I am not trying to be provocative here. But I don't see how we can solve the energy/global climate equation without nuclear power.

It was climate change that changed my mind about nuclear power. And the Japanese nuclear disaster hasn't changed my mind, but now with qualifications.

There are some upcoming nuclear technologies which can solve the problems. One in particular is mentioned in the article, modular reactors, which are small, encapsulated modules related to those used in interplanetary space probes. These can operate safely for decades with zero maintenance, as has been aptly demonstrated by the Voyager and Pioneer spacecraft. This is a technology which can help. Unfortunately, it suffers from the one big issue that all nuclear power systems so far exhibit, What the fuck do you do with the waste? To say nothing about there's the issue of refining the waste for weaponry.

That may be solved by liquid thorium reactors which basically can solve both issues.

The bottom line is that it is going to take (as Bob Novella might say) an investment of billions of dollars into alternative power sources. I don't know how you do it without nuclear.

Some will disagree here. But solar, wind, and many other techs are transient (no solar at night). Unless battery tech experiences huge advances, storage is in big trouble. Hydrogen is a possible solution, not as a source (which it isn't -- don't get me started here), but as a storage media. Unfortunately, hydrogen requires a rather large change in infrastructure. Not very practical in the short term.

The solution to the energy problem and global climate is funding for primary science research. One thing is certain. New science will help us solve these problems.

... to "solve the energy/global climate equation"?

Renewable energy is faster to deploy, gives you more bang for your buck, is safer, cleaner and more sustainable.

Your mind is working around this picture and thinking it is the only rendering of how a power system can self-organize.



However there is also this picture. It shows what it looks like when you bring on large quantities of variable renewables.



The text also explains how the gray area is filled in, which should cause you to modify your perception of the role storage plays in your model.

First, forget hydrogen. It isn't even a power source. (Where does hydrogen come from?)

Battery tech advances are incremental, not revolutionary. Things happen slowly. We could any day have a science advancement that would change that, but we'd be fools to bank on it.

Solar and wind, which are the best prospects for the future are not 24 hour technologies. There has to be a way to store power for the times when solar (at night) and wind (during calm periods) cannot fulfill power requirements.

So how the hell are you going to do that? Batteries? Not there yet! Hydrogen? Yes, you can split sea water, but we have zero hydrogen infrastructure. Maybe we can pump water uphill and let it flow down to run turbines when solar and wind are unavailable.

Or we could keep the oil, gas, and coal plants. Or... We could develope safe nuclear like modular, or liquid thorium. (But please not Cobalt-Thorium G! )

I just don't see an alternative. It's like the moon mission, we've got smart people who can help do this.

The freaking sun goes down. The solar arrays aren't producing any power. But it's dark and people still want to watch TV, and use their computers to surf the Net, and to recharge their plug-in hybrid cars. Where the fuck do you get the power when you've based your power on solar? Or on wind power when climate change, or the vagaries of weather, means that where you've put the windmills is not where the winds are blowing right now.

Where are you going to get your power without a method to store it?

Jesus Christ, man. Where do you think it comes from? The power needs come from real time generation. Unless you can store the power it is either used, or it is dumped. This ain't fucking magic. If you can't store the excess energy, it's useless.

The sun doesn't shine 24 hours, nor does the wind blow (Santa Anna screamers notwithstanding.)

Fer Christ sakes, this is basic science.

No, what you are claiming isn't "basic science" it is "basic intuition". Review what you wrote in post 9 about how you are arriving at your model of how the system performs. It is based not on any integrative analysis or a comprehensive study of how the available renewable technologies actually perform, but is instead an extrapolation from individual generators - "a solar panel doesn't produce electricity at night" or "the wind doesn't always blow".

You are right at the individual level, but you are wrong at the systems level. To make this simple consider the fact that NO energy source operates 100% of the time. Generators are being turned on and off all the time. Now add in the fact that demand is right now fluctuating from minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day etc. We deal with this kind of variation in a renewable grid the same way we deal with it in a thermal grid - we build a system that accounts for these characteristics. And not only is this possible, but it will produce a grid that is actually MORE RELIABLE than the present thermal grid.

I'd suggest a book by Amory Lovins - "Reinventing Fire" when the whole thing is laid out very clearly. You have to buy the book, but a great deal of the content can be read at the website of the Rocky Mountain Institute:
http://www.rmi.org/ReinventingFire

That is the issue here. You could cover the southwest with solar arrays, enough to supply the nation's needs. But when the fucking sun goes down in the middle of winter there wouldn't be enough power to light the lights, let alone run the TVs, let alone keep the heat on. Unless you can store the energy.

