Are any renewable energy sources actually a serious alternative?

[Eddie Dane]

Me and Mrs Dane strongly disagree on the issue of nuclear power.

My wife thinks that the dangers and waste problems are way too big.
My position is that modern civilization needs electricity and nuclear technologies have vastly improved.

Anyways, if not nuclear, then we will need alternatives to power my computer. Because I'll be damned if I'm going to sit in the cold and dark and listen to my wife yammering on about environmental issues.

Coal-burning plants should be phases out, if possible.

So, is my wife right and should we use our recourses to develop renewable and disregard nuclear altogether?
Or is that a stupid waste of time, money and energy that will leave us with power cuts when the wind doesn't blow.

I see China and India going for proven technologies instead of wind farms. Are they behind the times or just more realistic?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Not that I'm any sort of expert, but my personal opinion is that we need a mix of "alternatives", including nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and whatever else we come up with.

 

[barrymore]

Who knows what it will be. I think a safe position is the following:
1.) if there is one single alternative, it is probably not something we know about right now
2.) whatever it is, it is not going to be a magic bullet and we are going to slowly have to phase it into our lives and it might change society in a radical way

 

[RhodyDave]

I've got a cold-fusion pickle jar in my basement that powers my house...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Depends on geographic location, does it not? If you live in a tropical climate with a scorching sun, obviously solar panels are a better bet there than in a temperate, rainy region.

What you need to look at, I guess, is the increasingly small amounts of waste produced by the construction, running and demolition of a reactor compared to the energy it produces -- and then do the same for the other energy sources.

Running wind turbines probably does not generate very large quantities of wasteful by-products, but their construction and disposal certainly do, especially if they're offshore and have to be built and dismantled by ships. Each turbine generates only a small amount of power, and reportedly has a lifetime of only 40 years (same as a reactor, coincidentally).

There is no magic cure for global warming and pollution. Trick is finding the best solution for your area.

 

[macdoc]

Short answer is no.

Suggest you get wifey to ask Barry Brook...

• Director of Climate Science, Environment Institute
• Climate and Energy blog/website: BraveNewClimate

Professor Barry Brook is a leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute. He’s published three books, over 150 refereed scientific papers and regularly writes popular articles for the media. Prof. Brook has received a number of distinguished awards for his research excellence (including the Australian Academy of Science Fenner Medal). His focus is on climate change, computational and statistical modelling, systems analysis for sustainable energy, and synergies between human impacts on the biosphere. He runs a popular climate science and energy options blog at http://bravenewclimate.com.

more on his qualifications
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook

and specifically on nuclear energy....

http://bravenewclimate.com/category/nuclear-energy/

Most of what she thinks she knows is wrong....

For instance ask her what she thinks the actual physical volume of all the spent fuel in America occupies...

( _{answer 1 football field 1 meter deep that's since the nuclear industry began})

and 90% of the energy in that is recoverable ....enough to power the planet for hundreds of years without mining another atom or uranium.
and yes the recycling has both been developed and in fact is in use.
The reactors that make best use tho need to be built....right now!!!!

Have her read this as well
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/letter-to-barack-obama

 

[Bikewer]

NPR's Science Friday's ongoing coverage has featured a number of people that put an easily-attainable figure of 20% for wind by 2025...IF there is sufficient investment and such.
People do seem inordinately terrified of the waste; even moderate proposals have been met with strong NIMBY reactions.

 

[jasonpatterson]

NPR's Science Friday's ongoing coverage has featured a number of people that put an easily-attainable figure of 20% for wind by 2025...IF there is sufficient investment and such.
People do seem inordinately terrified of the waste; even moderate proposals have been met with strong NIMBY reactions.

But it's not just waste, it's nuculer waste...

In any case, what "proven technologies" are China and India going for that are renewable? I suppose they've built some dams for hydro, but they are building coal plants much more quickly.

It's going to take a combination of generation and conservation for us to phase out fossil fuel plants entirely. Most people want to see more on the generation end, but the real change (in the US, at least) is going to be on the conservation side.

 

[technoextreme]

Short answer is no.

Suggest you get wifey to ask Barry Brook...

Why him? Its like asking an engineer's opinion on global warming.

 

[macdoc]

Because he's qualified to make the assessment and is thorough on the economics of the various sources.
Try reading the site.

 

[technoextreme]

Because he's qualified to make the assessment and is thorough on the economics of the various sources.
Try reading the site.

He's an environmentalist. Its an engineers job.

 

[bit_pattern]

He's an environmentalist. Its an engineers job.

