Submitted by Mike Cohen on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 8:47am.
Not exactly. If you listen to the piece, it is 150 jobs over the next two years...with one reference to "studies" that say green industries could create 10,000 jobs. Only 150 of them are real and the company can't fill those.
We have the same issue here with the pending nuclear boom and fear of not enough skilled trades.
Incidentally, the jobs being offered are making bearings for wind turbines. The turbines may be green...making bearings is pretty traditional steel work and not necessarily environmentally friendly themselves.
Submitted by Mike Cohen on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 9:07am.
LOL. Excellent point. Lets go with nuclear renaissance. Boom was a poor choice of words. Great technology though...no carbon footprint and there is plenty of uranium. USEC, which I represent, is about to turn it's 14,000th Soviet nuclear warhead into nuclear plant fuel in the "Megatons to Megawatts" program.
Submitted by Bill Lyons on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 9:20am.
I have to admit that I don't understand the subject line here, its connection to the link, and the implied conclusion. I expected the NPR report to reference programs/policies of the state of Ohio that we have not pursued here in Tennessee. What I heard was basically a dialogue between unions and wind turbine companies relative to whether existing workers could be hired, or would even accept jobs in the newer industries that paid less than many folks had received in their previous jobs. There was disagreement about whether folks had to be trained to work on ball bearings for wind turbines vs. working on ball bearings for other uses.
It was interesting and pointed out the complexity of the issue. But unless I missed something in the radio broadcast there is nothing here that points to leaders in Ohio as being "far sighted" relative to ours as being "short sighted." Govenor Bredesen sponsered a clean energy technology summit here a few weeks ago Link.... Knoxville received a solar city grant Link..., just to indicate that there are real efforts made at the state and local level.
The solar cities grant and associated work addresses specific activities. The second one below deals directly with the situation spotlighted in Ohio.
Developing high-visibility solar installations with educational components in the city’s new energy-efficient downtown transit station and in a near zero-energy house in the South Waterfront District. The educational exhibit about solar energy at Ijams Nature Center will also be improved.
Developing training related to solar technologies and installations for inspectors, codes officials and energy contractors.
Publicizing renewable energy incentive and resource programs available through TVA, state and federal programs.
Conducting a survey of renewable energy and energy-efficiency businesses in Knoxville and East Tennessee to learn more about the business impediments they face and how they could be surmounted.
There is continuing work good work going on toward this end here in Knoxville and around the state. Again, maybe I am missing something, but it seems gratuitous to take such a story and conclude: "Meanwhile Tennessee gets left behing by short sighted leaders."
Submitted by reform4 on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 12:43pm.
Haslam, bredesen, etc should indeed be strongly commended for their work to move us forward.
On the other hand, I'm at a luncheon now listening to Wamp talk nuclear and drilling (over conservation/rebewables), while at the tables we (the little business people) been talking solar, wind, and LEEDS housing.
We're electing dinosaurs to the congress. And I fear we're going to end up with one for governor.
Wamp states support for renewables, but votes have been inconsistent. He more strongly supports oil & nuclear.
See ontheissues.org for a detailed vote history
But I didn't want to paint Wamp as always voting against renewables like other Republicans- he has shown some support when it isn't a vote of renewable OR fossil. But now he's talking about refining and offshore drilling.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 11:02am.
no carbon footprint
NO, NO, a thousand times NO!!!!! Will this lie ever stop being repeated?! Tell me that the processes of mining and refining uranium, transporting both the fuel and the spent waste, and operating/maintaining a nuke plant are all carbon neutral. And how much GHGs are emitted in the construction of a multibillion dollar monstrosity of concrete and steel?
Once built, the process might operate at 30-70% less GHG on balance than dirty coal, but it's far from zero. I'll try and post some links when I get time.
If you don't look at the full lifecycle, you're fooling yourself. Might as well believe the billboards in West Virginia that just flat out proclaim "Clean, Carbon Neutral COAL!!!" It says so right there (and paid for by the coal industry), so it must be true.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 1:07pm.
There's a good report on the future of nuclear power available on pdf here. A few excerpts on several aspects:
Bottlenecks--
...Japan Steel is “the only plant in the world … capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece, reducing the risk of a radiation leak.” In a single year, they can currently only make “four of the steel forgings that contain the radioactivity in a nuclear reactor.” They may double capacity over the next two years, but that won’t allow the huge ramp up in nuclear power that some are projecting for the industry.
