Should Nuclear and Renewable Energy Supporters Stop Fighting? 551
Lasrick writes "A debate is happening in the pages of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that started with their publication of 'Nuclear vs. Renewables: Divided They Fall,' an article by Dawn Stover that chides nuclear energy advocates and advocates of renewable energy for bickering over the deck chairs while climate change sinks the ship, and while the fossil fuel industry reaps the rewards of the clean energy camp's refusal to work together. Many of the clean energy folks took umbrage at the description of nuclear power as 'clean energy,' so the Civil Society Institute has responded with a detailed look at exactly why they believe nuclear power will not be needed as the world transitions to clean energy."
A Fundamental Flaw (Score:2, Insightful)
In their own words,
We commissioned studies to show
That isn't science, that's paying for confirmation bias.
We need nuclear. (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the problem is that we use way, way way too much fossil fuels, producing way, way, way too much carbon dioxide.
Nucelar power has problems and if we were to use it as much as we use fossil fuels, it would cause the same problem.
The same problem exists with ALL fuel sources, including so called "renewables". Solar power uses rare metals whose use could be just as bad as fossil fuels. Similarly, if we just used hydroelectric, then we could cause major problems with rivers.
Nuclear is very clearly part of our energy solution, and it is time that we, as green environmentalists, accept that.
No way (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they would have to stop fund-raising and find productive jobs.
rebuttal misses some points... (Score:5, Insightful)
The rebuttal loses me with this line:
"Nuclear power plants (large or small) and renewables are not compatible technologies. A distributed grid design with high penetrations of variable renewables requires flexible technologies for balancing the system. Both nuclear and coal plants are inflexible. "
Maybe they don't get what people mean by "flexible" in regards to the grid?
When people say coal and nuclear are flexible, they don't mean you can move the plant, or install and remove plants at will. What they mean is that the energy production can ramp up quickly when 15,000 people all get home from work and cut their AC on at the same moment...
yes renewable sources are improving how they can scale and ramp up.
Nukes are already there. I'm also annoyed at how articles claim normal tax items (vehicle fleet depreciation, etc) as subsidies for one industry, but then say industry X doesn't get subsidies. EVERYONE gets some form of tax breaks when you fill out your taxes. If you don't claim them, well, then that's on you.
The original article is right. We SHOULD push for more nukes as well as more renewable sources. Getting off of coal / diesel should be the first priority. Eventually if we can wean from nuclear? cool...
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:2, Insightful)
All the necessary technology exists
The renewable generation of power tech exists, but we don't have any way to store base line grid power yet. The super simplified example, is night time. How are you going to store enough energy to power the US while it's dark?
That said, yes we need to be plowing money into renewables, it's an investment that will pay itself off many times over...but unfortunately over a number of decades and so private industry simply isn't going to do that.
Re:We need nuclear. (Score:2, Insightful)
Nucelar power has problems and if we were to use it as much as we use fossil fuels, it would cause the same problem.
No. Look around. Not every nation have the same setup as United States.
It has nothing to do with what is most efficient or what works, it is all politics. Going mostly or all nuclear is completely viable, you have just decided not to. (Or rather abstained to make a decision.)
Have a look at Norway for example, they have 99% hydroelectric. Yes, it has its own problems with area used for dams and such but you can go 50/50 hydroelectric and nuclear or 25/75 or whatever you fancy. The interesting thing with hydroelectric is that you can take energy from nuclear and store up in the dam. Then you can use it when you need it.
It is all just a matter of choice and the article is right. Dicking around and saying that nuclear or hydroelectric isn't viable is not only obviously false but it also doesn't benefit anyone but the the coal power plants.
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
I think nuclear plant should produce hydrogen during low load period and that cars should run on hydrogen.
Hydrogen powered cars face huge technological and economic hurdles with no solutions on the horizon. Unless there are unforeseen breakthroughs, the car of the future is going to be powered by electric batteries, not hydrogen. Besides, electricity-to-hydrogen-back-to-electricity has a round trip efficiency of less than 50%.
In Germany, they have stopped using nuclear, the result is more pollution caused by coal.
Germany is a classic example of idiotic and counter-productive policies driven by environmentalism run amok. There are some good arguments against building new nukes. But it is insane to shutdown existing nukes. Their solar energy mandates are another example of bad policy: they have resulted in a large percentage of the world's solar panels being installed in one of the cloudiest places on earth, rather than where they actually make sense.
The Green Party in Germany has had a taste of political power, and like most idealists, they have abandoned their ideals in pursuit of more power. So they engage in sound-bite politics and propose simplistic solutions to complex problems. The environment suffers, but hey, their poll numbers to up!
Hate CO2 emissions? Nuclear Haters responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
If there has not been such huge pushback on nuclear reactors for decades, there would be far fewer coal fired plants now across the world.
Look at what France has done, the rest of the world could be just as clean. But we are not, and you can thank supposed "environmentalist" for direct harm for the very thing they claim to want to help.
