|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:24 pm Post subject: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy |
 |
|
I think people here are well acquainted with the idea that ethanol is little more than a mid-America ag subsidy.
But this article will step on some toes around here. Good!
Well, nuclear will never fully replace coal.
| Quote: |
But nuclear power cannot fix the climate crisis. The first reason is timing: The West needs major cuts in emissions within a decade, and the first new U.S. reactor is only scheduled for 2017 -- unless it gets delayed, like every U.S. reactor before it.
The bigger problem is cost. Nuke plants are supposed to be expensive to build but cheap to operate. Unfortunately, they're turning out to be really, really expensive to build; their cost estimates have quadrupled in less than a decade. |
No Manhattan Project necessarily needed.
| Quote: |
But we already have all the technology we need to start reducing emissions by reducing consumption. Even if we only hold electricity demand flat, we can subtract a coal-fired megawatt every time we add a wind-powered megawatt. And with a smarter grid, green building codes, and strict efficiency standards for everything from light bulbs to plasma TVs to server farms, we can do better than flat. Al Gore has a reasonably plausible plan for zero-emissions power by 2020; he envisions an ambitious 28 percent decrease in demand through efficiency, plus some ambitious increases in supply from wind, solar, and geothermal energy. But we don't even have to reduce our fossil fuel use to zero to reach our 2020 targets. We just have to use less.
If somebody comes up with a better idea by 2020, great! For now, we should focus on the solutions that get the best emissions bang for the buck. |
And stop the moralizing about energy consumption while you're at it, its about efficiency, not changing our habits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree that nuclear energy isn't an overnight wonder-cure. Transitioning into a nuclear/solar energy economy at a reasonable pace while making sure the fuel we burn in the interrim is done as cleanly as possible seems like a reasonable and achievable way to go about things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:41 am Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy |
|
|
[quote="Kuros"]I think people here are well acquainted with the idea that ethanol is little more than a mid-America ag subsidy.
Yep. Ethanol at present takes as much energy to make as it provides. This might change one day, but for now Ethanol does nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gakduki
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Location: Passed out on line 2 going in circles
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 8:34 pm 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. |
1) There are plenty of radioactive isotopes which can and are used for medicine which aren't used for nuclear power.
2) America doesn't need more nuclear weapons, it's a pointless money sink with no return on investment at this point in time.
3) There may be less uranium than oil, but you need far less uranium than you would need oil to generate a given amount of electricity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gakduki wrote: |
| I don't get nuclear power... |
I heartily recommend reading one or both of two recent books: Power to Save the World by Gwyneth Cravens, and Terrestrial Energy by William Tucker.
| gakduki wrote: |
| The stuff is more useful for medicine and bombs. |
The fission of Uranium and Plutonium is also very good at producing heat, which in turn drives a steam turbine to produce electricity. It is exactly the same as a coal-burning plant - the only real differences being coal smog emits a lot of CO2, kills a lot of people and - not many people know this - emits a lot more radiation than nuclear power.
| gakduki wrote: |
| Allegedly there is a shorter supply of Uranium than oil anyways. |
In addition to Fox's point, nuclear fuel is almost 100% renewable. Given this fact (and the fact that uranium is so ubiquitous that supply depends on the will to find it), there's enough to last for thousands of years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| In addition to Fox's point, nuclear fuel is almost 100% renewable. Given this fact (and the fact that uranium is so ubiquitous that supply depends on the will to find it), there's enough to last for thousands of years. |
My understanding is that uranium can be used after 300 years after use. The problem is storage. I think that is the biggest problem with regards to spent uranium. The whole 'not in my back yard' idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| In addition to Fox's point, nuclear fuel is almost 100% renewable. Given this fact (and the fact that uranium is so ubiquitous that supply depends on the will to find it), there's enough to last for thousands of years. |
My understanding is that uranium can be used after 300 years after use. The problem is storage. I think that is the biggest problem with regards to spent uranium. The whole 'not in my back yard' idea. |
I'd gladly lease land I owned to the government for nuclear waste storage for the right price, so long as I wasn't responsible for its handling. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:06 am Post subject: Re: 7 Myths about Alternative Energy |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
I think people here are well acquainted with the idea that ethanol is little more than a mid-America ag subsidy.
But this article will step on some toes around here. Good!
Well, nuclear will never fully replace coal.
| Quote: |
But nuclear power cannot fix the climate crisis. The first reason is timing: The West needs major cuts in emissions within a decade, and the first new U.S. reactor is only scheduled for 2017 -- unless it gets delayed, like every U.S. reactor before it.