Water use--
“existing nuclear power stations used and consumed significantly more water per megawatt hour than electricity generation powered by fossil fuels,” as a 2002 report by the Electric Power Research Institute found.
...
Yet... “Some regions have seen groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years because of the pumping of water from aquifers faster than the natural rate of recharge. A 2003 General Accounting Office study showed that most state water managers expect either local or regional water shortages within the next 10 years under average climate conditions. Under drought conditions, even more severe water shortages are expected.”
Costs--
From 2000 to October 2007, nuclear power plant construction costs—mainly materials, labor, and engineering—have risen by 185 percent.6 That means a nuclear power plant that cost $4 billion to build in 2000, cost $11.4 billion to build last October.
... According to the Wall Street Journal, “Estimates released in recent weeks by experienced nuclear operators—NRG Energy Inc., Progress Energy Inc., Exelon Corp., Southern Co. and FPL Group Inc.—‘have blown by our highest estimate’ of costs computed just eight months ago,
... Many large-scale alternative sources of carbon-free electricity are today either considerably cheaper or more competitive.
Uranium supply--
...In 2006, we imported 84 percent, or 56 million pounds, of our uranium.
...good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by. The deposits of rich ores with the highest uranium content are depleting leaving only lower-quality deposits to be exploited.3 As ore quality degrades, more energy is required to mine and mill it, and greenhouse gas emissions rise.
Submitted by Dahun (not verified) on Mon, 2008/12/08 - 9:20am.
"Japan Steel is “the only plant in the world … capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece"
...although hundreds of other suplliers can and do supply fabricated vessels.
“existing nuclear power stations used and consumed significantly more water per megawatt hour than electricity generation powered by fossil fuels,”
Nuclear plants do not "consume" any water. they use it for cooling and it is recycled back to the source of the water.
"Costs--"
New nuclear plants cost about 5 billion each. The capital cost per kwh of capacity for a nuclear plant is 1/3 that of wind farms. the design for new nuclear plants is 60 years life. the maximum life of a wind farm is 20 years. 90% efficiency for nuclear. 25% for wind. Cost of power from wind 4 times nuclear.
"...In 2006, we imported 84 percent, or 56 million pounds, of our uranium."
In a one GW power plant 1 ton of nuclear fuel is used a year. In an equivalent coal plant 2 million tons of coal would be used a year. In the case of a wind farm the equivalent capacity would be offline 75% of the time and 1.5 million tons of coal would be burned each year to "back-up" the wind power.
"...good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by"
World usage of uranium are 65,000 tons per year. The known resources of economically mineable ore is 5.5 million tones. This is an 85,000 year supply, so your definition of "hard-to-come-by" seems to be a slight exhageration.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 1:41pm.
Most Republicans are that way, including McCain/Palin. Who wouldn't be "for" renewables? It's all warm and fuzzy. But their real agenda and voting record show a different story. Their next trick is to try and make nuclear seem like a renewable. They want to go from importing 75% of our energy as oil to importing 85% of our energy as uranium, under the guise of energy security.
There's a "Drill here, drill now" component to that though. The US has large uranium deposits on the east coast, especially in poor rural South Central Virginia.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Submitted by Mike Cohen on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 3:33pm.
I am all for solar. And wind. And hydrogen cars. I am for virtually anything and everything we can do meet our energy demands and do as little environmental damage to the planet as possible.
That said, in the short term there are no other practical solutions to producing some of the signficant amounts of energy needed...here and elsewhere int he world...is nuclear power. there may be a day when we can meet all of our demands through wind, solar, wave/tide energy....but those days are a long way off. Short term you have oil, coal, gas, nuclear. Of those, I'll take nuclear.
I don't see how nuclear is a short-term solution at all. It takes a long time to get these plants on-line, assuming everything goes well. Coal with carbon recapture is probably closer than 2nd generation nuclear plants.
Conservation and renewables, on the other hand, can reduce generation demand significantly in a 5-10 year period, and can be pushed quickly with mild tax incentives. Until we exhaust our capacity to build solar cells and wind turbines, I say turn on the tax credit tap- say, double the existing tax credit for renewables and energy efficiency upgrades.