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, that is why nuclear powered ships and subs have to boil the ocean, clouding port cities with steam whenever they want to stop... no wait, they don't. They just turn down their variable output. Nuclear is the perfect partner power generation to renewable.
They can simply lower the control rods in the reactor when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing:
http://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/nuclear-how.asp
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:5, Insightful)
Until fusion is everywhere, not one single energy source can serve our needs:
1: Thorium fission reactors need a look at. Yes, there have been working ones, almost 40 years ago. Cheap, effective, scalable, and a lot of energy in a relatively small chunk of real estate.
2: We need energy dense batteries. We have come a long way, but things will change big time when we start getting within an order of magnitude of gasoline for energy stored per volume. When this happens, car engines can be tossed for electric motors.
3: With all the advances in solar, from window tint PV panels to cheap panels for large surfaces, to high efficiency panels to get the best bang per buck out of small areas (RV rooftops), solar is a "why not?", rather than a "why?". The best use would be hybrid systems that can charge batteries, and when the batteries are charged, then feed the grid. That way, one is guaranteed very clean power on the circuits the batteries feed (assuming a quality inverter.) Solar is a must have for virtually any installation.
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:2, Insightful)
"The renewable generation of power tech exists, but we don't have any way to store base line grid power yet. The super simplified example, is night time. How are you going to store enough energy to power the US while it's dark?"
Reactors can throttle about 10% on a daily basis. Night time loads are about 55% of daytime. So where are the reactors storing that power now?
Oh what , they don't do that? They actually use other forms of power to fill in?
Exactly.
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, hippies don't compromise. Once they have it in their head that solar and wind are the way to go, then those are the ONLY way to go and YOU MUST DO IT THAT WAY AND NO OTHER WAY!!!!!!! No amount of reasoning will sell them on hydroelectric, nuclear, or natural gas (even pointing out that they're all much better for reducing CO2 than continuing with coal).
For environmentalists, it's not about taking reasonable steps, making reasonable compromises, working together, etc. It's about a cause. And the best causes for them are the ones that they can't win, allowing them to relish in the warmth of perpetual self-righteous victimhood.
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
It actually wouldn't surprise me to find that the coal industry was secretly funding some of the more extreme environmental groups. Every time one of them gets on TV and starts in with the "My way or the highway!" routine, it alienates more and more regular people, thus protecting the status quo. If the face of environmentalism were a reasonable person saying "Here's a plan. It's not perfect, and there are some compromises, but it's a big step forward," instead of some hemp-shirt wearing dude with dreads holding a sign protesting *everything*, then the public might actually get on board.
Re:There are lots of solutions on the horizon (Score:4, Insightful)
Hydrogen is actually a terrible solution for cars for a number of reasons.
1. Creating hydrogen from water is very inefficient and prohibitively expensive for transportation.
2. Creating hydrogen from natural gas is at best around 70% efficient due to the laws of physics, then there's all that CO2 left over.
3. Compressing hydrogen consumes at least 20% of the energy contained in the hydrogen. Cryogenically cooling it is far more energy intensive.
4. Fuel cells such as the type used in cars are at best around 40% efficient. Fuel cells also must maintain a certain temperature range, even when not in use. They must never freeze or they will be destroyed. They also must maintain a certain internal humidity level.
5. Transportation of hydrogen is expensive. For pressurized hydrogen the tanks are quite heavy. A truck carrying enough hydrogen for around 200 cars will weigh around 13 tons due to the tanks.
6. Existing pipelines cannot be used. Hydrogen embrittles metal so the pipes must be specially lined.
7. Safety is a concern for refueling. The Alameda County hydrogen filling station for the fuel cell busses already had one fire due to a failed valve and this refueling station is not open to the public.
8. Hydrogen is extremely flammable and burns with an almost invisible flame. A hydrogen leak in an indoor area could be catestrophic. Hydrogen also will leak through virtually any joint. Hydrogen is also explosive over a very wide range of mixtures with air, more so than even natural gas.
9. A diesel powered car is more efficient than a hydrogen fuel cell and will produce less CO2 since virtually all hydrogen comes from cracking methane.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/... [thenewatlantis.com]
Re:No, because they are not compatible (Score:4, Insightful)
This is an example of a false model of how the grid works. It appears that you believe that no matter where the electricity is injected into the grid it is immediately available to all users of the grid. This is the lake model of the grid. No matter where on the lake the electricity is injected it can be extracted anywhere else. This is a an inaccurate model. Am more accurate model is a canal system where the transmission lines are the waterways. Electricity can be injected into the canals but it has to be switched and transported through transmission lines. These lines have load limits and line loss. If there is a major storm in Norther Europe and the closest working turbines are in Spain the transmission line between Spain and Germany have to have the capacity to transmit all that power. Right now they do not and it is very expensive to put in such high capacity lines.