2 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

Yes import your energy like we did with oil and now gas in the EU then they hold you too ransom,

 

Yep, as I mentioned, energy security is an issue. On the whole though we gain a lot more in terms of energy than we lose as a result of the factors you mention. And many nations have no choice but to obtain their energy from elsewhere. Don't think we will have too many issues with Morocco. 

On 1/6/2022 at 8:17 AM, birdguy said:

We have a huge solar 'farm' just outside of Roswell.  And south of Carlsbad near the Texas border is a huge wind 'farm'.  

States like New Mexico and Arizona that get 300 days of sunshine a year are ideal for solar 'farms'.  So we can probably copy Morocco and send power to the other states.  Underground cables are better than underground oil and gas lines.

Noel

I hope that the recently passed infrastructure bill has some money to construct new transmission lines to move power from solar and wind plants out west to other parts of the country.

I lived out west for years and there are huge nearly empty stretches of land suitable for solar power plants.  I'm talking thousands of square miles.  It would require clearing off some native vegetation in many areas, but there is a price to pay for anything we do.

We still need to expand and maintain our nuclear power production IMO.

Dave

4 hours ago, dave2013 said:

We still need to expand and maintain our nuclear power production IMO.

 

Some think not Dave. 🙂

 

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

 

Quote

 

Analysis

New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.

 

 

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-solutions/nuclear-is-not-the-answer/

 

Quote

Helen Caldicott’s look at the actual costs and environmental consequences of nuclear energy belies the incessant barrage of nuclear industry propaganda. Caldicott “reveals truths,” Martin Sheen has said, “that confirm we must take positive action now if we are to make a difference.” In fact, nuclear power contributes to global warming; the true cost of nuclear power is prohibitive, with taxpayers picking up most of the tab; there’s simply not enough uranium in the world to sustain nuclear power over the long term; and the potential for a catastrophic accident or a terrorist attack far outweighs any benefits. Concluding chapters detail alternative sustainable energy sources that are the key to a clean, green future.

https://thenewpress.com/books/nuclear-power-not-answer

https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy

Edited January 7, 20224 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

My desire for nuclear power is not just about climate change.  Nuclear power plants provide not only an affordable, reliable, and relatively clean power source, but a reliable backup in case of issues with the primary sources.  My power comes from a nuclear plant and costs me 14c/kWh.  The plant produces about 1.75 Gigawatts of power, has been fully operational since around 1980, and can operate until 2037 on its current license.  That's almost 60 years of power for 1.6 billion dollars.  Pretty good investment IMO.  

If one doesn't like nuclear, then natural gas plants can be good backups.

I'm sorry, but I don't feel secure just having solar and wind as our primary power sources right now.  Perhaps 25+ years from now they will be viable primary sources, but not now and probably not even in the next 10 years.

I sincerely hope that we have fusion reactors in 30 years or less.  I might not be around to see them, but it will be good for humanity.

Dave

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

Some think not Dave. 🙂

The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change

https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-solutions/nuclear-is-not-the-answer/

https://thenewpress.com/books/nuclear-power-not-answer

https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy

Old-school thinking from the 'all nuclear is bad / won't somebody think of the children?' agitators.

The problem with relying solely on renewables is that, in Europe at least, there isn't the space available to construct vast fields of solar panel arrays.
Not to mention the issue of heavy metals (Cd and Pb) toxicity of the panels when they reach their end of useful economic life (UEL). At very best, 10% of panels' content cannot be recycled. Additionally, there are concerns over the leaching of heavy metals into groundwater and escape of larger fragments during the tear down and recycling process.

Regarding wind energy, Europe faced a prolonged period between April and September last year when power generation was significantly hit by low wind speeds - something one scientist specialising in Climate Risk Analytics will become a regular occurrence:

Quote

Our team has also shown that periods of stagnant high atmospheric pressure over central Europe, which lead to prolonged low wind conditions, could become the most difficult for power systems in future.

Climate change could play a role

When we think about climate change we tend to focus much more on changes in temperature and rainfall than on possible variations in near-surface wind speed. But it is an important consideration in a power system that will rely more heavily on wind generation.
The latest IPCC report suggests that average wind speeds over Europe will reduce by 8%-10% as a result of climate change.

Source: https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-winds-mean-for-the-future-energy-grid-170135

To demonstrate this point, Germany burnt double the amount of coal on a daily basis in April 2021 than it did in April 2020 (despite similar demand).

https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2021&month=04
https://energy-charts.info/charts/power/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&stacking=stacked_absolute_area&interval=month&year=2020&month=04

 

Where nuclear is far more successful is the consistent delivery of power to meet demand that relying on mother nature cannot.
Small modular reactors (similar to those on-board SSN and SSBN submarines) are being worked on to roll-out as smaller and more cost-conscious civil power generation (see Rolls-Royce).

Other reactor designs are being researched:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

While a good mix of renewable energy sources is important to help us attain the clean, green future we want, nuclear is the basis to achieve it.