Submitted by Mike Cohen on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 4:21pm.
The technology to supply massive amounts of energy from the sources you mention don't exist yet. If we could triple the amount of energy we produce from solar and wind in the next 5 years, it still would be a drop in the bucket.
And that's in America, where we may gave tax credits. There's the rest of the world to consider as well.
I am all for these technologies. Heck, one of the firms I represent (not here) is leasing 20 acres for 20 years for $20 total to be used as a solar array setting.
I am for pursuing every technology we can. And I still believe nuclear has a large and important part to play, here and around the world.
I also recognize there are people who will never agree with that. Which is why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.
Wind power alone supplies 5,300,000 households. Wind power could produce 20% of US electrical needs by 2030. Solar could provide another 10%. This is your Department of Energy (under GWB) talking.
Tax credits for solar water systems (the 'low hanging fruit') in residential could easily curb demand by about 5%. Add in tax credits for ground-loop heat pumps and solar in new construction, Energy Star upgrades, etc, and we can bring the need for new generation to a halt for a decade or two, as well as resolving grid issues due to the distributed nature of the benefit.
Hopefully by that time, technological progression (with appropriate R&D funding and incentives) could bring next generation solar cells to market. I say solar for long-term because wind and geothermal has a maximum tappable generation that means they can't be the centerpiece of our long-term portfolio. They have cost advantage over solar in the short-term (next 10 years), though.
It's not that I'm a tree-hugging anti-nuke at all. I just see that we can see benefits faster with wind/solar, and more importantly, I don't want to cede this huge global market (and the resultant jobs) to Japan/Europe.
More yield per acre, less energy to convert to fuel.
People in the industry have likened it to me as follows:
Corn Ethanol = training wheels, even though the E3 plant in Mead now achieves the same energy balance as gasoline.
Switchgrass = much better, still need to mature the step to hydrolize cellulose to glucose before formenting.
Sweet sorghum ethanol = even better
A lot of people still talk about hydrogen, but until solar PV is more efficient, it still seems to me that making biological systems do the work to convert sunlight to stored energy is better than trying to split the water AND liquify the hydrogen.
Submitted by Factchecker on Wed, 2008/11/12 - 10:57pm.
I am all for solar. And wind. And hydrogen cars. I am for virtually anything and everything we can do meet our energy demands and do ...That said, in the short term there are no other practical solutions to producing some of the signficant amounts of energy needed...here and elsewhere int he world...is nuclear power.
Obviously you're still drinking the McPalin "Real Joe" KoolAid (see my hat). Like that failed campaign, you're speaking about 180 degrees counter to reality. If you'd bother to read the link I provided or anything else besides the talking points provided by the nuclear lobby via the GOP, you wouldn't have any excuse to sound so silly. One nuclear plant is at least 6 years out and closer to 10. The costs are prohibitive:
Nuclear is simply not a near-term, cost-effective solution to our climate problem—especially if the $4,000/kW cost last year was already starting to price it out of the marketplace. The prices utilities are quoting for nuclear have since soared 50 percent to 100 percent.
Nuclear costs about 15 cents/kWh before transmission and delivery costs, wind is about 6-8.5 cents/kWh AFTER integrating transmission costs. Other solar technologies will almost certainly be cheaper than nuclear before you can get a nuclear plant on line. CSP is currently 14-15 cents/kWh and dropping quickly. Some expect PV to be down to 12 cents in 7 years. What will nuclear cost then and in what country will you be mining it (using foreign, carbon emitting oil)?
And on top of the other costs and risks, why does the taxpayer subsidize nuclear power to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars per year, after 50 years of maturity in the marketplace? Nuclear power is neither practical, competitive, nor short term.
Um, in fairness, he never called you evil, ignorant, or a moron. He accused you of sticking to talking points and not looking at facts. Quite different.
So, take a stab at challenging the $4000/kw capacity statistic. If you're right, that should be an easy target, right?
Submitted by sugarfatpie on Thu, 2008/11/13 - 8:42am.
if you think the US is doing anything but playing catch-up with the rest of the world on renewables. Link...
Since 2005, the country's wind generation capacity has increased by more than 100% a year. The government's renewable energy policy aims to procure 15% of the country's energy from non-carbon sources by 2020, twice the proportion of 2005.