How are you proposing we do that?

The same fucking thing with wind power. What are you going to do when the fucking wind ain't blowing?

Are you going to keep the coal plants working? Keeping CO2 problems to erode the global climate? Or are you going to find a way to supply reliable power in a safe way using existing technologies which can be extended to supply energy needs.

I am no energy company shill. I despise oil companies. And Up to recently, I have been against nuclear power. However, recent advances, and global climate changes, have changed my mind about this.

The science is robust. We well understand the processes. There are now ways to generate power by nuclear processes without the hideous waste problem, and without the dangers of runaway. All we have to do is put money into the research and just do it.

I would welcome a suggestion of an alternative.

You however, do not. All you are doing is parroting the nuclear industry standard line of bullpuckey.

You made an appeal to science, right? Show me a peer reviewed analysis that says the linking together of renewable sources of generation cannot work to provide 100% of our energy needs. Al Gore was pushing a program called "RePower America", do you remember that? Why would they claim something that doesn't work? Another example is Germany. They have studied the issue and they say they can do it. Do you think they do not understand the variability of wind and solar?

So again, I challenge you to show me a peer reviewed analysis that says the linking together of renewable sources of generation cannot work to make a system that provides 100% of our energy needs.

You will not find one because the premise cannot be supported. You will, however, find a lot of papers from the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Heritage Foundation making exactly the same claims you are making.

When the fucking sun sets you have no solar power! When the Santa Anna winds calm, again, no fucking power. How do you fucking supply power to Southern fucking California under those conditions?

You either have to store the power, a technology which we do not yet have, or you have to provide the power using another technology.

If you cannot provide another source which neither adds CO2 to the atmosphere or provides the ability to store energy for when it is needed, you are just talking B.S.

These are the technological issues we have to solve. If it can be done without nuke power, so much the better. I just don't see any tech that can do it.

I would welcome your response to either the storage or the 24 hour generation issue. Because we're not going to get it done without both.

Where are you getting your information?

Nt

All I'm hearing from you are arguments that are put forth by the Nuclear Energy Institute (the lobbying group for the nuclear industry) and right wing websites like the Heritage foundation, so I'd like to know where you are coming up with this thoroughly discredited like of BS about renewables?

As to your question I'll repeat what I said before, you only need 4-5% of total grid capacity in the form of large scale storage. We have a small amount of that now, and the global market is expected to grow to over $100 billion in the next 5 years IIRC. Until the renewable resources produce a lot more spilled energy than they do now, there really is no economic niche for storage. When that niche develops it (storage) will be in competition with other forms of dispatchable power such as geothermal, hydro, biomass, and biofuels.

First, it's not enough to bridge the gap when power is generated by solar and wind. Name a non-carbon emitting power generation that provides power 24/7, or name a technology that provides storage for peak periods not covered by off-peak generation.

Look, my friend. I hate nuclear power as it is. It's a nightmare. But it just so happens that it is one technology which has no CO2 emissions. Given our current situation we would be stupid to ignore it. No matter what people think, we are going to need alternatives that can supply power. Solar cannot do it. Wind cannot do it. Not 24/7, unless we have a way to store the power.

But how to do that? Tell me.

In the meantime, new nuclear technologies may serve us well. That's all I'm saying here.

Fukushima has skewed people's opinion. Nuclear power tech can go way beyond those reactors. I am not recommending that we rebuild unsafe reactors, but we should at least look into the latest ideas. I am no expert, I last studied nuclear physics in the 70's. Things have progressed far beyond that since.

Peace.

Or you would be interested in learning why your beliefs are false. I gave you a link to Lovin's website where there is a great deal of information to address the issue you raise. I could provide far more, but you aren't interested in having your cherished beliefs contradicted. All you want apparently, is to vouch for falsehoods that benefit the nuclear industry. Given that, it is difficult to believe you "hate nuclear power".

So let me ask you for the third time, how do you know what you claim to know?

For example when you say, "it's not enough to bridge the gap when power is generated by solar and wind", how do you know that? What is your source of information for the extraordinary claims you are making?