He gets a lot of qualified people to write pieces on his blog, it's very good reading and I highly recommend it. Here is one such article, written by an engineer

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/04/05/pumped-hydro-system-cost/

Here's another, by Dr. John Rolls, an adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Systems & Technology,

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/03/01/cheap-green-nuclear-power/

He did one great article comparing the two competing anti-science woo's of climate deniers and anti-nuke campaigners, great stuff.

Do climate sceptics and anti-nukes matter? or: How I learned to stop worrying and love energy economics

I think the fact that an environmentalist is advocating 4th gen nukes like Prof. Brooks is is very telling, I mean an environmentalist should be the last person that would normally be pushing such solutions, yet here he is. In that sense, I find his opinion more convincing than an engineer, who in my paranoia addled brain I might otherwise write off as an industry stooge.

His passionate advocacy certainly gave me reason to think, made me do a complete 180 degree turn on the issue, previously I was in the reflexively anti nuke school of thought.

 

[Complexity]

Not that I'm any sort of expert, but my personal opinion is that we need a mix of "alternatives", including nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and whatever else we come up with.

I concur.

 

[nvidiot]

Surely price of production and maintenance not to mention insurance issues should be considered?

Don't get me wrong, as an Australian I think that we're idiots for not having a significant nuclear power industry now, but the cost is the thing holding it back, not technical expertise or lack of fuel supply. It is now and in the forseeable future a very expensive proposition to build a 3G nuclear plant/plants. The cost per kw/h is rather difficult to swallow when you have other renewables such as solar thermal and wind based power outperforming it.

 

[Soapy Sam]

What we actually need, is fewer people. That can be achieved at no cost whatever.

 

[bit_pattern]

What we actually need, is fewer people. That can be achieved at no cost whatever.

Not really, the vast majority of the worlds population generate very little CO2, it is the rich, western minority that have caused the problem. Although, stabilising population is important, it is unfair to blame the problem on overpopulation, and I tend to find such arguments have the whiff of misanthropy that I find distasteful

 

[Belz...]

Are any renewable energy sources actually a serious alternative?

Hydroelectric is pretty cool. We use and abuse it, up north.

My wife thinks that the dangers and waste problems are way too big.

She should look up the dangers and waste problems of coal plants.

So, is my wife right and should we use our recourses to develop renewable and disregard nuclear altogether?

I don't think so. Renewables are nice in theory, but in practice you need a LOT of energy for all those billions of people. Nuclear is not the boogeyman we've been conditioned to think it is.

 

[Dancing David]

The main issue in this one is going to be economics, the ability to dig up or pump fossil fuels is relatively easy compared to dispersed networks of 'alternative' energy sources.

In the 'developed' countries we have the ability to relatively cheaply produce the stuff and ship it around. We also have some interests in keeping it that way, existing networks, profit, personal convenience. Our current infra structure in the US is based upon the car and the switch back to public transport would require um, profit losses to some very large corporations, a change in suburban structure and the return of local market places.
So we have relatively centralized distribution, ease of production, investment costs and corporate interests.

Now the move to other sources is something that makes a whole lot of sense in terms of consequences, the use of fossil fuels has many detrimental aspects. But it involves going from the economics of easy production and central network/economy of scale to much more complex production, dispersed production and a switch to a dispersed source network. So it requires considerable investment in the infrastructure, which is emotionally a problem, despite the fact that the electric grid is almost falling apart and needs to be rebuilt anyway.

Yet it will happen, already there are huge 'wind farms' spring up around here, the switch from gasoline to other sources of power for personal transport will happen, the dispersed systems will generate huge streams of revenue and new jobs as will the already needed new distribution network.

Not in five years for sure, but after fifty more likely.

And strangely if the fuel cell thing works out, we may all just have home power sources and use alcohol or sugar to power everything.

 

[MRC_Hans]

On China and renewable (Hey, since Wolfman left I'm practically the China specialist here, hehe): China has a long way to go, but even their central government is beginning to find the air in Beijing difficult to breathe. They are investing heavily in wind turbines, and solar panels are popping up like mushrooms these days, but such things take time. Also, they need to do something about their rampant transport sector (and so do we, btw). Finally, they have only just begun working to save energy for heating, lighting, air conditioning, and industry.

Hans

 

[GlennB]

'Lifestyle change' has been mentioned and is dead right, imo.

Even with all the electricity you could wish for, transporting a large load to a remote place (no railway) will no longer be a simple matter of diesel..drive..diesel...drive.
Assuming that recharging batteries will always be slow, then we'll need battery swap stations in place of petrol stations.

An extensive system of railway hubs with road delivery thereafter seems an obvious solution, but a ferociously expensive one in remote parts with only occasional need for such a system.

Petroleum is an amazingly flexible fuel and maybe humans will have to get used to losing that flexibility.

(My tuppenceworth)