That article just addresses issues of spent fuel disposal (recycling) and safety/nonproliferation issues. Yes, I'd say 90% of the KnoxViews readers are smart enough to know that Chernobyl was a 40-year old design and not comparable to either the 1970s-era PWRs and BWRs, and certainly not to current generation designs. No Jane Fondas here, so let's move on.
The issue being discussed here is the relative cost per kW over lifetime and to the CO2 footprint issue (and perhaps other environmental impact issues, e.g., uranium mining, mountaintop removal for coal)- nuclear vs. clean coal vs. renewables. Also at issue is the question of having to import 84% of uranium for these reactors (why further endanger our national security by depending on ANOTHER imported fuel??)
I grant you that most non-domestic production is coming from Canada and Australia, but there are important production sites are in unstable regions too (Niger, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Uzbekistan).
Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2008/11/13 - 9:21am.
I don't believe CCS ("clean coal") can really work. No more than making practical fusion, hydrogen, corn ethanol, coal-to-liquid, shale oil, etc. Gore's Scenario A just replaces CCS by extending wind to 27%. Alternately, I wonder if PV and Solar w/ Thermal (CSP) could be stronger in the mix.
Google's plan actually increases nuclear modestly, but without free lunch assumptions about it.
"Solar Thermal" means both large scale power plants as well as distributed hot water systems lumped together? Or perhaps solar hot water falls under "efficiency?"
Submitted by Factchecker on Thu, 2008/11/13 - 9:50am.
Part of the problem with Patrick Moore's piece is that it's 2-1/2 yrs old. Nuclear construction costs have skyrocketed since. As the Romm piece notes:
[Moore] states a common misconception—that you can ignore capital cost when calculating the cost of energy. His statement would be like saying, “My house is incredibly cheap to live in, if I don’t include the mortgage.” If you don’t include the capital costs, then wind and solar are essentially free—nobody charges for the fuel, and operation is cheap. Compare this to nuclear plants, which are probably the most capital-intensive form of energy there is; also, they run on expensive uranium and must be closely monitored minute by minute for safety reasons.
Moore is comparing old nuclear plants that have already been paid off with new coal, gas, wind, and solar plants. Why? Because the price of new nuclear power has risen faster than any other form of power. Comparing new nuclear plants would be no contest—they are easily the most expensive kind of electricity plant to build today.
...
Yet as the Nuclear Engineering International article detailed, costs are now far beyond $2000/kW. By mid-2007, a Keystone Center nuclear report funded in part by the nuclear industry and NEI estimated overnight costs at $3000/kW, which equals $3600 to $4000/kW with interest. The report notes, “the power isn’t cheap: 8.3 to 11.1 cents per kilo-watt hour.” In December 2007, retail electricity prices in this country averaged 8.9 cents per kwh.
You haven't refuted any points I have posted. Moore talks about reversing the 60/20% mix of coal/nuclear to 20/60%. Is he really proposing building 200 new nuclear plants? That's 1-3 trillion dollars and still leaves 20% of our power coming from dirty coal. The Google plan is extimated to cost $4.4 trillion, but expects to save $5.4 trillion and reduces coal and oil power generation to zero. It also allows about 15% growth of nuclear power, which is about 15 new plants. Seems modest and realistic.
For nuclear in and of itself to make a significant dent in the energy security mix and lower GHG accordingly, it is just not possible, feasible, or affordable to build enough of the plants fast enough.
I think the rough #s are 70% of oil is imported, half of that (35%) from OPEC countries, and half of that from non-OPEC countries. Canada is about half the non-OPEC, so that's about 17% to 18%. They are the largest importer into the US market, though.
The oil sands in Fort McMurray are pretty amazing to see. I've never seen earth-moving equipment on that scale before. Pretty darn cold, too.
Here is a reprint of the article I wrote for Metro Pulse a year ago on nuclear power. It cites $4000/kW as the projected cost by the time the new batch of reactors currently seeking licensing start generating power. Also, there is a forge in France that can make steel reactor vessels in addition to the one in Japan.
I like the idea of turning weaponized uranium into fuel. It seems to make the world somewhat safer, and it's a boon for local industry. It's obvious, however, that efficiency and conservation should be our first priority.
