh, yeah! What about the problems at Love Canal?!?!" She then went on to claim that there were birth defects of babies born there being caused by buried nuclear waste. Regrettably, I did not know anything about Love Canal and was forced to take her word on it. However, later on, I looked up information about Love Canal and discovered the problems there had nothing to do with nuclear energy. In fact, there was buried chemical waste waste there and not nuclear waste.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:53 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Kuros is right that nuclear energy is not a viable option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, in comparison with conservation and reduction in energy consumption.

France has 80% nuclear electricity and the lowest CO2 emissions in Europe other than Sweden.

France decided to rely on nuclear energy for the balance of its electricity production as a military and strategic decision, not one based on economics, in order to help support its nuclear weapons program. And it has relied on nuclear energy for its electricity supplies long before it began implementing measures to bring down its CO2 emissions. And in any case, France is the exception that proves the rule. For large countries like the US and Canada, nuclear energy is uneconomical in comparison with energy conservation, and does little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions in the transportation sector for large countries.

Quote:

World electricity demand is set to more than double by 2030. Good luck reducing energy consumption.

World electricity demand is set to double because energy conservation is not a priority. In the 1970s, there was a decoupling between energy consumption and economic growth in most western countries, demonstrating that economic growth does not necessarily require massive energy consumption. Most of that forecasted electricity demand can be brought down with energy conservation, which is still a much better investment dollar for dollar compared with investments in nuclear energy installed capacity.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

On the other hand, nuclear plants are only expensive if you think of 'expense' solely in terms of the initial outlay of capital. Your figures are out of date, in any case

My figures are not out of date because the technology has not changed. A nuclear power plant built in 2008 uses virtually the same technology as one built in 1978. In addition, nuclear plants are not expensive solely in terms of initial outlay of capital. Nuclear power plants are such a complex technology that it takes years of engineering and construction to bring one online...and during that time, there are interest costs involved in borrowing the capital to build the thing.

Building a nuclear power plant is the equivalent of buying a $3 million car that runs on scrap paper. The fuel may be cheap, but the machine is extremely expensive, and needs to be taken into account in order for any fair comparison of uranium fuel costs to energy conservation investments to be meaningful.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

In addition, uranium is not a zero-greenhouse gas emission product; it takes a lot of energy to extract uranium from the ground and process it, which requires fossil fuels. For every dollar invested in nuclear power plant production, you can get seven times as much reduction in greenhouse gas emissions with the equivalent dollar investment in energy conservation.

Wrong[/quote]
Uranium is mined out of the ground, which involves CO2 production when the mining equipment is operated. After it is extracted, it must be processed, which again involves the use of fossil fuels to run the extraction plants. So, it is not a zero-greenhouse gas emission product.

And even in 2009, investments in energy conservation still yield a much better return in terms of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, when compared with nuclear energy. This is especially true when it comes to the transportation sector, because nuclear energy contributes virtually nothing to the transportation sector.

These are all old arguments that have been dealt with years ago. Which is why nuclear power plant construction has been virtually flat since the 1970s. If they were economical, they would be all over the place.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy

OneWayTraffic wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

That's because nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, not because of any environmental protests. They are highly-engineered facilties that require years of design, testing, and calibration in order to get them to work properly and economically. Because they are inherently dangerous, you have to spend billions to engineer them to work with a minimum level of emissions and a minimum level of risk of explosion. Even in France, where nuclear power construction is heavily advocated by the government, it still costs a fortune to build the plant itself.

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:59 pm Post subject:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

France has 80% nuclear electricity and C02 emissions half that of the UK with a very similar population. Nothing you've written above falsifies that fact, or even tries to address it. It is pure obfuscation.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

And in any case, France is the exception that proves the rule.

"The exception that proves the rule" is a nonsensical statement. If there were any such "rule", what ever exceptions exist cannot "prove" it if they are exceptions to it, a priori

Manner of Speaking wrote:

For large countries like the US and Canada, nuclear energy is uneconomical in comparison with energy conservation, and does little or nothing to reduce CO2 emissions in the transportation sector for large countries.