20 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Old-school thinking from the 'all nuclear is bad / won't somebody think of the children?' agitators.

Well, then count me in as an agitator. I personally am not concerned about nuclear safety now, but 200,000 years from now. The consequences of nuclear waste, which remains a risk for that long a time, are simply impossible to estimate. In the best of all worlds, someone will develop a nuclear (or fusion) reactor with little waste, or waste that becomes unproblematic in 10 years or so. We're not there yet, and I for myself prefer to err on the side of caution and not use nuclear power for now. 

In my own view, I wouldn't consider that agitation, just a different way of risk assessment.

Peter

3 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Well, then count me in as an agitator. I personally am not concerned about nuclear safety now, but 200,000 years from now. The consequences of nuclear waste, which remains a risk for that long a time, are simply impossible to estimate. In the best of all worlds, someone will develop a nuclear (or fusion) reactor with little waste, or waste that becomes unproblematic in 10 years or so. We're not there yet, and I for myself prefer to err on the side of caution and not use nuclear power for now. 

In my own view, I wouldn't consider that agitation, just a different way of risk assessment.

While I understand the concern, we have an energy crisis already that cannot wait "10 years or so", especially with the accelerating prevalence of electric vehicles, data centre locations and personal electronic devices and their ever-increasing power needs.
We are burning huge amounts of fossil fuels in tandem with renewable energy sources being used as back up in case there is a drop-off in wind or solar strength whenever the weather changes, not to mention the unspoken localised environmental damage that current renewable energy technologies are causing.

I firmly believe that as the need to dispose of nuclear waste increases, there will be even more research undertaken and better investment put into creating practical and economic reactors that 'burn' through spent nuclear material - see molten salt reactors.

So long as the fearmongers who create a narrative that every new nuclear power station is another Chernobyl-style disaster just waiting to happen, we will never get our decision-makers to take the necessary actions and move us fully away from fossil fuels.
 

25 minutes ago, F737NG said:

While I understand the concern, we have an energy crisis already that cannot wait "10 years or so", 

....

So long as the fearmongers who create a narrative that every new nuclear power station is another Chernobyl-style disaster just waiting to happen, we will never get our decision-makers to take the necessary actions and move us fully away from fossil fuels.
 

I agree with both statements, but I would prefer not to push the problem many millennia down the road. You live in England, a great country with relatively small cars and homes/apartments. I moved to Canada from Europe 20 years ago and still can't get used to the size of cars here. The Ford F140 is the best-selling car in North America, and it uses about 3 times as much gas as an average European car. It would be so easy to save a lot of energy by simply downsizing, and I really mean us rather than you Britons 🙂

To meet the needs of home and industrial power, we can go nuclear, sooty coal, or frack for natural gas. If going solar or wind, then we must pray to the gods of nature for way better daily weather reports on the telly.

1 hour ago, qqwertzde said:

You live in England, a great country with relatively small cars

Getting bigger by the day! The march of the Chelsea tractor is inexorable. Especially at school drop off/pick up times.  🤬

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by Ron Attwood
Fat finger syndrome

New Mexico is at the forefront of the future of energy production.  The entrie southwest is getting aboard.  We have plenty of sunshine and wind.  I expect in the future New Mexico, Arizona, Southern California and West Texas will be delivering power to the entire United States.  

I am a proponent of Nuclear power.  While we have no nuclear power plants in New Mexico we do have a nuclear waste storage facility.

There is a solar farm just outside Roswell NM.

https://kralspaces.wordpress.com/2016/04/29/west-of-the-pecos-roswells-solar-farm/

A windfarm just outside Portales NM.

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/pattern-energy-completes-construction-of-largest-single-phase-renewable-energy-project-in-us-history/

A nuclear waste storage facility just outside Carlsbad NM.
https://wipp.energy.gov/wipp-site.asp

The WIPP project not only stores the waste but has built roads to bypass the cities along the transportation route to the storage facility.

Noel

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by birdguy

14 hours ago, F737NG said:

 

The problem with relying solely on renewables is that, in Europe at least, there isn't the space available to construct vast fields of solar panel arrays.
Not to mention the issue of heavy metals (Cd and Pb) toxicity of the panels when they reach their end of useful economic life (UEL). At very best, 10% of panels' content cannot be recycled. Additionally, there are concerns over the leaching of heavy metals into groundwater and escape of larger fragments during the tear down and recycling process.

Regarding wind energy, Europe faced a prolonged period between April and September last year when power generation was significantly hit by low wind speeds - something one scientist specialising in Climate Risk Analytics will become a regular occurrence:

 

Regrading space available for solar panels, we don't need vast areas for solar panels, only some areas for solar panels. Renewable energy isn't about just solar power, its about wind power, solar power, hydro energy, tidal energy, geothermal energy, biomass energy, geothermal energy. And indeed, if we look at the vast amount of roof space we have then there's plenty of real estate for solar power. Not to mention floating photovoltaics over reservoirs and lakes that has many advantages, like lower water evaporation and increased panel output due to better temperature control. But again, as I said, its a bout a mix of renamable sources, not relying on one. The greater the mix the lower the intermittency issue. 