According to the latest Technology Review, an MIT chemist has devised a system for splitting water with just a mild electrical current. It mimics photosynthesis and promises potential solar-to-hydrogen production. There are more stages to be developed, and it needs to be scaled up to production capacity, but it definitely puts us closer to economically and energetically feasible hydrogen fuel.
I think the digs at Haslam in this thread are unfair and fly in the face of what Madeliene Weil has accomplished for Knoxville as part of his administration. The practical, non-ideological and bipartisan approach he has taken as mayor reflects my hopes for how Obama will lead at the federal level.
Not exactly. If you listen to the piece, it is 150 jobs over the next two years...with one reference to "studies" that say green industries could create 10,000 jobs. Only 150 of them are real and the company can't fill those.
We have the same issue here with the pending nuclear boom and fear of not enough skilled trades.
Incidentally, the jobs being offered are making bearings for wind turbines. The turbines may be green...making bearings is pretty traditional steel work and not necessarily environmentally friendly themselves.
I don't know if I would have used those exact words if I were you... ;-)
I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
LOL. Excellent point. Lets go with nuclear renaissance. Boom was a poor choice of words. Great technology though...no carbon footprint and there is plenty of uranium. USEC, which I represent, is about to turn it's 14,000th Soviet nuclear warhead into nuclear plant fuel in the "Megatons to Megawatts" program.
I have to admit that I don't understand the subject line here, its connection to the link, and the implied conclusion. I expected the NPR report to reference programs/policies of the state of Ohio that we have not pursued here in Tennessee. What I heard was basically a dialogue between unions and wind turbine companies relative to whether existing workers could be hired, or would even accept jobs in the newer industries that paid less than many folks had received in their previous jobs. There was disagreement about whether folks had to be trained to work on ball bearings for wind turbines vs. working on ball bearings for other uses.
It was interesting and pointed out the complexity of the issue. But unless I missed something in the radio broadcast there is nothing here that points to leaders in Ohio as being "far sighted" relative to ours as being "short sighted." Govenor Bredesen sponsered a clean energy technology summit here a few weeks ago Link.... Knoxville received a solar city grant Link..., just to indicate that there are real efforts made at the state and local level.
The solar cities grant and associated work addresses specific activities. The second one below deals directly with the situation spotlighted in Ohio.
Developing high-visibility solar installations with educational components in the city’s new energy-efficient downtown transit station and in a near zero-energy house in the South Waterfront District. The educational exhibit about solar energy at Ijams Nature Center will also be improved.
Developing training related to solar technologies and installations for inspectors, codes officials and energy contractors.
Publicizing renewable energy incentive and resource programs available through TVA, state and federal programs.
Conducting a survey of renewable energy and energy-efficiency businesses in Knoxville and East Tennessee to learn more about the business impediments they face and how they could be surmounted.
There is continuing work good work going on toward this end here in Knoxville and around the state. Again, maybe I am missing something, but it seems gratuitous to take such a story and conclude: "Meanwhile Tennessee gets left behing by short sighted leaders."
Haslam, bredesen, etc should indeed be strongly commended for their work to move us forward.
On the other hand, I'm at a luncheon now listening to Wamp talk nuclear and drilling (over conservation/rebewables), while at the tables we (the little business people) been talking solar, wind, and LEEDS housing.
We're electing dinosaurs to the congress. And I fear we're going to end up with one for governor.
Bill Haslam for Governor?
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Bill Haslam for Governor?
Ah, the perfect excuse to move.
Wamp states support for renewables, but votes have been inconsistent. He more strongly supports oil & nuclear.
See ontheissues.org for a detailed vote history
But I didn't want to paint Wamp as always voting against renewables like other Republicans- he has shown some support when it isn't a vote of renewable OR fossil. But now he's talking about refining and offshore drilling.
But it all takes a back seat to nuclear to him.
no carbon footprint
NO, NO, a thousand times NO!!!!! Will this lie ever stop being repeated?! Tell me that the processes of mining and refining uranium, transporting both the fuel and the spent waste, and operating/maintaining a nuke plant are all carbon neutral. And how much GHGs are emitted in the construction of a multibillion dollar monstrosity of concrete and steel?
Once built, the process might operate at 30-70% less GHG on balance than dirty coal, but it's far from zero. I'll try and post some links when I get time.