I've posted a link rubbishing energy conservation

Here it is again: http://www.sone.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/energy-conservation.pdf

Manner of Speaking wrote:

World electricity demand is set to double because energy conservation is not a priority.

The same way energy conservation gave birth to the Industrial Revolution, you mean?

The world population will increase considerably - also a reason for increased demand for energy.

Not only will energy conservation increase the demand for energy in the current population - as it must necessarily do (this is econ 101) - there will be 8bn people in 2020 all wanting energy.

The only ways around it are: (a) CO2-free energy, (b) energy conservation plus price control - neither of which take into account the rising population

And, once again, I've posted a link that destroys your economically and scientifically-illiterate faith in energy conservation

Manner of Speaking wrote:

All wrong.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

The only thing that hasn't changed since 1978 is your information. Try reading some of those little rectangular things called books Laughing

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Uranium is mined out of the ground, which involves CO2 production when the mining equipment is operated. After it is extracted, it must be processed, which again involves the use of fossil fuels to run the extraction plants. So, it is not a zero-greenhouse gas emission product.

I posted a link that falsified this claim the last time you made it.

Here it is again: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearPower

Read. Learn.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

That's because nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous

If nuclear plants were inherently dangerous, there wouldn't be 440 of them worldwide which 1bn people relying on them for some or all of their electricity.

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Which is why nuclear power plant construction has been virtually flat since the 1970s. If they were economical, they would be all over the place

The world has changed dramatically since the 1970s: energy crises and climate change.

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy

Manner of Speaking wrote:

OneWayTraffic wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Not all designs are inherently dangerous. It's quite possible to make them inherently safe. That is, if something goes wrong they shut down.

Burning coal kills thousands of people every year, due to mine accidents and air pollution. Most of these deaths are in hospital beds and invisible to the media. There's no outrage. When a nuke plant has an accident, there's outrage aplenty. A good analogy is air accidents vs car accidents or swimming pool drownings (1 child per 11,000 pools per year in the USA) vs child shootings (1 per 1,000,000+ guns*) Pools are far more dangerous, but somehow less outrageous.

And the real choice as things stand right now is nuclear vs coal.

*<Edit.> Data from Freakanomics.

Last edited by OneWayTraffic on Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:20 am; edited 1 time in total

Sergio Stefanuto

Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:56 am Post subject:

Peanuts kill more people than Ecstacy, too - just to add one more example.

Anyway, if adding up the number of corpses was anything to go by, nuclear is about as deadly as wind and hydro. Here's a graph.

And from here:

Quote:

The health effects from hydro power, wind power and nuclear power are so small that, within the accuracy of the calculations, they could very well be given a value of 0

But extremist leftists aren't at all interested in facts. Facts are anathema to religion. Mr. Green

OneWayTraffic

Joined: 14 Mar 2005

Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:18 am Post subject:

seonsengnimble wrote:

What about hydroelectric power? Dams have their own set of environmental problems, but they're pretty localized and reduce C02 emissions considerably.

I think Washington state is a pretty good example of the sweetness of dams. We provide power to most of the west coast, and there are only a few environmental issues with the grand coulee dam. The biggest issue is salmon, and there are measures that can reduce the impact on fish passage.

Even Woody Guthrie was down with hydroelectric power. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20ZffI6by3A

Most of the good sites have already been used. Which makes sense once you think about it. Apart from that, there's large amounts of land used for the reservoir, and so the power output:land area ratio isn't all that flash.

Hydro is still good, I'm a fan of it within reason (my country NZ gets a lot of it's power from it.) but there's just no way that we're going to double it from here.

My personal favorite for renewable energy is high altitude wind.

www.skywindpower.com

Between that and some kind of super efficient, super cheap solar we wouldn't need nuclear. But these things are not here and now, while nuclear is and is proven.

