Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
Mar 18, 2011 - 07:42pm PT
|
paul,
funny thing to say while posting on a computer...
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 02:23pm PT
|
@Hi T,
"unless everybody puts the panels on their roofs."
"Your problem with that is.....?"
Well, I don't have a problem with this in principle, but covering a 1600 SQ foot roof would cost about $160K at today's prices. If I am given a choice between $50 a month and plunking down more than the initial price of the house, I would have to go with the monthly bill. How many people would take the latter option? *crickets*.
And dreamy notions of a TARP style solar bailout are just that. I have news for you, TARP was not real money, it was just the FED allowing some banks to add a couple zeroes to their balance sheets as a backstop if needed. 90% of it was not touched, and if it were inflation would be a lot worse than it is now. Putting solar panels on everybody's rooftops requires REAL money, which the government can't create. They can only print paper currency, there is a difference.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 03:23pm PT
|
Putting solar panels on everybody's rooftops requires REAL money, which the government can't create. They can only print paper currency, there is a difference. I have no arguments with your logic, only your pessimism.
Consider the $$ we spend subsidizing imported oil, our own oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
Then consider the measly amount we spend subsidizing solar.
Just like any other semiconductor (most solar power is semiconductor based) cost comes way down as volume goes up.
You haven't mentioned solar water heating (or pre-heating) which has a reasonable return on investment in nearly any climate.
No one dares mention Conservation. It's become the "third rail" of energy discussions. Each BTU you don't use is a BTU that doesn't have to be produced or distributed.
Where we go in the future is all a matter of three contingent things
business lobbying (no profits in Conservation)
right wing clap trap (legislated Conservation is "government interference")
and
national priorities (bought off and cowardly legislators)
Ask the families of the 8 people incinerated in the San Bruno gas line explosion where they'd like their utilities $$ spent after PG&E finishes testing and renovating miles and miles of existing high pressure lines. Which all PG&E customers will end up paying for.
Or just ask Denmark, Germany
or China
and now you can ask Japan
|
|
Vitaliy M.
Mountain climber
San Francisco
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 03:47pm PT
|
I was born shortly after this disaster, in Byelarus. Through my childhood I had asthma and numerous allergies/other health problems (had extended stays in hospital more than a few times). I was supposed to have a brother, but he came out dead. This was a big disaster for Eastern Europe and world's ecology. Ruined numerous lives.
Effect of this and other alike disasters will not be truly understood because radiation is not visible to our eye, and magnitude of harm it caused can't be precisely measured. : (
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 06:37pm PT
|
magnitude of harm it caused can't be precisely measured. Indeed. Still unknown for Chernobyl.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2011 - 06:48pm PT
|
Is nuclear power potentially dangerous? Sure it is. But we have to face that and design safer reactors. The Daiichi reactors require pumps (and a power source) to cool the reactors, which is the source of ALL the problems so far since the earthquake (the 9.0 Earthquake took out the primary power source, the tsunami took out the secondary). Modern reactors (like many in the US) use gravity or osmotic pressure to force water through, they do not require external power, although it is there for backup.
We have designs now that are theoretically hundreds of times safer than current reactors (like the pebble bed reactor) but every time something like this happens it puts moratoriums on building new plants and we end up using the same plants from the 70s in perpetuity. We need to realize that there is no free lunch when it comes to energy. Wind, solar, tidal power are 1-3% solutions at BEST. Most power we get now comes from coal or nuclear. Did you know that to create the same amount of energy, burning coal generates more radioactive waste than uranium? And at least the the radioactive waste in uranium CAN BE contained. Much of the radioactive waste from coal goes into the air. And if you think Global warming is a problem, you had better at least consider nuclear - which produces no CO2.
I keep thinking about this post.
Right now, we are not building any new nuke plants because we're afraid to, and we're not shutting down the old ones, because we need the power.
That is the worst thing we could do.
Even if you are against nukes, you have to agree we'd be a lot safer, if we built all new safer nukes to replace the old unsafe ones.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 07:05pm PT
|
we'd be a lot safer, if we built all new safer nukes to replace the old unsafe ones Not so fast. It takes a LONG time to finance, permit, build and commission a nuclear power station (10 -15 years) with a 25-35 year lifetime. And much longer to decommission it (see my notes on Three Mile Island earlier).
No one has been accounting for the total economic and social cost of breakdowns like Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi.
The economics are against it when you work out the total life cycle cost.
Infrastructure modifications that reduce energy consumption can be done nearly overnight.
In one year I cut my domestic BTU consumption by 1/2 for a cost of about $2000 and a reduction in operating cost of about 1/3.
Small scale solar electric can be done in 6 months. Solar hot water heat in 3 months. On demand hot water in about 6 weeks.