If you don't look at the full lifecycle, you're fooling yourself. Might as well believe the billboards in West Virginia that just flat out proclaim "Clean, Carbon Neutral COAL!!!" It says so right there (and paid for by the coal industry), so it must be true.
There's a good report on the future of nuclear power available on pdf here. A few excerpts on several aspects:
Bottlenecks--
Water use--
Costs--
Uranium supply--
Also, this article also discusses uranium supply:
"Japan Steel is “the only plant in the world … capable of producing the central part of a nuclear reactor’s containment vessel in a single piece"
...although hundreds of other suplliers can and do supply fabricated vessels.
“existing nuclear power stations used and consumed significantly more water per megawatt hour than electricity generation powered by fossil fuels,”
Nuclear plants do not "consume" any water. they use it for cooling and it is recycled back to the source of the water.
"Costs--"
New nuclear plants cost about 5 billion each. The capital cost per kwh of capacity for a nuclear plant is 1/3 that of wind farms. the design for new nuclear plants is 60 years life. the maximum life of a wind farm is 20 years. 90% efficiency for nuclear. 25% for wind. Cost of power from wind 4 times nuclear.
"...In 2006, we imported 84 percent, or 56 million pounds, of our uranium."
In a one GW power plant 1 ton of nuclear fuel is used a year. In an equivalent coal plant 2 million tons of coal would be used a year. In the case of a wind farm the equivalent capacity would be offline 75% of the time and 1.5 million tons of coal would be burned each year to "back-up" the wind power.
"...good-quality uranium ore is hard to come by"
World usage of uranium are 65,000 tons per year. The known resources of economically mineable ore is 5.5 million tones. This is an 85,000 year supply, so your definition of "hard-to-come-by" seems to be a slight exhageration.
Most Republicans are that way, including McCain/Palin. Who wouldn't be "for" renewables? It's all warm and fuzzy. But their real agenda and voting record show a different story. Their next trick is to try and make nuclear seem like a renewable. They want to go from importing 75% of our energy as oil to importing 85% of our energy as uranium, under the guise of energy security.
There's a "Drill here, drill now" component to that though. The US has large uranium deposits on the east coast, especially in poor rural South Central Virginia.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
From an earlier discussion...
I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, but...
Global non-renewable energy resources in terawatt/hours:
• Coal: 6,000,000
• Natural Gas: 1,500,000
• Uranium 235: 1,500,000
• Oil: 1,000,000
• Tar Sands: 800,000
• Total: 10,800,000
Global annual renewable energy sources in terawatt/hours:
• Direct Solar Radiation: 350,000,000
• Wind: 200,000
• Ocean/Thermal: 100,000
• Biofuels: 50,000
• Geothermal: 10,000
• Tidal/Wave: 5,000
Source: Link...
(Aren't wind and ocean/thermal also solar?)
Eh, technically coal is solar power, but meant to be left underground where it's storage mechanism can't pollute the atmosphere.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
Ah, the Dem-liars fav number. Like 100,000 policemen, 100,000 teachers, 100,000 casulties, ad nauseum.
Ah, the con-liars fav tactic: random charges without citing any sources.
What do you need silly little things like documentation and evidence and proof, though? You've got , and that's all anyone needs, right?
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
I am all for solar. And wind. And hydrogen cars. I am for virtually anything and everything we can do meet our energy demands and do as little environmental damage to the planet as possible.
That said, in the short term there are no other practical solutions to producing some of the signficant amounts of energy needed...here and elsewhere int he world...is nuclear power. there may be a day when we can meet all of our demands through wind, solar, wave/tide energy....but those days are a long way off. Short term you have oil, coal, gas, nuclear. Of those, I'll take nuclear.
I don't see how nuclear is a short-term solution at all. It takes a long time to get these plants on-line, assuming everything goes well. Coal with carbon recapture is probably closer than 2nd generation nuclear plants.
Conservation and renewables, on the other hand, can reduce generation demand significantly in a 5-10 year period, and can be pushed quickly with mild tax incentives. Until we exhaust our capacity to build solar cells and wind turbines, I say turn on the tax credit tap- say, double the existing tax credit for renewables and energy efficiency upgrades.