As for recycling, you quote a figure of 10% of panel material can't be recycled, that's hardly a negative, its a positive. So 90% of PV panels can be recycled. In the world of recycling that's an excellent figure, one that the fossil industry is orders of magnitude below. In the US, the figure is reversed, with only 10% of panel's being recycled, that must improve. There is a big push now to increase recycling. 

You talk about leaching heavy metals into ground water, well given that the so called "green technologies" are subjected to much higher standards than the fossil fuel industry, I'm pretty sure that issue could be addressed. And its almost a non-issue when you compare it to the serous issue of environmental pollutants from nuclear energy. Runoff from Uranium mining, which is harmful to biological systems, mining of Uranium creates significant CO2 emissions of course, uranium miners cancer risk and studies have shown increased levels of cancer for those who live bear nuclear plants. 

So given the above, I don't think we should be too concerned about PV recycling "possibly" having an "addressable" issue with heavy metals. 

 

Quote

Various scientific studies have shown an increased rate of cancer among people who live near nuclear power plants. Long-term exposure to low level radiation has been shown to damage DNA. The degree of damage low levels of radiation cause to wildlife, plants and the ozone layer is not fully understood. More research is being done to determine the magnitude of effects caused by low levels of radiation in the environment.

https://sciencing.com/nuclear-energy-affect-environment-4566966.html

 

You also mention brief periods of low wind speed, but of course that's regional, I recall it was two of Europe's energy providers that saw a drop in profits. And wind farms at sea that have been VERY successful hear in the UK experience pretty constant wind speeds. And again, as I mentioned earlier, renewable energy isn't just about wind alone or solar along,. a mix of sources is important. 

As stated by Michael Muller regarding the low wind speed affecting profits... "“I think what you need to do is balance your portfolio,” he said. “So, have a portfolio across different technologies … be it onshore, offshore, or solar or storages, and also across regions.”

Edited January 8, 20224 yr by martin-w

14 hours ago, F737NG said:

Where nuclear is far more successful is the consistent delivery of power to meet demand that relying on mother nature cannot.

 

From the link I posted earlier...

Quote

Nuclear advocates claim nuclear is still needed because renewables are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear itself never matches power demand so it needs backup. Even in France with one of the most advanced nuclear energy programs, the maximum ramp rate is 1 to 5 % per minute, which means they need natural gas, hydropower, or batteries, which ramp up 5 to 100 times faster, to meet peaks in demand. Today, in fact, batteries are beating natural gas for wind and solar backup needs throughout the world. A dozen independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable energy supply and storage, without nuclear, at low cost.

6. Energy production

The 444 nuclear power plants currently in existence provide about 11% of the world’s energy (11). Studies show that in order to meet current and future energy needs, the nuclear sector would have to scale up to around 14,500 plants. Uranium, the fuel for nuclear reactors, is energy-intensive to mine, and deposits discovered in the future are likely to be harder to get to to. As a result, much of the net energy created would be offset by the energy input required to build and decommission plants and to mine and process uranium ore. The same is true for any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions brought about by switching from coal to nuclear (12).

7. Not enough sites

Scaling up to 14,500 nuclear plants isn’t possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren’t enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. The increase in extreme weather events predicted by climate models only compounds this risk.

13 hours ago, F737NG said:

So long as the fearmongers who create a narrative that every new nuclear power station is another Chernobyl-style disaster

 

Conversely, we have the nuclear industry and their propaganda trying to persuade us that nuclear is the answer to climate change and other issues. I understands why, no different to the fossil fuel industry, in that renewables are a threat to their existence. I hope people learn to seek out the truth rather than believing the propaganda. 

On 1/5/2022 at 1:05 PM, birdguy said:

What happens when the power does go out?  It happened in Texas less than a year ago when three winter storms caused a power crisis in the state which has its own power grid and was not able to import power from out of state sources.  Some people had to take out a second mortgage on their homes just to pay 9,000 dollars for the power they used in just 5 days.  The irresponsibility and price gouging of some of Texas' power providers during the crisis is outlined in the Wiki article below.

The long and the short of it is we do need reliable and sustainable power sources like nuclear or fusion because what we have now can result in severe physical and financial hardship when the unexpected happens.  Especially for power plants that need fuel like natural gas and coal to be transported.  That happened in Texas when natural gas lines were interrupted when pumps froze.

The majority of us take power for granted.  We flip a switch and the lights go on.  We set the thermostat and we get heat...except when we don't. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis

Noel

Texas could solve many problems by joining the national power grid. Our Governor insinuating that Texas must stand alone is archaic and foolhardy. This is not politics it is reality as found in post event investigations.

Bill W