Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[CapelDodger]

I missed in your post where you explained how to overcome wind and solars lack of density, intermittency, unpredictability and inability to produce on demand.

I did say I was having difficulty picturing the density of sunlight. What I see as more important is the sheer amount of solar energy coming in every day. There's also tidal potential thanks to the Moon.

These questions will be answered one way or another. That's my extrapolation.

Or how to make them work without huge taxpaeyer subsidies.

It would simplify matters if we left commonalities with nuclear power out of it.

Despite having a "fuel supply" that is essentially free, no one has been able to make money providing renewable energy without governments making up the losses. And it still ends up costing the consumer.

It may not have happened yet because coal is still cheap, and mostly being fed into ageing and long-amortised power-stations. These are early days for renewables.

What cripples wind and solar are written into the laws of physics itself and cannot be changed. They cannot and will not ever compete with nuclear.

You've made your position very clear, as have I. History must be our judge .

 

[BeAChooser]

There are enormous areas of desert in the world where really large arrays can be built and the world certainly has the capacity to develop them in the next few decades, along with the distribution network.

LOL! What you call desert is super fragile habitat with sensitive endangered plants and animals to environmentalists ... the same group which has been so resistant to nuclear and fossil fuel energy. Funny how the environmentalists suddenly don't care about any of that.

Wind farms can be built offshore.

Not if the liberals in Cape Cod,Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket have their way.

Renewables are where we will end up

You can't say that. Nuclear technology has evolved tremendously from when that Japanese nuclear power plant was built. And it will advance much farther in the years to come. We also are not going to take solar and wind to the stars. That will require nuclear in some form. And THAT is where we will end up (God willing).

The economics of nuclear power have always been as transparent as mud

And you think they are for wind and solar? LOL! Is the environmental damage being done in China right now to produce the magnets needed in the wind turbines that Obama sold the US in his stimulus package included in the economics? NO. Is the overall loss of jobs due to going green, that's been observed everywhere it's been tried, counted in your economics? NO. Are the environmental costs of solar properly accounted for in your economics? NO.

 

[CapelDodger]

So it really doesn't compare to the current situation, then.

Which is why I didn't bring it up.

Yeah, sure. But at least, compared to coal and petroleum, we don't actually need uranium for just about everything else we do, as well.

I'm afraid you've lost me there. When you mentioned ores I assumed you were referring to copper, zinc, niobium, that sort of resource. I don't see where coal and (vanishing) oil come into it, and just because we have otherwise-useless uranium available there's no pressing need to exploit it.

Considering how many it'd take to get any significant amount of power, you'd be changed many of them a day.

I'm thinking medium-term, not daily-term. If I was thinking that short-term I'd have made more of "... intermittency, unpredictability and inability to produce on demand" with reference to a Japanese nuclear facility. To me that's just an event.

 

[CapelDodger]

LOL! What you call desert is super fragile habitat with sensitive endangered plants and animals to environmentalists ... the same group which has been so resistant to nuclear and fossil fuel energy. Funny how the environmentalists suddenly don't care about any of that.

Christian Klippel already made that point.

Not if the liberals in Cape Cod,Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket have their way.

Well lets stuff them liberals, eh?

You can't say that. Nuclear technology has evolved tremendously from when that Japanese nuclear power plant was built. And it will advance much farther in the years to come. We also are not going to take solar and wind to the stars. That will require nuclear in some form. And THAT is where we will end up (God willing).

God and evolution in the same paragraph? You're clearly a true free-thinker.

And you think they are for wind and solar? LOL! Is the environmental damage being done in China right now to produce the magnets needed in the wind turbines that Obama ...

I spy Obama!

... sold the US in his stimulus package included in the economics? NO. Is the overall loss of jobs due to going green, that's been observed everywhere it's been tried, counted in your economics? NO. Are the environmental costs of solar properly accounted for in your economics? NO.

I blame Obama myself. Him and Al Gore. And the 60's.

Watch where the free market goes. And weep.

 

[CapelDodger]

To this I often heard "well, we'll just have to devellop better technologies to cope with that."

That development has been going on for a while now, and progress is being made. What will happen is that needs and capacities will alter gradually to fit. For instance, a substitute for gasoline to keep the Great Car-Culture alive is not needed if said culture expires as quickly as it grew up. If people get used to a variable tariff across the day for electric power they will adjust their demand.

Or something to that effect. Since when do we make decisions based on future, may-or-may-not-exist technology ?

Much more often, decisions are made on the basis that things won't change fundamentally. UK Inc developed the most sophisticated external-combustion technology in the early 20thCE and missed the train (so to speak) on the Oil Age. It was visionaries like Diesel and Henry Ford whose guesses proved right.

The classical Greek establishment rejected iron weapons because they had so much invested (materially and culturally) in bronze, and look what happened to them.

This does not augur well for the US, with its establishment so invested in oil and the Great Car-Culture.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

LOL! What you call desert is super fragile habitat with sensitive endangered plants and animals to environmentalists ... the same group which has been so resistant to nuclear and fossil fuel energy. Funny how the environmentalists suddenly don't care about any of that.

Actually, this is untrue. They still care about the fragile desert ecosystems. As was demonstrated when Senator Dianne Feinstein moved to block solar energy developments in California out of concern for the environment. The most prime real estate for solar on almost the entire planet and they don't want so much as a single PV cell being laid down.

Large scale development of wind and solar would be absolutely devastating for the environment, and they know this. As soon as they wrangle concessions out of us that nuclear won't be persued, they @#$%-block us on solar, garanteed.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

To this I often heard "well, we'll just have to devellop better technologies to cope with that." Or something to that effect. Since when do we make decisions based on future, may-or-may-not-exist technology ?

This is where we have the advantage. Where renewable advocates appeal to undeveloped technologies, we do not need to. We have the capability to provide for all our energy needs for thousands of years with technology that was developed in the 1940s.

And most technology that is developed in the future, from AI and robotic control systems to advanced materials and improvements in energy transmission efficiency will be just as applicable to nuclear. Nuclear energy has a crushing lead in advantages over the renewables. And it can't be broken.

 

[Ambrosia]

What cripples wind and solar are written into the laws of physics itself and cannot be changed. They cannot and will not ever compete with nuclear.

Why do they need to?

Why can't every house have it's own small windmill on the roof, and it's own solar panel(s) to supplement the amount of power it needs to pull off the grid.

Entirely possible as well that sometimes power generated by an individual house could be fed back into the grid when it's power generation exceeds it's consumption, like say a windy night where the occupants are in bed and have everything turned off. Would be a tiny amount per property but collectively would add up to a lot.

Neccesity is the mother of invention. Nuclear power is good but has significant drawbacks. In the longer term I think that either someone will discover a new way of powering stuff that doesn't involve radiation, or someone somewhere will figure out a way to make nuclear trivially safe and that power generation will become much more local.

 

[mutile]

In the longer term I think that either someone will discover a new way of powering stuff that doesn't involve radiation

That would be incredible.

 

[macdoc]

Why can't every house have it's own small windmill on the roof, and it's own solar panel(s) to supplement the amount of power it needs to pull off the grid.

you can do that now - are you ? no
it will not run an industrial society.

Nuclear MUST replace coal as it is the only baseload consistent source available period full stop.

Smart people have looked at this.

France understands and has the lowest carbon footprint of any of 1st nations.

The level of fear of radiation is pathetic verging on bathos........

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

Why do they need to?

Why can't every house have it's own small windmill on the roof, and it's own solar panel(s) to supplement the amount of power it needs to pull off the grid.

Entirely possible as well that sometimes power generated by an individual house could be fed back into the grid when it's power generation exceeds it's consumption, like say a windy night where the occupants are in bed and have everything turned off. Would be a tiny amount per property but collectively would add up to a lot.

The problem here being that most of the world's electricity consumption is industrial, not residential. Relying on excess residential generation is not dependable for industrial purposes. The numbers do skew in the US (industrial electrical consumption only being a quarter of the total US usage) and even other western countries, but even completely cutting out residential and commercial/non-industrial uses still leaves a rather large electrical demand. This of course ignores the even bigger quantities of natural gas and petroleum reserves that industry in the US uses that dwarfs electricity consumption. Even residentially, Americans directly use more natural gas in their homes than electricity. It is just not that effecient to heat individual homes with even when compared to the massive effeciency loss of transfer electricity through our aging infrastructure.

Ignoring the fossil fuels as non-electrical generation use, something like cutting most residential and commercial usages can be significant if part of a larger solution, but such massive lifestyle altering cuts coupled with renewables still would demand significant cuts in terms of safety and modern infrastructure. Basically, which billions of people would we not be able to support under this system? The parts of Africa and Asia with little power usage are not exactly low-mortality, high life quality places to live. And you are still left with situations like in India, where petroleum is the primary source of residential heating and cooking. Which as been pointed out as further driving their poverty compared to if they had better sources of electrical generation to replace petroleum usage.

Neccesity is the mother of invention. Nuclear power is good but has significant drawbacks. In the longer term I think that either someone will discover a new way of powering stuff that doesn't involve radiation, or someone somewhere will figure out a way to make nuclear trivially safe and that power generation will become much more local.

All things we are working on. Currently, nuclear fission electricity generation is expected to give us thousands of years of worth with today's technologies. Feasibly are we going to need to change? Of course, in the very long term. The fact of the matter is we don't have an alternative yet. Fossil fuels have a much shorter life span than nuclear fuels. Renewables cannot meet demands and generate quite a bit of waste with the exceptions of almost completely tapped out situations. I expect those best case situations to expand with technology and we should pursue them, but let us not drop what appears to be our best bet at the moment. The problem with relying on necessity is that it is not yet necessary to replace nuclear. Trying to force necessity is difficult... especially if it turns out we cannot. That either means we continued to use fossil fuels during that attempt causing more harm than nuclear.... or we slacked off on electrical generation to the point that mass problems occur. Sure we could conceivably give up television and other forms of modern entertainment... but can we support 6+ billion people giving up modern materials and modern tools? I just don't see steel and concrete production remaining as successful replacing fossil fuels and current make ups of electricity with a majority renewables electrical output. I could see significant fossil fuel drawdowns if we really ramp up nuclear power, but very large amounts of electricity are necessary to replace them in industrial usage. Of course uses which require very high heats will still rely on fossil fuels, but wouldn't it be nice to limit fossil fuels to such uses?

 

[BeAChooser]

Christian Klippel already made that point.

Needed reiterating.

God and evolution in the same paragraph? You're clearly a true free-thinker.

I like to think so. Care to address the point I made, or are you just looking for any out?

I spy Obama!

Well I spy you're not really interested in a serious discussion.

Watch where the free market goes. And weep.

I'm not at all worried ... provided the market is allowed to act unimpeded by leftists in government and the media.

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually, this is untrue. They still care about the fragile desert ecosystems. As was demonstrated when Senator Dianne Feinstein moved to block solar energy developments in California out of concern for the environment.

Well there you go. So much for CD's solution to the energy crisis.

As soon as they wrangle concessions out of us that nuclear won't be persued, they @#$%-block us on solar, garanteed.

Well they do want us to live in caves.

 

[bikerdruid]

Nuclear energy has a crushing lead in advantages over the renewables. And it can't be broken.

earthquakes sure seem to **** them up.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

earthquakes sure seem to **** them up.

No actually, they don't.

The Fukushima reactors survived the quake and tsunami fully intact.

Hadn't you heard?

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

No actually, they don't.

The Fukushima reactors survived the quake and tsunami fully intact.

Hadn't you heard?

http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/aij/110319FukushimaEventStatus-14e.pdf

 

[Ambrosia]

The problem here being that most of the world's electricity consumption is industrial, not residential.

Whats stopping industry from generating some of the power they use, or recycling/usng that power more efficiently?

Presumably the answer is it's not cost effective right now. Fast forward 30 years and that will likely change.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use nuclear energy. Far from it. with the technology we have available now it's a no brainer that for the medium term nuclear is the way forwards. I'm just saying that renewable sources of energy are still in their infancy and will no doubt get better as time goes on. To write them off as being useless and not worthy of further investment I think would be shortsighted.

The problem with relying on necessity is that it is not yet necessary to replace nuclear. Trying to force necessity is difficult...

Well true, but it is necessary to replace fossil fuel. We live in a capitalist world and huge wealth awaits for the person/company to figure out a better solution than nuclear fission. It's not as though there is a lack of incentive.

I agree that right now nuclear is the best option we have, but there are bound to be better alternatives out there.

 

[Furcifer]

Whats stopping industry from generating some of the power they use, or recycling/usng that power more efficiently?

Actually some of the bigger factories do. The source would be a combined cycle gas turbine and steam turbine genset. They use x watts and then sell the rest back to the grid.

The problem is you need a customer for the steam and they need to be close by because the cost of high pressure pipe alone can run $1000 a meter. Then there's maintenance and the problems of running continuous and intermittent.

Already the gears should be turning and you begin to realize these things have to be designed well in advance, with power plants near factory and customers for the steam and electric. The existing infrastructure just doesn't support high efficiency set ups like this.

In order to make it feasible you need a fossil fuel like natural gas. If you want to go with renewables you'd need an even larger energy centers, possibly 100's of acres in area.

Presumably the answer is it's not cost effective right now. Fast forward 30 years and that will likely change.

That's correct, and without small nukes it probably still won't be feasible.

 

[a_unique_person]

TEPCO also said its engineers had bored holes in the roofs of the buildings housing reactors five and six to avoid a potential explosion of hydrogen gas.
Four of the plant's six reactor units - numbers one to four - have been in danger of spewing dangerous amounts of radioactivity, following a series of hydrogen explosions and fires at buildings housing the troubled reactors.

They had to wait a week to do the obvious?


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/us-joins-race-to-save-reactors/story-fn84naht-1226024568513


I would have thought after the first explosion, this would have been an obvious response for the rest of the plants at the site.

 

[Ziggurat]

earthquakes sure seem to **** them up.

Earthquakes can mess up any man-made structure. But those reactors survived the earthquake, it was the tsunami that really messed them up. And a tsunami would have really messed up a wind farm or solar power station too.