The technology to supply massive amounts of energy from the sources you mention don't exist yet. If we could triple the amount of energy we produce from solar and wind in the next 5 years, it still would be a drop in the bucket.
And that's in America, where we may gave tax credits. There's the rest of the world to consider as well.
I am all for these technologies. Heck, one of the firms I represent (not here) is leasing 20 acres for 20 years for $20 total to be used as a solar array setting.
I am for pursuing every technology we can. And I still believe nuclear has a large and important part to play, here and around the world.
I also recognize there are people who will never agree with that. Which is why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.
Wind power alone supplies 5,300,000 households. Wind power could produce 20% of US electrical needs by 2030. Solar could provide another 10%. This is your Department of Energy (under GWB) talking.
Tax credits for solar water systems (the 'low hanging fruit') in residential could easily curb demand by about 5%. Add in tax credits for ground-loop heat pumps and solar in new construction, Energy Star upgrades, etc, and we can bring the need for new generation to a halt for a decade or two, as well as resolving grid issues due to the distributed nature of the benefit.
Hopefully by that time, technological progression (with appropriate R&D funding and incentives) could bring next generation solar cells to market. I say solar for long-term because wind and geothermal has a maximum tappable generation that means they can't be the centerpiece of our long-term portfolio. They have cost advantage over solar in the short-term (next 10 years), though.
It's not that I'm a tree-hugging anti-nuke at all. I just see that we can see benefits faster with wind/solar, and more importantly, I don't want to cede this huge global market (and the resultant jobs) to Japan/Europe.
Any progress being made in making switchgrass a commercially viable fuel?
Thus far all that seems like a glorified corn ethanol project.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
More yield per acre, less energy to convert to fuel.
People in the industry have likened it to me as follows:
Corn Ethanol = training wheels, even though the E3 plant in Mead now achieves the same energy balance as gasoline.
Switchgrass = much better, still need to mature the step to hydrolize cellulose to glucose before formenting.
Sweet sorghum ethanol = even better
A lot of people still talk about hydrogen, but until solar PV is more efficient, it still seems to me that making biological systems do the work to convert sunlight to stored energy is better than trying to split the water AND liquify the hydrogen.
Obviously you're still drinking the McPalin "Real Joe" KoolAid (see my hat). Like that failed campaign, you're speaking about 180 degrees counter to reality. If you'd bother to read the link I provided or anything else besides the talking points provided by the nuclear lobby via the GOP, you wouldn't have any excuse to sound so silly. One nuclear plant is at least 6 years out and closer to 10. The costs are prohibitive:
Nuclear costs about 15 cents/kWh before transmission and delivery costs, wind is about 6-8.5 cents/kWh AFTER integrating transmission costs. Other solar technologies will almost certainly be cheaper than nuclear before you can get a nuclear plant on line. CSP is currently 14-15 cents/kWh and dropping quickly. Some expect PV to be down to 12 cents in 7 years. What will nuclear cost then and in what country will you be mining it (using foreign, carbon emitting oil)?
And on top of the other costs and risks, why does the taxpayer subsidize nuclear power to the tune of 100's of millions of dollars per year, after 50 years of maturity in the marketplace? Nuclear power is neither practical, competitive, nor short term.
You might consider taking your meds and switching to decaf.
It is possible for people to disagree. It is possible for people to have different views without considering the others evil, ignorant morons.
Um, in fairness, he never called you evil, ignorant, or a moron. He accused you of sticking to talking points and not looking at facts. Quite different.
So, take a stab at challenging the $4000/kw capacity statistic. If you're right, that should be an easy target, right?
if you think the US is doing anything but playing catch-up with the rest of the world on renewables.
Link...
-Sugarfatpie (AKA Alex Pulsipher)
"X-Rays are a hoax."-Lord Kelvin
The major suppliers of wind turbines and components are not US-based. A large chunk of them are in Denmark.
But yes, we are making great strides in wind generation capacity. But we could turn it into more jobs as well!
From Al Gore's 100% clean energy in 10 years scenario:
Link...
Notice the biggest category: efficiency!
...without considering the others evil, ignorant morons.
What class you have, Mr. Cohen.
I'd refer you to the article by Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, that appeared in the Washington Post.
Link...
I happen to think nuclear is a big part of the global energy solution and helps us get off coal a whole lot quicker than anything else.
