Whats the "Greenest" way to produce electricity?

[DC]

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.

you make a claim here, without backing it up, but you want me to make a case agaisnt it? present your case first.

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!

and btw, i did define what i meant by greenest.

 

[lomiller]

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.

Spent fuel can be recycled and at the very least is not normally released into the environment. Hydro power releases also releases significant amounts of heavy metals into the environment. Many soils have naturally occurring heavy metals like methyl mercury that can be released when those areas are flooded. At least with PV you can avoid dumping the by-products into the environment if you want, hydro doesn’t allow this.

http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/pi/documents/three_gorges/damming3g/ch05.html

 

[Furcifer]

Cite or reference?

I referenced several trade publications, I cited a few top level power generating company executives, albeit in my own words.

Perhaps you'd like pictures of people salivating at the mere mention of an opportunity to install and manage a hydroelectric generating station? I think I could do that.

This is just a discussion, I'm sure there are numerous articles I could cite from the DOE website that tout various forms of energy generating as "the greenest". Feasibility studies tend to favour the paying interested parties. Play up the positives and play down the negatives. I'm not sure citing any one study furthers this discussion. It really depends on how you define "green".

If all you care about is the spawing habitat for speckled trout, CSP in the desert is going to be the greenest.

Say instead we considered a case where someone discovered a magic crystal that delivered energy above unity, and all our energy needs were going to be forever met with devices using this crystal. In that case, all the current means of generating would be abandoned and disassembled. The coal plants, the nuclear, the cogen, even the solar and hydroelectric stations.

In this case we could define "green", as many people do (organic farming comes to mind), as that which returns to a natural state with as little impact on the environment as possible.

In this case you could argue wind is the "greenest" means of producing electricity. Almost the entire wind turbine, save maybe the lubricating oils, could be recycled. The bases torn down and trees or grass or even corn could be planted where they once stood. In as little as a year you could erase any trace of their ever being there.

I don't think this is a realistic consideration, but I mention it because technology is constantly changing. Say we did build massive nuclear or hydroelectric plants and something else came along to replace it entirely. In that case neither nuke or hydro is close to being "green" when compared to wind or solar.

But no, I don't have any citations or "evidence" to support this. I doubt they exist. I don't think that's any reason to try and shut down the discussion like you are trying to do here. Try being a constructive member of this discussion or just don't bother. Mkay?

 

[lomiller]

More on the environmental impact of hydro-electric projects
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l5354068t2458068/

Abstract Brazil’s Samuel Dam, which formed a 540-km2 reservoir in the state of Rondônia in 1988, provides lessons for development decisions throughout Amazonia and in other tropical areas. The decision to build the dam was heavily influenced by its role in the political strategies of key decision makers. Samuel illustrates both impacts and benefits of electricity supply and the dilemmas facing decision makers regarding the various options for planned electricity generation. Environmental costs included flooding forest and stimulating illegal logging activity throughout western Amazonia because of an exception opened for Samuel in Brazil’s prohibition of export of raw logs. Samuel emitted substantially more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil. Contamination of fish in the reservoir resulted from methylation of mercury present in the soil. Social costs of the dam included resettlement of 238 families of farmers; impacts on indigenous people were indirect. Mitigating measures included faunal rescue and creation of a forest reserve. The lessons of Samuel include the need to consider a full range of alternatives prior to making decisions in practice and the importance of adhering to the logical sequence of decision making, where information is gathered and compared prior to the decision. It also shows the need to maintain flexibility when the costs and benefits of different alternatives change significantly over the course of the project’s planning and execution, as occurred at Samuel.

 

[Furcifer]

Spent fuel can be recycled and at the very least is not normally released into the environment. Hydro power releases also releases significant amounts of heavy metals into the environment. Many soils have naturally occurring heavy metals like methyl mercury that can be released when those areas are flooded. At least with PV you can avoid dumping the by-products into the environment if you want, hydro doesn’t allow this.

http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/pi/documents/three_gorges/damming3g/ch05.html

That's actually an excellent point. PV's themselves concentrate the heavy metals they may contain, but don't disperse them like at a hydro facility.

I think however, when you consider all the mining operations required to produce PV's it starts to be less and less "green". Mining usually invole some very serious machinery as well as chemicals and are the most notorious sites for releasing or leeching heavy metals into ground water.

Granted some of the turbines we use today require just as exotic metals for their manufacture as PV's do. I think people tend to overlook this when comparing turbines to PV's so I'll point it out. That comes with the caveat that my current understanding is these exotic alloys are used in gas turbines because of the high operating temperatures. Obviously hydroelectric turbines don't need to employ the same alloys and probably don't, but I'm not certain. Turbine blades may also need to be replaced several times over their lifetime, while PV's don't require much after manufacture.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc
How about you define "green" there DC instead of us having to guess.

Nuclear over lifetime is generally close to carbon neutral which is the main goal just now get rid of coal.

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.

__________________

Bad choice - nuclear would win hands down...the sites have the highest density of energy by footprint by far so impact on flora and fauna are miniscule given it produces 16% of the world's electricity.
There is some impact with cooling waters flowing back into the hydrosphere but that's true of all high density energy sources.
The only basis you can proceed on is meeting the energy needs in reality - not some treehugger land daydream. Nuclear's control over it's end to end life is expensive but effective and the resulting cost of power given 24/7/364.5 production over 50 years is low indeed.

The total spent fuel in storage ( high level waste which is a seriously stupid term ) for the entire North American nuclear power program since it began 60 years ago -if gathered from the onsite cooling ponds would occupy a physicial space no larger than a football field...3 meters deep.
And the energy recoverable from that remains circa 90% which would reduce the physical size 70-80%. and yes that is being done ( MOX ) and yes more could be done with newer gen reactors.
Those reactors are needed to get rid of decommissioned nuclear weapons.

The people in the towns hosting nuclear facilities were recently polled ( and nuclear workers at the facility were not in the poll ) only citizens of the town.
90% voted in favour of expanded facilities.
A similar poll in towns with fossil fuel plants did not receive support for expanded facilities.

There is lots to learn..
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

If you are willing...

 

[lomiller]

That's actually an excellent point. PV's themselves concentrate the heavy metals they may contain, but don't disperse them like at a hydro facility.

I think however, when you consider all the mining operations required to produce PV's it starts to be less and less "green". Mining usually invole some very serious machinery as well as chemicals and are the most notorious sites for releasing or leeching heavy metals into ground water.

Again though, mining can be regulated and contained. In countries where it’s regulated the only two major sources of methylmercury are hydroelectric dams and burning coal.

(It seems no mater what you look at coal is the dirtiest possible source of energy. Burning coal also dumps more radioactive material into the atmosphere then nuclear power plants.)

 

[Furcifer]

Bad choice - nuclear would win hands down...the sites have the highest density of energy by footprint by far so impact on flora and fauna are miniscule given it produces 16% of the world's electricity.
There is some impact with cooling waters flowing back into the hydrosphere but that's true of all high density energy sources.
The only basis you can proceed on is meeting the energy needs in reality - not some treehugger land daydream. Nuclear's control over it's end to end life is expensive but effective and the resulting cost of power given 24/7/364.5 production over 50 years is low indeed.

The total spent fuel in storage ( high level waste which is a seriously stupid term ) for the entire North American nuclear power program since it began 60 years ago -if gathered from the onsite cooling ponds would occupy a physicial space no larger than a football field...3 meters deep.
And the energy recoverable from that remains circa 90% which would reduce the physical size 70-80%. and yes that is being done ( MOX ) and yes more could be done with newer gen reactors.
Those reactors are needed to get rid of decommissioned nuclear weapons.

The people in the towns hosting nuclear facilities were recently polled ( and nuclear workers at the facility were not in the poll ) only citizens of the town.
90% voted in favour of expanded facilities.
A similar poll in towns with fossil fuel plants did not receive support for expanded facilities.

There is lots to learn..
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

If you are willing...

That's not entirely correct. The footprint of a nuclear plant is many many times that of hydroelectric, at least in terms of "facilities". I'm not sure how your doing the math to arrive at this density number.

Unless you are taking into consideration the hydroelectric resevoir and not considering the fact that nuclear uses a considerable amount of water for cooling. Without the Great Lakes how much nuclear is possible in NA?

Take for instance Bruce or Darlington, the parking lot alone is bigger than most hydroelectric stations.

 

[Furcifer]

Again though, mining can be regulated and contained. In countries where it’s regulated the only two major sources of methylmercury are hydroelectric dams and burning coal.

(It seems no mater what you look at coal is the dirtiest possible source of energy. Burning coal also dumps more radioactive material into the atmosphere then nuclear power plants.)

I tend to agree.

The only weak case I could make for coal is that because it's cheap we have to work less to afford it. There might be some offset there.

I mean if society's job was to burn tires in order to make money to buy electricity, cheaper electricity means less burned tires and that would make coal "greener".

Hey I said it was a weak argument.

 

[macdoc]

from another forum - an apparent diehard anti-nuke willing to learn.

from here

I made the below post because I was sick of all the attacks on the messengers by MacDoc without dealing with the issue or answering a single question posed by those who question or challenge the nuclear paradigm. YEs I am sick of all the put downs, the brow beating, the insults, and the avoidacnce of each and every question and challenge posed. That has been the epitomy of the nuclear industry's method over the last more than 70 years - killing us softly and nice kind words out front, plus unfulfilled promoses to make us complacent and greedy, as well as to stand in awe of our betters who have tamed the universe.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=94863


to here

Alright. I'm not too proud to admit the necessity to change my mind on nuclear for several reasons.

1. Fissile material already exists so not having nuclear will not stop weapons grade materials becoming available. On the other hand it has to be recognised that civilian nuclear power will create skills and opportunities for more countries or actors to generate weapons grade materials and possibly nuclear bombs so;
2. IAEA needs to be strengthened in safeguards. Multiplied in fact.
3. Many climate change deniers are still prepared to go with nuclear power so it gets past the denialists objections. However nuclear power should only be used in order to shut down the worst coal fired power stations. Otherwise there is no net reduction in emissions.
4. All efforts should be made towards implementing fast breeder reactors so that devastating, poisonous uranium mining can be discontinued and old waste and weapons material used instead.
5. This should not, must not interfere with efficiency goals, and electricity use reduction by way of price signals.

Other baseload options should be pursued with all haste, such as solar thermal in desert areas such as the vast deserts of Australia where sun reliability is close to 100% and thermal capacity can deliver 24/7 baseload.

Still further options such as geothermal from radiogenic intrusions should be pursued with all haste and money.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=94863&start=330

The reason he was not answered in the Climate Science thread was he was asked to make it a separate topic as it was off topic on that thread...
He finally did and got his answers...39 pages of them and not a few from those in the industry.
Each of his challenges were answered within the thread many with the supporting source material.

and he to his credit, shifted his stance...

Here is the entire thread
Nuclear Energy--Political discussion
http://beyondyourken.com/phoenix/Pages/94863-1.html
39 pages and well worth reading if you interested in the issue.
Some contributing had in depth experience.

 

[quarky]

I have hugged a tree. I'll admit it. Mushrooms were involved, and yes, I was naked...but you should have seen the tree! A magnificent old white oak in a climax deciduous forest!

I used to be anti-nuke. I lived near 3 mile island when it had its moment.

Now, it looks relatively benign, compared to fossil fuels...and the rest...even hydro.

Nukes are spooky in the sense of something wiping us out suddenly, stupidity, greed, cosmic accident, virus, global screw-ups, etc.,
It causes serious problems for what we leave behind.
It would go on "giving" long after we're gone.

Coal plants, otoh, when the **** hits the fan, they pretty much quit being a problem.

 

[Trakar]

That's not entirely correct. The footprint of a nuclear plant is many many times that of hydroelectric, at least in terms of "facilities".

http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/docs/AP1000_brochure.pdf

vs

http://www.power-technology.com/projects/coulee/coulee7.html

 

[Trakar]

... Turbine blades may also need to be replaced several times over their lifetime, while PV's don't require much after manufacture.

Of course, PV systems have a relatively short commercial lifetime, usually pegged at between 15-20 years (for the longest lived crystaline silicon variety), with significant degradation of electrical production capacity over that lifetime. Commercial PV generation systems generally plan on replacement at between 10-15 years, at the point when the cells have lost ~20% of their initial generation capacity. Even Tree-huggers generally acknowledge the problems associated
with PV solar, which isn't to say that the problems are show-stoppers, but they are issues of concern.

The Dark Side of Solar Panels

 

[Trakar]

I referenced several trade publications, I cited a few top level power generating company executives, albeit in my own words.

These are neither cites nor references, if you do not understand the terms I will be happy to explain them in more detail.

 

[Trakar]

you make a claim here, without backing it up, but you want me to make a case agaisnt it? present your case first.

not a case, but here are a selection of supporting references for my statement that "Nuclear generated electricity is one of the cleanest, least impactful types of energy available to us."

http://www.energydigital.com/industry-focus/manufacturing/nuclear-power-clean-energy-source

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/protectingtheenvironment/

http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/BSSPapers98/schrock/schrock.html

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba683

http://theinformationvault.com/politics/liberal-lunacy/dems-on-global-warming/49-dems-on-global-warming/44-np.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

and btw, i did define what i meant by greenest.

Please point it out, I cannot find where you have done so.

 

[macdoc]

Quarky

It causes serious problems for what we leave behind.
It would go on "giving" long after we're gone.

Once more not well informed - the residuals from newer gen reactors once all useable power is extracted is quite short - in the hundreds of years.

The much smaller volume of waste from 4th generation reactors has lifetime of a few centuries,

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090713_Strategies.pdf

GIven 4th gen the current football field sized volume of fuel in the ponds from the last 60 years of LWR would drop to 10 yard line worth 3 yards' deep by 50 yards wide - not a large volume to store away for a few centuries.

Coal tailings with both uranium release

December 13, 2007
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste
By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
and mercury as well as other heavy metals leached are extremely persistent in the environment.

•••

as far as footprint - of hydro versus nuclear...one would have to cover half the province a few meters deep to get the same hydro power that we currently get from a few hectares of nuclear plants.

 

[Furcifer]

as far as footprint - of hydro versus nuclear...one would have to cover half the province a few meters deep to get the same hydro power that we currently get from a few hectares of nuclear plants.

I'm going to assume this is a joke? Using area is completely nonsensical.

We could cover the entire planet with 2mm of water and not generate as much power as we would get from putting a kiddie pool from Canadian Tire on the roof of my cottage. It's all about head pressure, area is meaningless.

Interestingly I'm up by Bruce this week, relaxing on the lake and talking to the locals. It's surprising the number of people who talk about Nuclear employees who retire from the plant then die suddenly afterwards. Urban legend or highly gaurded secret the industry doesn't want you to know about? There was another "accident" at the Bruce recently. I'm not sure of the details, but yet another employee was exposed to more radiation than they should have been. People are talking about cumulative effect around here. That doesn't exist AFAIK at hydro stations. The cumulative effect of listening to water as it falls is many hours of blissful sleep

 

[Furcifer]

These are neither cites nor references, if you do not understand the terms I will be happy to explain them in more detail.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to work with people who have spent their entire careers in power plants, from entry level to North American presidents. I've heard them talk about hydroelectric at different times, as well as nuclear and cogen, even coal. (despite coal being the "bread and butter" for most companies I've found most people freely admit it's dirty. Very dirty)
In addition I've read several trade magazines, the names of which elude me at the moment, but they are easily retrieved if you so desire. I have read and heard both lament about how strict emissions are and how important it is to produce "green" power. Articles have said something to the effect of "Short of creating new sources for hydroelectric, the cheapest and greenest power we have today" such and such is the next best alternative.

That's the "gist" of it. This is how I've heard people actually responsible for running power plants talk. It's also what I've read sitting around reading trade magazines while I wait for the morning meeting to commence.

Had I been aware that some annonymous poster on an internet forum, with absolutely no clue was going to question these words, I would have asked "Hey Bob, do you mind if I quote you on that? Some nobody on the interwebz is going to question you 6 months from now and You know how that is"

But I didn't. SORRY. Likewise, I didn't think to write down the publicaion name, date and page number on some article I happened to read a few months ago. Had I known then it was going to be a deal breaker I would have.

In the mean time, if you feel any of this is in error feel free to "cite" or give evidence to the contrary. Or better yet tell me about your personal experiences you feel relate to the topic at hand. I'd gladly discuss them with you, and I'm sure there are others that would be interested as well. I've met a few people on this forum, um Hindsight? maybe, that have experience in the industry. I honestly believe they are a much more reliable source of information than "citing" articles from a website or Wikipedia. I tend to put more stock in people whose careers depend on knowing this stuf, rather than the internet. But you do what you feel is right.

 

[Trakar]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to work with people who have spent their entire careers in power plants, from entry level to North American presidents. I've heard them talk about hydroelectric at different times, as well as nuclear and cogen, even coal. (despite coal being the "bread and butter" for most companies I've found most people freely admit it's dirty. Very dirty)
In addition I've read several trade magazines, the names of which elude me at the moment, but they are easily retrieved if you so desire. I have read and heard both lament about how strict emissions are and how important it is to produce "green" power. Articles have said something to the effect of "Short of creating new sources for hydroelectric, the cheapest and greenest power we have today" such and such is the next best alternative.

That's the "gist" of it. This is how I've heard people actually responsible for running power plants talk. It's also what I've read sitting around reading trade magazines while I wait for the morning meeting to commence.

Had I been aware that some annonymous poster on an internet forum, with absolutely no clue was going to question these words, I would have asked "Hey Bob, do you mind if I quote you on that? Some nobody on the interwebz is going to question you 6 months from now and You know how that is"

But I didn't. SORRY. Likewise, I didn't think to write down the publicaion name, date and page number on some article I happened to read a few months ago. Had I known then it was going to be a deal breaker I would have.

In the mean time, if you feel any of this is in error feel free to "cite" or give evidence to the contrary. Or better yet tell me about your personal experiences you feel relate to the topic at hand. I'd gladly discuss them with you, and I'm sure there are others that would be interested as well. I've met a few people on this forum, um Hindsight? maybe, that have experience in the industry. I honestly believe they are a much more reliable source of information than "citing" articles from a website or Wikipedia. I tend to put more stock in people whose careers depend on knowing this stuf, rather than the internet. But you do what you feel is right.

Please support your assertions with something other than additional assertions.

 

[Trakar]

I'm going to assume this is a joke? Using area is completely nonsensical.

We could cover the entire planet with 2mm of water and not generate as much power as we would get from putting a kiddie pool from Canadian Tire on the roof of my cottage. It's all about head pressure, area is meaningless.

Interestingly I'm up by Bruce this week, relaxing on the lake and talking to the locals. It's surprising the number of people who talk about Nuclear employees who retire from the plant then die suddenly afterwards. Urban legend or highly gaurded secret the industry doesn't want you to know about? There was another "accident" at the Bruce recently. I'm not sure of the details, but yet another employee was exposed to more radiation than they should have been. People are talking about cumulative effect around here. That doesn't exist AFAIK at hydro stations. The cumulative effect of listening to water as it falls is many hours of blissful sleep

unsubstantiated hearsay is rarely considered more than that, do you have any facts to cite or reference in support of your assertions?