My reservation is that our nuclear reactors are so old. Think of how safe a family car was in the 60s compared to now. The analogy is not really that far different. We really have no choice to go to nuclear power, but we have invested so little in research it is going to be difficult to solve the problem in time. If we could develop a cladding material that did not melt during an overload situation a lot of the potential dangers would be reduced. With new nanomaterials it may be possible, but without the investment in research we won't know. It may also be possible to transmute nuclear fuel into less dangerous forms. Again, we need research to figure that out. Thorium power also shows a lot of promise. Unfortunately that direction was abandoned decades ago even though it had a lot of potential. The old nuclear power plants are terrible safety wise, but I think it is possible to do a lot better if we start building new power plants if we actually make the investment to make them safe.

Yet, as we all should know, there are technologies which have not been researched. Why?

Some say that weapons research took precedence. I dunno about that. Rather I think that we haven't had the need to pursue other paths. However, science has done precisely that. I really like the modular nuke power generating possibilities, in the short term. We've been launching them into interplanetary space for decades. (Those anti-nuke nuts who opposed them don't understand nuclear physics, let alone the modular nuke tech.)

There are at least two companies who have designs for these power sources which can last decades with minimal maintenance (Voyager hasn't needed any fixes, has it. And it is rapidly leaving the solar system.)

The liquid thorium is a great promise. But the science hasn't caught up to a practical solution to the problem. But the solution is theoretically there. We just have to put (as Bob Novella of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe says) billions of dollars into it.

Just like the mission to land humans on the moon, we can do this. We just need somebody like JFK in the White House to lay down the challenge. It's a vision thing. Some of you may remember that this is the thing that George H W Bush self-confessed that he didn't have a grasp on. Nor has any Republican since.

There are 4 problems associated with nuclear power:
Cost, safety, waste, and weapons proliferation.

All of the alternative technologies for nuclear power are in competition to provide the best overall package of benefits to satisfy those four problem areas. With any technology we know of the balance of costs and benefits favors the large-scale once through uranium fuel cycle.

It isn't a conspiracy. All of the nuclear technologies just suck as a way to boil water.

There are designs of nuke power generation that are maintenance free and non-polluting. Fucking NASA has been using them for decades and they haven't had maintenance for the entire time. Voyager is currently leaving the solar system and NASA can still communicate with it.

There are two companies who have designs for such power generation that could supply power to a community for decades without any maintenance. I would want to look into that, if only to see if we could make it safe and effective.

Liquid thorium reactors show promise without the waste problem of uranium. That would be a very important advance which could solve the energy problems without causing additional global climate change.

Why the fuck wouldn't anybody want to pursue these paths?

The only reason is that they do not understand nuclear physics, and are afraid because all they know is nuclear bombs.

The fuel cycle is extremely complex and there are problems with longevity of materials. This kind of thing might seem trivial but take as an example the CANDU reactor - an alternative design that sounded great when it was introduced. The problem is that the reactor
turns out to have a very short life span and requires a second huge capital investment and years of down time long before other reactors on the market. Canada was thought to be an up and coming player and now... they are not.

By the time we have developed and proved any new technology to the point that it is ready for long term deployment as a major global energy technology we will have in place a renewable system that is completely sustainable.

Nothing we say here makes any difference. Solar and wind cannot do it alone. Solar is dependent on photovoltaic advances we haven't yet achieved. Wind is subject to the vagaries of weather. Even if we get solar going, it's subject to the fact that the sun sets every night.

What do you propose to fill the gap?

We also have energy efficiency and various forms of hydro (traditional + wave, current and tidal), biomass, biofuels, and geothermal.

There is no basis for your claims except the desires and propaganda of the nuclear industry. Do you take everything the fossil fuel industry claims at face value also? I doubt if you do so why are you so intent on parroting the BS from an industry that is at least as corrupt as the Carbon Kings?

It is called science, my friend. Don't you dare call me a propagandist.

Again, I will ask you how you propose to supply power during peak hours, when neither solar or wind power can supply it.

No! The fucking grid does not store power. It is an on demand system. What technology do you propose to fill the gaps?

I think that a safe and effective nuclear power system would do fine. But it presumes that people will not cover their eyes and ears and scream "Is not! Is not! Is not!"

Rather we have to look at all none CO2 emitting power generation. Especially since we know that solar and wind are not sufficient by themselves.

Also, we should put a lot of money into primary research to possibly fill the gaps.

It is straight out of the Nuclear Industry Institute and right wing think tanks. There are no reputable scientists that will put their reputations behind the BS claims you are making. None.

You want to call names and accuse me of being a shill for the nuclear industry.

My question is why did you post your OP if you did not want to hear people's opinions?

I'm done here.

You are simply dogmatically asserting that we MUST have nuclear power because "renewables are not able to do it".

Since that is a completely discredited claim, and
since you aren't interested in exploring how you might be wrong, and
you are not willing to share where you obtain the information you assert to be indisputable fact,
I'd say it is you who doesn't know the way conduct a meaningful discussion.

Fact: solar energy provides power only when the sun shines, and only when there is no overcast. All other times there has to be another form of energy generation.

Fact: wind power is dependent on the wind blowing. There are areas where this happens a lot. But outside Palm Springs the wind generators cover the landscape on almost every hilltop. I've been by there on the highway many times, rarely are the wind generators spinning. That's anecdotal evidence but still, it illustrates that wind power ain't what it's marketed to be.

In order to supply energy 24/7 to the planet we need sources that are not subject to the vagaries of the sunset or the local weather patterns. Obviously we need sources which will supply power regardless of these variances.

Solar and wind can obviously contribute a huge amount to our nation's energy needs. In fact, theoretically they can easily supply all of it. Unfortunately, neither one is 24/7. That's a problem. The current electrical grid has no way to store electricity during off peak times for use when it is needed at peak times. If I am wrong about that I would gladly recant.

Therefore, the only conclusion one can come to is that either one has to have additional generating power (hopefully non-carbon emitting), or one has to have the ability to store the energy during off peak hours for use later.

It's a fucking zero sum game which you can not argue against.

You choose. How are you going to solve the problem? Okay, you don't like nuclear power -- I don't either. But either you're going to generate the power or you're going to be able to store it for later. There really is no alternative. I never claimed that we have to have nuclear, I only claim that it's a carbon neutral source that is useful now. New reactors will be safer than Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and certainly Chernoble. There is plenty of research that will provide safer nuclear sources. The big problem is what the fuck do you do with the waste??? But if that can be solved we have an energy future that is carbon neutral, a goal which we all can agree on.

I am not so much of a nuke power advocate as I am an advocate to do whatever we can to stop the spiral of global climate change, which (if you haven't been paying attention) will have a far more profound effect on the planet than nuclear power. But, again, I don't like nuclear. I just don't see any alternatives that don't screw up the climate, which is a much larger problem. I would welcome a discussion on that, as well.

When you hook it all together, whether you want to accept it or not, the system behaves differently than the individual units you persist is using as models for the system.

There will be wind farms from Canada to Mexico, from the out into the Atlantic to out into the Pacific - and guess what, contrary to your narrow vision of reality, the wind does blow all the time. Solar will also be everywhere. As will geothermal, and wave/current/tidal, and large scale hydro and small scale hydro, and biomass plants and plants running on ethanol, biodiesel and bio-methane. The biggest challenge facing us isn't storage, it is modernizing the grid.

If you want to deal with climate change, then nuclear is NOT the way to go. The primary reason I'm so dedicated to identifying the false claims of the nuclear industry is because I want to do something about climate change and nuclear is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. We have to move away from the centralized thermal grid system to one that is distributed and based on renewables. i provided you the Grist article which explains some of why the two systems are incompatible, but you chose to ignore and continue to rant about something you clearly do not understand.

If you really want to learn how this stuff works, you have to put in a little bit of effort and read some of the basic material.

Did you know that the head of the agency (FERC) charged with ensuring the reliability of our grid, Jon Wellinghoff, has said that we need never build another coal or nuclear plant?

You have not even begun to address my points. The grid does not and cannot store energy.

Good bye. I am done here.

Technically the problem we are faced with is the need to reduce reliance on stored energy. Coal is stored energy. Nuclear is stored energy. Natural gas is stored energy.

We have a vast supply of renewable energy that can be harvested economically and delivered as it is produced. We have a range of renewable sources that are also stored energy. As I just wrote:

"There will be wind farms from Canada to Mexico, from the out into the Atlantic to out into the Pacific - and guess what, contrary to your narrow vision of reality, the wind does blow all the time. Solar will also be everywhere. As will geothermal, and wave/current/tidal, and large scale hydro and small scale hydro, and biomass plants and plants running on ethanol, biodiesel and bio-methane. The biggest challenge facing us isn't storage, it is modernizing the grid.

If you want to deal with climate change, then nuclear is NOT the way to go. The primary reason I'm so dedicated to identifying the false claims of the nuclear industry is because I want to do something about climate change and nuclear is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. We have to move away from the centralized thermal grid system to one that is distributed and based on renewables. i provided you the Grist article which explains some of why the two systems are incompatible, but you chose to ignore and continue to rant about something you clearly do not understand."

If you cannot understand that, then you cannot understand why transient power sources like solar, wind, and many other alternative energy sources cannot be the total solution.

Read my fucking lips! I do not like nuclear energy. With a degree in physics I know the issues involved. I especially know what radiation can do. I am not saying that nuclear energy must be necessary, but rather that I think that it might be a good idea to research these new nuclear power technologies with the goal to provide a carbon neutral source of power which we will need regardless of solar, wind, or other transient sources.

The only alternative to a new carbon neutral source is either dirty sources, like coal (oil, gas, etc.), or to be able to store the energy so that we have 24/7 coverage or so that it can be used asynchronously to when it was generated. It's a zero sum game. There are no alternatives, my friend.

So the only choices are, learn how to store it or generate it so it's always available.

We cannot yet store it and smart grid will never pass the Republican House. So, my friend, Whatta ya gonna do?

The only alternative if you care about global warming is to implement non-carbon sources. That is the only reason why I would ever recommend nuclear. Do you fucking understand me now?

I am sorry for being profane. But I feel like a stuck record here. My purpose in posting here was to shed some light on a particularly knotty technological topic. You as much as accused me of being a shill for the nuclear power industry, a blatant personal attack.

I find this colloquy to be going nowhere since you seem to see me as an opponent, which I am assuredly not. If you can't have a reasonable argument, than I have nothing more to say to you. I have made my position clear; it is the best I can do. If you do not agree and do not want to listen to reasoned argument; or do not want to hear anything contrary to your beliefs, than there's nothing more I can say here.

Go in peace, my friend.

BASED ON A LIE TOLD BY THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY THAT YOU HAVE SWALLOWED HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.

Do you understand ME now?
A smart grid is coming no matter what, it is needed no matter what. So you are showing yet again that you haven't got a clue about this topic. You have no basis for your claims except your vulgar rants and frankly that is not in the least persuasive.

For the 4th time, where do you get your faulty information?

You also forgot to look at the evidence the clearly contradicts you:

Here is what happens when you start linking various sites together:


Original paper here at National Academy of Sciences website: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/03/29/0909075107.abstract

I am really done here

Buh-bye.

...that shows your premise to be flawed.

"There will be wind farms from Canada to Mexico, from the out into the Atlantic to out into the Pacific - and guess what, contrary to your narrow vision of reality, the wind does blow all the time. Solar will also be everywhere. As will geothermal, and wave/current/tidal, and large scale hydro and small scale hydro, and biomass plants and plants running on ethanol, biodiesel and bio-methane. The biggest challenge facing us isn't storage, it is modernizing the grid.

If you want to deal with climate change, then nuclear is NOT the way to go. The primary reason I'm so dedicated to identifying the false claims of the nuclear industry is because I want to do something about climate change and nuclear is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. We have to move away from the centralized thermal grid system to one that is distributed and based on renewables. i provided you the Grist article which explains some of why the two systems are incompatible, but you chose to ignore and continue to rant about something you clearly do not understand."

That is a radioisotope thermal generator that works off the natural decay of (usually) plutonium. It is not an active chain reaction like a nuclear reactor.

I personally think that the renewable energy supporters are overly optimistic about how much power can be generated from renewable sources. I would be much happier with the renewable option, but the math just isn't there. The supporters have pointed out a number of studies that sort of show it is possible, but the real problem is the enormous cost. Renewable sources are very diffuse and require a huge amount of materials to capture them. I also think renewable energy supporters seriously underestimate the environmental impact of having massive amounts of machinery out there capturing energy. Nuclear power really only has detrimental effects during accidents and waste disposal. I think waste disposal is a solvable problem. I guess it is impossible to completely eliminate all accidents, but nuclear power actually has a pretty good track record. Many many more people have been killed and far larger areas contaminated by various chemical releases. I guess radiation is a little more mysterious and is associated with nuclear weapons, which for civilian power really isn't true. The technology for civilian power and nuclear weapons is very very different.

Edit: actually if we could figure out a cladding material for the fuel pellets that didn't melt it would prevent release of radioactive particles during an accident. The reactor would still release radiation, but it would not be persistent. The problem with long term fallout is actually the radioactive isotopes that are released, not the "radiation" itself.

You guess it is impossible to completely eliminate all accidents? So do I. In fact with the aging fleet major accidents are almost certain to become more frequent.

As for cost...