That article just addresses issues of spent fuel disposal (recycling) and safety/nonproliferation issues. Yes, I'd say 90% of the KnoxViews readers are smart enough to know that Chernobyl was a 40-year old design and not comparable to either the 1970s-era PWRs and BWRs, and certainly not to current generation designs. No Jane Fondas here, so let's move on.
The issue being discussed here is the relative cost per kW over lifetime and to the CO2 footprint issue (and perhaps other environmental impact issues, e.g., uranium mining, mountaintop removal for coal)- nuclear vs. clean coal vs. renewables. Also at issue is the question of having to import 84% of uranium for these reactors (why further endanger our national security by depending on ANOTHER imported fuel??)
I grant you that most non-domestic production is coming from Canada and Australia, but there are important production sites are in unstable regions too (Niger, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Uzbekistan).
I don't believe CCS ("clean coal") can really work. No more than making practical fusion, hydrogen, corn ethanol, coal-to-liquid, shale oil, etc. Gore's Scenario A just replaces CCS by extending wind to 27%. Alternately, I wonder if PV and Solar w/ Thermal (CSP) could be stronger in the mix.
Google's plan actually increases nuclear modestly, but without free lunch assumptions about it.
"Solar Thermal" means both large scale power plants as well as distributed hot water systems lumped together? Or perhaps solar hot water falls under "efficiency?"
Part of the problem with Patrick Moore's piece is that it's 2-1/2 yrs old. Nuclear construction costs have skyrocketed since. As the Romm piece notes:
You haven't refuted any points I have posted. Moore talks about reversing the 60/20% mix of coal/nuclear to 20/60%. Is he really proposing building 200 new nuclear plants? That's 1-3 trillion dollars and still leaves 20% of our power coming from dirty coal. The Google plan is extimated to cost $4.4 trillion, but expects to save $5.4 trillion and reduces coal and oil power generation to zero. It also allows about 15% growth of nuclear power, which is about 15 new plants. Seems modest and realistic.
For nuclear in and of itself to make a significant dent in the energy security mix and lower GHG accordingly, it is just not possible, feasible, or affordable to build enough of the plants fast enough.
Another problem with Patrick Moore's article is he's now a sold out whore corporate lobbyist who is trading on his past good work.
"But I did Greenpeace so you should give me creds for anything I say." -Moore the Whore
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson
"Solar Thermal" means both large scale power plants as well as distributed hot water systems lumped together?
Are you referring to the Gore chart that Randy posted? I think that means CSP or Solar Baseload.
I grant you that most non-domestic production is coming from Canada...
Might be true for oil too.
I think the rough #s are 70% of oil is imported, half of that (35%) from OPEC countries, and half of that from non-OPEC countries. Canada is about half the non-OPEC, so that's about 17% to 18%. They are the largest importer into the US market, though.
The oil sands in Fort McMurray are pretty amazing to see. I've never seen earth-moving equipment on that scale before. Pretty darn cold, too.
Here is a reprint of the article I wrote for Metro Pulse a year ago on nuclear power. It cites $4000/kW as the projected cost by the time the new batch of reactors currently seeking licensing start generating power. Also, there is a forge in France that can make steel reactor vessels in addition to the one in Japan.
I like the idea of turning weaponized uranium into fuel. It seems to make the world somewhat safer, and it's a boon for local industry. It's obvious, however, that efficiency and conservation should be our first priority.
According to the latest Technology Review, an MIT chemist has devised a system for splitting water with just a mild electrical current. It mimics photosynthesis and promises potential solar-to-hydrogen production. There are more stages to be developed, and it needs to be scaled up to production capacity, but it definitely puts us closer to economically and energetically feasible hydrogen fuel.
I think the digs at Haslam in this thread are unfair and fly in the face of what Madeliene Weil has accomplished for Knoxville as part of his administration. The practical, non-ideological and bipartisan approach he has taken as mayor reflects my hopes for how Obama will lead at the federal level.
"The practical, non-ideological and bipartisan approach he has taken as mayor reflects my hopes for how Obama will lead at the federal level."
Like I said: Haslam for Governor.
True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler
.. am I reading something wrong?
-Sugarfatpie (AKA Alex Pulsipher)
"X-Rays are a hoax."-Lord Kelvin
Post new comment