Long term there's always fusion. Not tokamaks either, but there's literally dozens of small scale research projects. Only one needs to work out. Google Bussard Polywell to get an idea of what I think is most likely to work out.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:39 am Post subject:

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

France's nuclear program has nothing to do with[/quote] its lower greenhouse gas emissions...France did not implement its nuclear energy program because it was interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. France made a [i]purely military and political decision beginning in the 1960s to depend primarily on nuclear energy to support its nuclear weapons program; in the 1960s global warming was just a blip on the horizon. They made a purely military decision, regardless of the cost of switching to nuclear energy and regardless of the fact that investments in energy conservation and alternative energy sources could have provided the same thing at a lower cost. So France does not make a good example for the rest of the world to follow.

Contrast this with Japan...Japan does use a lot of nuclear energy, but that's because their population is almost 3 times that of France's. Japan promotes energy conservation heavily so that the average Japanese person uses half the electricity of the average American, with an equal or better lifestyle.

Sergiuo Stefanuto wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

I've posted a link rubbishing energy conservation

Here it is again: http://www.sone.org.uk/images/stories/pdf/energy-conservation.pdf

One "link" by itself does not 'rubbish' energy conservation; energy conservation economically, ecologically and mathematically has consistently made the most sense as the best way to reduce energy and electricity consumption. That's why cell phones, televisions, washing machines, computer monitors, and a host of other products have consistently gotten better quality over time while simultaneously reducing the amount of energy used in both their manufacture and daily use.

Quote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

World electricity demand is set to double because energy conservation is not a priority.

I'm sorry, but quite frankly you don't know very much about the issue, and as a result don't know what you are talking about. Of course energy use will continue to grow into the future...but the question is whether the energy use curve will be steep or shallow. At present the curve is steep because governments - not all - have consistently disregarded energy conservation as the best-use policy option in the pursuit of economic growth. Things are starting to change, however, and President Obama's policies and programs to promote energy conservation and alternative energy are a good example. But energy conservation is not a priority in countries like China, even though efficient energy use would provide a greater economic benefit per dollar invested.

And it isn't all clear that for all countries, energy use leading to CO2 emissions will continue to grow into the future. Iceland, for example, has set a government policy to rely entirely on geothermal energy by 2050, and intends to ban fossil-fuel-powered vehicles by that time. So their economy and energy use may continue to grow, but their net CO2 emissions will decrease.

Sergio Stephanuto wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

All wrong.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

The only thing that hasn't changed since 1978 is your information. Try [/i]reading some of those little rectangular things called books Laughing

Nope, you're wrong. The basic technology hasn't changed. Nuclear power plants work by clustering an array of uranium fuel bundles which contain a certain porportion of U-238 to U-235 a certain distance from each other, surrounding the array with a neutron shield to build up a desired density of neutron flux, and running a coolant through the array to carry away the heat resulting from the nuclear reaction.

That's all there is to it. You can do it with computer regulators, but you can control the whole thing with vacuum tubes if you want. The reason why you're so upset at my statements is that nuclear power advocates tend to be a bit like religious fundamentalists. They "get religion" and see nuclear energy as the be-all and end-all to all the world's probems...even though if this were true there'd be nuclear power plants all over the place by now. It's more of a psychological issue than anything else.

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:07 am Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy

OneWayTraffic wrote:

Manner of Speaking wrote:

Not all designs are inherently dangerous. It's quite possible to make them inherently safe. That is, if something goes wrong they shut down.

Right. When I say that nuclear power plants are inherently dangerous, I mean that that they are dangerous in the same way that surgery is inherently dangerous. You can reduce the danger and make it relatively safe, but it takes a lot of effort, research, and money. Nuclear power plants are the same....inherently dangerous, but you can make them relatively safe from radiation releases and explosions by spending a lot of money on safety engineering. And it's that safety engineering that makes them so expensive.

Quote:

And the real choice as things stand right now is nuclear vs coal.

Only because of ideological blinders. People automatically discount energy conservation and alternative energy sources and create a false dichotomy of nuclear versus coal because they aren't willing to look at conservation and alternative energy seriously. On economics alone, the latter makes much more sense. Remember also, that building nuclear power plants and fossil fuel plants is a great way to build big bureaucracies and big conglomerates. It's hard to become a Bill Gates by selling home insulation or solar panels. Even if for the economy and ecology as a whole they make much more sense.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe