Whats the "Greenest" way to produce electricity?

[KingMerv00]

greener than coal? what is not?

Direct incineration of biomass.

 

[rustypouch]

<snip> but a hydroelectric dam will basically run until it breaks down.

But isn't this true of any technology?

"It will keep working until it doesn't!"

 

[Trakar]

the least impact on Landscape, fauna and flora, least waste produced / mwh from building it to finally take it of the net and recycle it or reuse it.

If the least, is your standard of green, then there can only be one "green" power. There is no completely clean and non-impactful energy source, but there are a lot that are better than the predominant ones currently in use. Nuclear generated electricity is one of the cleanest, least impactful types of energy available to us, if you'd like to argue against it and for an alternative, please, present your case!

 

[Trakar]

Exactly my point.

The road to sustainable/carbon neutral is the road to elegance.

No one is nostalgic for the Eniac proto-type computers of yesteryear.

I predict an analogous revolution of thought in regards to the rest of our lifestyle.

We could have transport systems that actually returned energy to the grid, at least in some locations.

I object to the notion that we aren't clever enough; or tough enough, to think our way through this.

it isn't an issue of clever tool use, it's an issue of introspection, making long-term investments over short-term gains, and the ability to acknowledge and hold ourselves accountable for the interconnected impacts and damages our actions have on ourselves and others. We definitely have the clever intelligence, it remains to be seen if we possess the wisdom to tame that trait and prove ourselves truly sapient.

 

[Trakar]

I object to the assumption that we will need twice as much energy in x amount of years.
I assume we'll use half, or less, than our present global consumption.
A Renaissance of elegant designs.

Object all you like, the future may indeed be different than the past, but until there is a presentation of compelling evidences in support of that position, it is rather foolish to base long-term energy goals and plans upon that position.

It isn't like efficiency hasn't been rapidly increasing over the last century, and yet we still see much more than a doubling of the power demand and usage over the same time period. Personally, I think a doubling of demand and usage over the next century is an extremely conservative estimate that is more likely to be an under-estimate, than a gross over-estimate.

 

[Cuddles]

I was thinking of induced beta decay (lasers???) of (slightly) neutron-deficient, quasi-stable nuclei.

It's not the same situation since we could get a net energy output with the right isotope (should one exist) from induced beta-decay... were it possible.
Though you might argue about semantics and say that this wouldn't really be getting the energy from annihilation unless you could find some ingenious way to store all the positrons until wanted.

Fair enough, I've not heard of that being proposed as a means of producing power. In fact, I've not really heard of it at all. Aside from a couple of articles I don't have access to that mention collision-induced beta decay, I can't find such a thing as "induced beta decay" mentioned anywhere. There are plenty of uses for positron emission, but they all seem to use perfectly normal radioactive decay. Do you have any citations for induced beta decay actually being possible, or for its potential as an energy source?

like nuclear waste in the north sea?

And how much has that actually disturbed any habitats? Obviously dumping nuclear waste in the sea is unlikely to be a good idea, but I'm not aware of it causing particularly big problems. Especially not compared with things like the mess open cast mining causes, or the pollution from millions of cars.

greener than coal? what is not?

Does it matter? Yes, coal is pretty dirty and most alternatives, even other fossil fuels, are cleaner. But the fact is that at the moment the majority of our power comes from coal. As long as nuclear is cleaner than coal, then replacing all our coal power plants with nuclear ones would be a big step forward. That there may be other cleaner technologies around does not change that. And the fact that most of those alternatives come with their own problems, particularly the limitations in where they can actually be viable, means that nuclear is certainly one of the best possibilities for general use.

the least impact on Landscape

Not wind or hydro power then.

fauna and flora

Definitely not hydro.

least waste produced / mwh from building it to finally take it of the net and recycle it or reuse it.

Nuclear looks pretty good there, especially once you take breeder reactors into account.

but calling it green or the greenest? no, i think it gets to much glorified atm.

Why do you think that? You've stated it a few times, but you haven't actually provided any arguments or evidence to support it. The simple fact is that nuclear is very clean. Construction is not much different from any other large building. There are no significant emissions. Mining and transport of fuel can obviously be a problem, but since the amounts required are so much smaller than fossil fuels it has a huge advantage there. While waste is a potential problem, it's not actually at all difficult to store it. That's more of a political problem than a technical one.

As for it being glorified too much, I'd say the exact opposite. There's far too much irrational hate and fear of anything that mentions the word "nuclear". Do you know why MRI is called that? It's because the original term nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scared people. It's still usually called NRMI outside of medical use where the people involved generally know what they're talking about.

As for specific examples - in the UK, 2/3 of the existing nuclear plants will be closed by 2015. No new ones are currently planned. The US currently has around 100 nuclear plants. They have recently approved funding for 2 more. If actually built, which is still by no means certain, they would be the first in the US since the 1970s. By the time they're actually built, that means they'll be the first in 40 years. And of course the majority of countries don't have any nuclear power at all, or the option of having it. Far from being glorified, nuclear power is virtually ignored.

and unsolved problems are getting ignored.

Which ones exactly?

 

[Tubbythin]

Fair enough, I've not heard of that being proposed as a means of producing power.

No, me either. It was largely a bit of sci-fi I thought of, but then the idea of a matter-antimatter "battery" is also sci-fi for the forseeable future (afaik). The difference, I suppose, would be that in my case you need a specific nucleus with exactly the right properties which is found in nature. If it doesn't exist then my sci-fi would never happen, whereas "yours" might a few hundred/thousand years down the line.

In fact, I've not really heard of it at all. Aside from a couple of articles I don't have access to that mention collision-induced beta decay, I can't find such a thing as "induced beta decay" mentioned anywhere.

There appear to be various articles on laser enhanced radioactive decay, including several related to transmutation of nuclear waste. That would be on the other side of stability though of course.

There are plenty of uses for positron emission, but they all seem to use perfectly normal radioactive decay.

Sure, PET being the obvious one.

Do you have any citations for induced beta decay actually being possible,

Some freely available conference proceedings:
"http://www.icenes2007.org/icenes_proceedings/manuscripts.pdf/Session%2011/LASER%20ENHANCED.pdf"
I can't testify to the reliability of this, but in my skim-read it seemed ok to me.

or for its potential as an energy source?

Not so much.
I suppose you could count an ordinary neutron-deficient quasi-stable nucleus as a power source which involves anti-matter. Just not a very practical one.

 

[quarky]

Object all you like, the future may indeed be different than the past, but until there is a presentation of compelling evidences in support of that position, it is rather foolish to base long-term energy goals and plans upon that position.

It isn't like efficiency hasn't been rapidly increasing over the last century, and yet we still see much more than a doubling of the power demand and usage over the same time period. Personally, I think a doubling of demand and usage over the next century is an extremely conservative estimate that is more likely to be an under-estimate, than a gross over-estimate.

I'm am thrilled to be in strong disagreement with a post that I fully respect. I look forward to debating the point.
Frankly, I actually believe that the future (same population as now, even) will require 1/10th the fuel, and provide a higher standard of living for all.

 

[Furcifer]

Nepal is actually a great example of the problems that hydro power can have. For those not aware of the details, Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and suffers from severe energy shortages. Even in the two largest cities the the grid cannot provide continuous power even when scheduled, and all shops and businesses have their own generators.

However, a huge proportion of Nepal's income comes from tourism. There are two main areas - hiking and mountaineering, and rafting and kayaking. There has been a massive push to generate as much electricity as possible by hydro power, which means many of the rivers are now dammed. The Marsyandi, for example, used to be widely regarded as one of the best white water rivers in the world. Assuming the second dam has been finished on schedule, it is no longer possible to paddle it. The drive for more hydro-electricity is not just damaging the ecology, it's destroying one of the main sources of the country's income.



Firstly, do you have any evidence to support yet another unfounded claim? Secondly, you do not appear to understand what biodiversity actually means. It doesn't matter that there may be a higher number of species living in the area afterwards if the species that were there originally no longer have anywhere to live and go extinct. Biodiversity isn't just a local function, it's a global one. Loss of biodiversity is one of the main arguments against hydro power, and is why proposals such as the Severn barrage keep getting turned down. I'm sure there would be plenty of species that would enjoy living in a lake created by that, but the ones that rely on the wetlands and mudflats that currently exist would die. While I personally don't think that's enough of an argument in that specific case, you cannot simply pretend to the argument does not exist at all.



You mean the local residents who have just had their entire towns drowned? Or just the ones that are lucky enough to be near the edge and only need to worry about the occasional flooding?



The Niagara falls are not a river, it's a waterfall. I don't know if the Niagara river suffers from any major problems caused by the hydro plant there, but if not that would be because it only diverts a small proportion of the water rather than damming the whole thing. On the other hand, if you look at examples such as the Three Gorges Dam or the Aswan dam things are rather different.



No you didn't, you merely claimed this as fact without providing a shred of supporting evidence.



Yes, it seems clear that you are not sure. However, since you appear to have nothing to base your opinion on other than bare assertions backed up by more bare assertions, what you're not sure of does not appear particularly relevant.



Why do you think that? The only way to produce energy from matter/anti-matter annihilation is to start off with matter and anti-matter. Since anti-matter is not the sort of thing you find just floating around the place in large, easily mined deposits, the only way to get any is to produce it ourselves. It's exactly the same situation as hydrogen currently has, where you have to make it out of water because there isn't any hydrogen lying around. The difference is that there is a fair bit of hydrogen in space if only we could get to it easily, whereas there simply aren't large amounts of anti-matter anywhere.

lol, between the spent fuel from nuclear and the heavy metals in PV, hydro provides the cleanest source of energy world wide. Hands down, it's not even debated in the industry.
There are opponents to just about any source of energy short of magic. The reality is, if the existing hydroelectric we have today was shut down due to the silly concerns you've expressed here we'd be in a world of hurt. There is absolutely nothing we could replace the hydroelectric we have in the world today that wouldn't have a significant negative impact on the environment. NOTHING.
Any notion to the contrary is laughable. You really need to get a clue. Try talking to people in the business of making energy, I think you will find their hands on experience invaluable. Spreading this ignorant propaganda you've attempted to do so far isn't beneficial to anyone. There are a surprising number of trade magazines that can be made available to anyone interested. Try reading one. Your internet based opinion is very juvenile to say the least.

 

[Furcifer]

It's not a case of finding a cavern, the idea is to drill two bore holes and over-pressurise them to fracture the rock structure to provide a path for water to filter from one borehole to the other. It uses less fluid, and that fluid stays in contact with the rock for longer, with a greater surface area, making it more efficient. Finding areas with hot rock strata that are susceptable to being broken up is the difficult thing.

I agree this has the potential of being very green. Assuming of course this is a stop gap until we have another more reliable source of energy like Gen IV reactors and the like. Long term I don't know what effect it would have, but I don't think it would be good.
It reminds me of a sci-fi story where they discover a way of converting matter to energy, then energy back to matter. (like a Star Trek replicator) Eventually they convert so much of the Earth's matter to energy they have to abandon the planet and move to the moon. After centuries on the moon and mining the Earth for "matter" the idea that humans once lived on Earth is viewed as science fiction and lore.
I guess the moral of the story is even if we achieved the ability to manipulate matter and energy in the most efficient way possible it might ultimately prove not to be the "greenest" means as far as this planet is concerned.
Just something to consider.

 

[elgarak]

Solar.

As my old thermodynamics professor explained: "Take the amount of energy the sun dumps onto the surface of the Earth. Assume that every human needs as much energy as the average US citizen consumes (which is quite luxurious, as everyone knows). Divide one by the other. You get a ratio of 10,000:1. [beat] It should be possible for humanity to build a machine with a thermal efficiency of 1/10,000."

 

[quarky]

The amount of energy used for cell i-phones and such is minuscule compared to the past means of obtaining and transmitting knowledge.

Why should it be so offensive to imagine a similar revolution of innovation, across the board?

Speculation on energy futures, from within the mindset of unimaginable waste and inefficiency, is a death knoll on us all.

There's no way out of this mess, save elegance.

 

[Furcifer]

Solar.

As my old thermodynamics professor explained: "Take the amount of energy the sun dumps onto the surface of the Earth. Assume that every human needs as much energy as the average US citizen consumes (which is quite luxurious, as everyone knows). Divide one by the other. You get a ratio of 10,000:1. [beat] It should be possible for humanity to build a machine with a thermal efficiency of 1/10,000."

Yah. that could work. We could heat water with the suns rays causing it to rise, then condense it at a higher elevation, converting the suns energy to potential energy in the water. We could then use that potential energy to power turbines and make electricity.
It's a plan so crazy it just might work

Solar energy isn't a fair answer to the question because ultimately solar energy is "green" energy. We'd have quite the mess on our hands trying to compensate if the sun suddenly went out.

I think in terms of the OP we need to specify what form of "solar" energy is the greenest. Short of the I'd say you are absolutely correct.

 

[DC]

If the least, is your standard of green, then there can only be one "green" power. There is no completely clean and non-impactful energy source, but there are a lot that are better than the predominant ones currently in use. Nuclear generated electricity is one of the cleanest, least impactful types of energy available to us, if you'd like to argue against it and for an alternative, please, present your case!

now you made the claims, so why don't you finish making your case first.

im happy to look at you evidence supporting the claim that Nuclear is the "greenest"

 

[DC]

Fair enough, I've not heard of that being proposed as a means of producing power. In fact, I've not really heard of it at all. Aside from a couple of articles I don't have access to that mention collision-induced beta decay, I can't find such a thing as "induced beta decay" mentioned anywhere. There are plenty of uses for positron emission, but they all seem to use perfectly normal radioactive decay. Do you have any citations for induced beta decay actually being possible, or for its potential as an energy source?



And how much has that actually disturbed any habitats? Obviously dumping nuclear waste in the sea is unlikely to be a good idea, but I'm not aware of it causing particularly big problems. Especially not compared with things like the mess open cast mining causes, or the pollution from millions of cars.



Does it matter? Yes, coal is pretty dirty and most alternatives, even other fossil fuels, are cleaner. But the fact is that at the moment the majority of our power comes from coal. As long as nuclear is cleaner than coal, then replacing all our coal power plants with nuclear ones would be a big step forward. That there may be other cleaner technologies around does not change that. And the fact that most of those alternatives come with their own problems, particularly the limitations in where they can actually be viable, means that nuclear is certainly one of the best possibilities for general use.



Not wind or hydro power then.



Definitely not hydro.



Nuclear looks pretty good there, especially once you take breeder reactors into account.



Why do you think that? You've stated it a few times, but you haven't actually provided any arguments or evidence to support it. The simple fact is that nuclear is very clean. Construction is not much different from any other large building. There are no significant emissions. Mining and transport of fuel can obviously be a problem, but since the amounts required are so much smaller than fossil fuels it has a huge advantage there. While waste is a potential problem, it's not actually at all difficult to store it. That's more of a political problem than a technical one.

As for it being glorified too much, I'd say the exact opposite. There's far too much irrational hate and fear of anything that mentions the word "nuclear". Do you know why MRI is called that? It's because the original term nuclear magnetic resonance imaging scared people. It's still usually called NRMI outside of medical use where the people involved generally know what they're talking about.

As for specific examples - in the UK, 2/3 of the existing nuclear plants will be closed by 2015. No new ones are currently planned. The US currently has around 100 nuclear plants. They have recently approved funding for 2 more. If actually built, which is still by no means certain, they would be the first in the US since the 1970s. By the time they're actually built, that means they'll be the first in 40 years. And of course the majority of countries don't have any nuclear power at all, or the option of having it. Far from being glorified, nuclear power is virtually ignored.



Which ones exactly?

people seem to think they can claim what ever they want as long its pro Nuclear, when something anti nuclear is brought up, everyone yells, evidence, i want evidence.

well how about you first backup your claims about nuclear power?

the main problem with it is, we still don't have a place to store the waste.
Since decades we are producing a waste we don't know where to store, and the problems is, it has to be stored for many 1000's of years.

how about first we find a solution to that problem, before we advertise to build more plants?

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/...e-from-sellafield-found-in-supermarket-salmon

 

[arthwollipot]

Nuclear power seems still to be the most polarising of subjects. On the one hand are the people for whom nuclear power is the ultimate panacea, the most perfect possible solution for the world's energy requirements. They tend to ignore the outstanding problems that nuclear power still has.

On the other hand are the "NUCULAR BAAAD!!!" crowd who will not hear anything supportive of nuclear power and still equate any use of nuclear energy with the Bomb.

The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Nuclear power is a generally safe, clean power source, but it's still not perfect. Even the most modern of reactors produce radioactive waste that still needs to be dealt with. Should a terrorist decide to crash an airliner into a power plant the results would be widespread and deadly. But at the same time it produces less carbon per unit generated than almost any other method, and is extremely fuel-efficient. It has its good sides, and it has its bad sides.

Personally I think that decentralisation is going to provide the most benefit in our future power needs. Instead of huge plants that generate almost all of the power on the grid, the network should be fed by a much greater number of much smaller plants - solar panels and wind turbines on home roofs, tidal and wave generators, hydro where there is sufficient running water. It's cold outside right now, and I'm watching our slow-combustion fireplace, and wondering why we don't attach a boiler and steam turbine to it, since we're using it to heat the house anyway. Generate small amounts of power at every possible locus, I say.

I think it's a mistake to put all of our power-generating eggs in one giant basket. We need to diversify and decentralise power generation. That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Trakar]

I'm am thrilled to be in strong disagreement with a post that I fully respect. I look forward to debating the point.
Frankly, I actually believe that the future (same population as now, even) will require 1/10th the fuel, and provide a higher standard of living for all.

I'd be willing to pursue such a discussion, but it needs to be tied to and oriented in this thread's theme, or taken to it's own thread.

 

[Trakar]

...Any notion to the contrary is laughable. You really need to get a clue. Try talking to people in the business of making energy, I think you will find their hands on experience invaluable. Spreading this ignorant propaganda you've attempted to do so far isn't beneficial to anyone. There are a surprising number of trade magazines that can be made available to anyone interested. Try reading one. Your internet based opinion is very juvenile to say the least.

Cite or reference?

 

[DC]

Nuclear power seems still to be the most polarising of subjects. On the one hand are the people for whom nuclear power is the ultimate panacea, the most perfect possible solution for the world's energy requirements. They tend to ignore the outstanding problems that nuclear power still has.

On the other hand are the "NUCULAR BAAAD!!!" crowd who will not hear anything supportive of nuclear power and still equate any use of nuclear energy with the Bomb.

The reality lies somewhere in the middle. Nuclear power is a generally safe, clean power source, but it's still not perfect. Even the most modern of reactors produce radioactive waste that still needs to be dealt with. Should a terrorist decide to crash an airliner into a power plant the results would be widespread and deadly. But at the same time it produces less carbon per unit generated than almost any other method, and is extremely fuel-efficient. It has its good sides, and it has its bad sides.

Personally I think that decentralisation is going to provide the most benefit in our future power needs. Instead of huge plants that generate almost all of the power on the grid, the network should be fed by a much greater number of much smaller plants - solar panels and wind turbines on home roofs, tidal and wave generators, hydro where there is sufficient running water. It's cold outside right now, and I'm watching our slow-combustion fireplace, and wondering why we don't attach a boiler and steam turbine to it, since we're using it to heat the house anyway. Generate small amounts of power at every possible locus, I say.

I think it's a mistake to put all of our power-generating eggs in one giant basket. We need to diversify and decentralise power generation. That's my opinion, anyway.

very well said.

im not anti nuclear, i would even say i am pro nuclear. but recently it looks to me it gets gloryfied to much as the ultimative problem solver. while itself has unsolved problems.

 

[Trakar]

now you made the claims, so why don't you finish making your case first.

im happy to look at you evidence supporting the claim that Nuclear is the "greenest"

Exactly what claims do you feel that I've made and require support?

You haven't discribed your definition of "green," and I certainly haven't claimed that nuclear energy is the "greenest." Happy to exchange information, opinions or even small talk, but I tire of dancing rather quickly anymore.