The bigger problem is cost. Nuke plants are supposed to be expensive to build but cheap to operate. Unfortunately, they're turning out to be really, really expensive to build; their cost estimates have quadrupled in less than a decade. |
No Manhattan Project necessarily needed.
| Quote: |
But we already have all the technology we need to start reducing emissions by reducing consumption. Even if we only hold electricity demand flat, we can subtract a coal-fired megawatt every time we add a wind-powered megawatt. And with a smarter grid, green building codes, and strict efficiency standards for everything from light bulbs to plasma TVs to server farms, we can do better than flat. Al Gore has a reasonably plausible plan for zero-emissions power by 2020; he envisions an ambitious 28 percent decrease in demand through efficiency, plus some ambitious increases in supply from wind, solar, and geothermal energy. But we don't even have to reduce our fossil fuel use to zero to reach our 2020 targets. We just have to use less.
If somebody comes up with a better idea by 2020, great! For now, we should focus on the solutions that get the best emissions bang for the buck. |
And stop the moralizing about energy consumption while you're at it, its about efficiency, not changing our habits. |
In 1988 I was a policy analyst and researcher for a coalition of environmental groups intervening in the provincial environmental impact assessment of Ontario Hydro's Demand-Supply Plan for 1990-2014. 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.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| In addition to Fox's point, nuclear fuel is almost 100% renewable. Given this fact (and the fact that uranium is so ubiquitous that supply depends on the will to find it), there's enough to last for thousands of years. |
My understanding is that uranium can be used after 300 years after use. The problem is storage. I think that is the biggest problem with regards to spent uranium. The whole 'not in my back yard' idea. |
I'd gladly lease land I owned to the government for nuclear waste storage for the right price, so long as I wasn't responsible for its handling. |
Good luck preventing your neighbors from stopping you in some way or another. For better or worse, your average citizen freaks out about nuclear waste and wants it to be as far away from him/her as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Pluto wrote: |
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| In addition to Fox's point, nuclear fuel is almost 100% renewable. Given this fact (and the fact that uranium is so ubiquitous that supply depends on the will to find it), there's enough to last for thousands of years. |
My understanding is that uranium can be used after 300 years after use. The problem is storage. I think that is the biggest problem with regards to spent uranium. The whole 'not in my back yard' idea. |
I'd gladly lease land I owned to the government for nuclear waste storage for the right price, so long as I wasn't responsible for its handling. |
My understanding is that the government has been trying to place the spent uranium out in the Yucca Mountains, way out in the middle of no where, and people are still worried. Although, yes, I'd have little problem with disposed uranium being on my property as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
My understanding is that uranium can be used after 300 years after use. |
Well, you heard wrongly
| Pluto wrote: |
| The problem is storage. I think that is the biggest problem with regards to spent uranium. The whole 'not in my back yard' idea. |
Waste storage is a political issue - not a scientific one
| 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.
World electricity demand is set to more than double by 2030. Good luck reducing energy consumption.
| 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.
|
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
| 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
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearPower |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's an excellent discussion on energy conservation:
| Quote: |
Historically, greater efficiency has led to greater energy use. Energy efficiency requires a change of attitude and behaviour towards the use of energy. That is unlikely to be secured if energy prices are falling in real terms.
With more money in their pockets, people are prone to spend it on additional appliances which use energy. This is the rebound effect. The multiplier effect takes it a stage further. Take, for example, a Government scheme to encourage investment in loft insulation. This will give insulation manufacturers a boost, which could be reflected in dividends paid to shareholders. Insulation installers will take on more staff who will have more to spend to the benefit of shopkeepers. All these and other ripples from the stone the Government has cast into the pond in the form of an insulation incentive raise economic activity, as intended, and indirectly energy consumption.
Stanley Jevons, 19th century logician and economist: "In less than 100 years, the efficiency of the engine has been increased ten or 15-fold".
This was the foundation of the Industrial Revolution.
He concluded: "It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth". |
In other words, using energy conservation to combat climate change is as useless as throwing a drowning man both ends of the rope.
But wait. Final nail in the coffin:
| Quote: |
Here are three examples of greater efficiency leading to greater use of energy:
1. The Industrial Revolution
2. The motor car
3. Electricity consumption |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think in the near to medium term you will have to worry too much about people having too much money in their pockets for extra energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