Sure there's a lot we have to do to create the smart grid, reduce the cost of alternative technologies, etc. We could well have the fully accounted cost of new renewable power down below the cost of new nuclear power before the next nuclear power plant could be commissioned.
We just need the vision and the will. Good luck with THAT.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 22, 2011 - 07:49pm PT
|
The economics are against it when you work out the total life cycle cost.
Infrastructure modifications that reduce energy consumption can be done nearly overnight.
In one year I cut my domestic BTU consumption by 1/2 for a cost of about $2000 and a reduction in operating cost of about 1/3.
Yes, the alternative is to use conservation and other sources and shut down the nuke plants.
But just keeping the old plants operating without replacing them with modern plants or shutting them is the worst possible solution. That is what we are doing now.
If we can shut down nukes and do without them, that is great. But if we continue to use nukes, we should be using the newest, safest technology.
|
|
CrackAddict
Trad climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Mar 22, 2011 - 08:43pm PT
|
Good opinion piece by Zakaria on nuclear:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/20/fareeds-take-hold-judgement-on-nuclear-power/
I agree that solar power, especially passive solar, are good small scale solutions, and we should subsidize solar more and other forms less (the cost of electricity should probably reflect the damage producing it does to our environment) but from where I'm standing, nuclear, with all of it's warts, is by far the best, and least polluting option we have for TODAY'S power needs.
America's nuclear plants should be upgraded. It should not take 10-15 years to do this either, most of it is politics and NIMBYism. The American public should also be better educated about nuclear like the French are - they are encouraged to visit the plants. Much of the fear associated with Nuclear is the unknown. Chernobyl was a disaster, pure and simple, but it would not happen in the US, and Three Mile Island's only significant adverse health affect was fear and stress.
|
|
Moof
Big Wall climber
Orygun
|
|
Mar 24, 2011 - 07:31pm PT
|
USA energy consumption ~140PWh/year.
Cost per Watt of solar power ~$3 (current estimate for home rooftop cells).
Usable sunlight ~8 hours/day (more hours than that, but much of it below full output).
365*8=2920Wh/year of output energy per $3 spent, or $0.001/Wh.
Translation $140 Trillion if we were to use current pricing to just switch over everything (gas, oil, nuclear, etc) from current power sources and run it off of solar cells placed on our roofs. Figure a 20 year wear our time for those and we're talking $7 Trillion per year to keep replacing worn out systems.
Add to this the need to add systems to store energy for non-daylight times.
More reasonably if such a scenario were proposed we could expect prices to drop, but we are still talking a stiff price tag, and the need for storage for off hours usage which is a big issue on these sorts of scales.
Energy use will not have one simple painless silver bullet solution. It will take many years to transition to something new, and that is especially hard to do in the face of the fossil fuel option being cheaper. Eliminating subsidies for oil would be a good start, but I hate subsidies as a general principal.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 26, 2011 - 04:53am PT
|
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/22/chernobyl-cleanup-survivors-message-for-japan-run-away-as-qui/
Natalia Manzurova, now 59, has suffered a variety of ailments since she worked at Chernobyl, but she says she is the only member of her team still alive.
What message do you have for Japan?
Run away as quickly as possible. Don't wait. Save yourself and don't rely on the government because the government lies. They don't want you to know the truth because the nuclear industry is so powerful.
When you were called to go to Chernobyl, did you know how bad it was there?
I had no idea and never knew the true scope until much later. It was all covered in secrecy. I went there as a professional because I was told to -- but if I was asked to liquidate such an accident today, I'd never agree. The sacrifices the Fukushima workers are making are too high because the nuclear industry was developed in such a way that the executives don't hold themselves accountable to the human beings who have to clean up a disaster. It's like nuclear slavery.
What was your first impression of Chernobyl?
It was like a war zone where a neutron bomb had gone off. I always felt I was in the middle of a war where the enemy was invisible. All the houses and buildings were intact with all the furniture, but there wasn't a single person left. Just deep silence everywhere. Sometimes I felt I was the only person alive on a strange planet. There are really no words to describe it.
What did your work as a liquidator entail?
First, we measured radiation levels and got vegetation samples to see how high the contamination was. Then bulldozers dug holes in the ground and we buried everything -- houses, animals, everything. There were some wild animals that were still alive, and we had to kill them and put them in the holes.
Were any pets left in the houses?
The people had only a few hours to leave, and they weren't allowed to take their dogs or cats with them. The radiation stays in animals' fur and they can't be cleaned, so they had to be abandoned. That's why people were crying when they left. All the animals left behind in the houses were like dried-out mummies. But we found one dog that was still alive.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|