Ed Could a city be run using only alternative energy sources?

[John Jones]

Tell me more about Iceland.

 

[WildCat]

Tell me more about Iceland.

Once Iceland Air gets you on their email list you can never get off of it.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes, nuclear reactors could easily power a city.

Just sayin' !!

 

[mhaze]

I wonder how they store the energy for use at nighttime?

There is really no need for that. Here's how you can do it by half lying to pull the stunt off:

Put 1gw on the grid whenever your lousy and expensive solar stuff produces it, then pull 1gw off the grid when you need it.

Of course this has all kinds of problems.

But as a stunt, with money no object, you can legitimately claim the city is powering itself.

 

[Duffy Moon]

Seville has a solar tower project which will eventually produce enough electricity to power the city, I believe.

 

[DC]

sure it is possible.

 

[Cuddles]

Iceland generates all of its electricity from renewables, mainly geothermal and hydroelectric. France generates 75% of its power from nuclear, and another 16% from hydroelectric. Running a single city without fossil fuels is nothing.

 

[Furcifer]

Iceland generates all of its electricity from renewables, mainly geothermal and hydroelectric. France generates 75% of its power from nuclear, and another 16% from hydroelectric. Running a single city without fossil fuels is nothing.

It's the commute to Reykjavik that makes it impractical for the rest of the World

I think SOT hit the nail on the head, the current technology makes supplying the baseload tricky. I don't think you can currently supply an entire city with electricity on renewables and not end up with brown outs all the time.

Buffalo or Toronto could technically run on entirely renewable hydro electric with the 5 stations currently on the Niagara river. But not both, and not the entire surrounding population.

I just mention this because it's a pretty good example of how even if you did have a city run on renewables eventually the population growth would outpace the electric capacity and you'd be forced to move away from renewables or face brown outs and eventually black outs.

From a practical standpoint I think "no, the grid couldn't handle it" is technically the correct answer. At least not without imposing some unusual restrictions on the city, like location or population or making it entirely residential and no commercial or industrial.

 

[mortimer]

Yes, nuclear reactors could easily power a city.

Just sayin' !!

Is nuclear not considered an "alternative" energy source, or did the naysayers simply skip this post?

 

[Furcifer]

Is nuclear not considered an "alternative" energy source, or did the naysayers simply skip this post?

It's not usually considered an "alternative" unless it's used in the context of "other than coal". At least in the modern sense, I'm sure back in the 40's it would have been considered an alternative, but these days it usually refers to wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.

 

[rjh01]

Iceland generates all of its electricity from renewables, mainly geothermal and hydroelectric. France generates 75% of its power from nuclear, and another 16% from hydroelectric. Running a single city without fossil fuels is nothing.

You can also add Tasmania to the list. It generates all of its electricity using hydroelectric power.

Yes you can use 100% renewables to generate electricity, however that means mostly nuclear and hydroelectric power. Using other sources is often expensive or unreliable. Not to mention cannot be used everywhere. With other problems as well.

 

[mortimer]

It's not usually considered an "alternative" unless it's used in the context of "other than coal". At least in the modern sense, I'm sure back in the 40's it would have been considered an alternative, but these days it usually refers to wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.

I'm not sure I understand why. Because it is already in widespread use? Because it's not renewable? Because of it's ecological footprint? Because it uses similar fuel to "the bomb"?

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not sure I understand why. Because it is already in widespread use? Because it's not renewable? Because of it's ecological footprint? Because it uses similar fuel to "the bomb"?

I believe because it begs the question "Alternative to what?".

Coal is an alternative to wood, wood an alternative to gas, gas an alternative to nuclear, wind an alternative to coal, coal an alternative to...

Thus the convention changes from decade to decade and even application to application. Under the current vernacular it isn't considered an alternative. In many cases traditional hydro electric isn't considered an alternative either, just a renewable. Confusing eh?

 

[Duffy Moon]

You can also add Tasmania to the list. It generates all of its electricity using hydroelectric power.

I didn't know that, very interesting.

 

[theprestige]

OP: Define "city". Define "run". Define "alternative".

Then we can talk.

 

[Cuddles]

I think SOT hit the nail on the head, the current technology makes supplying the baseload tricky. I don't think you can currently supply an entire city with electricity on renewables and not end up with brown outs all the time.

Yes, trying to use just renewables in most places isn't really viable. Iceland is lucky because of the easy access to geothermal power, along with a fairly small population. However, note what Cainkane1 said in the OP - not a city powered by renewables, just a city not powered by fossil fuels. That's why I included France as an example. If they can power most of their country without using fossil fuels, clearly it can't be difficult to do so for a single city.

Is nuclear not considered an "alternative" energy source, or did the naysayers simply skip this post?

Nuclear is generally not considered alternative because it contains the word "nuclear", and is therefore scary and evil. What "environmentalists" (who are mostly really no such thing) fail to consider is that, as 3bodyproblem says, using just renewables is simply not an option in most places, and nuclear power is far cleaner and safer than the scaremongers like to claim. In reality, nuclear is the only practical alternative we currently have, but good luck getting most people to understand that.

 

[Beerina]

Tell me more about Iceland.

A tiny, homogeneous nation with a volcano under its ass.

 

[qayak]

A tiny, homogeneous nation with a volcano under its ass.

 

[qayak]

You can also add Tasmania to the list. It generates all of its electricity using hydroelectric power.

Yes you can use 100% renewables to generate electricity, however that means mostly nuclear and hydroelectric power. Using other sources is often expensive or unreliable. Not to mention cannot be used everywhere. With other problems as well.

Hydro electric is renewable but has environmental impacts, namely the damming of rivers and flooding of valleys, that are often less desirable than the energy sources they replace. Large reservoirs can also alter regional climate.

The province of British Columbia uses mostly hydro-electric and in Quebec, half the electrical power comes from the James Bay Projecty alone. That doesn't make hydro-electric "ideal," just a little better than some alternatives.

My father worked most of his life for BC hydro and so I grew up at this power project: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_River_Power_Project

Environmental impact unknown because a study was not required at the time and, although promised, hasn't been done since. But, it is known that the project destroyed the yearly salmon runs on two major river systems and caused a local famine for Native Peoples living there.

Here's another one which I toured this past summer. It had some serious negative impact as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Dam

My point being, although hydro-electric is renewable, that doesn't mean it is always a good idea.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The nation of Iceland generates all of its electricity from hydroelectric dams and geothermal power. They're working on having all of the cars and fishing boats in their country run on hydrogen fuel cells instead of petroleum powered engines.

Norway, far as I know, gets a huge chunk of her energy from hydroelectric power, in the form of dams and waterfalls. Our neighbour Sweden doesn't have our mountainous landscape, but fortunately has enough common sense to build nuclear power plants.