1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Emerging Propaganda Trends: Faux on Clean Energy

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by SageBrush, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    there are some safer designs in the pipe like fusion/fission hybrid, read this Nuclear fusion-fission hybrid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The beauty if FFH that there is:
    - alot less fuel required at site
    - does not require enriched fuel, can work on unenriched uranium or waste
    - alot less waste
    - reaction is forced; it stops as soon as you flip the switch

    IMHO the CO2 reduction will require nuclear in some form, at least short term.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Until we figure out the baseload issue, I think you're correct. though I wonder if geothermal couldn't solve that problem at a lower total cost.
     
  3. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,341
    3,596
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Sounds like it has merit for using spent fuel, so the US gov't or states could build some as part of overall cradle-to-grave energy strategy. I'd want to know how small one could be. I like the SNR small rxr ideas. I thought military used spent pellets for anti-missle bullets, but maybe small use.

    I take a longer term view, assuming we have the luxury.
    One fundamental conflict the Epstein article alludes to is Rio/enviros sense of urgency to make immediate short-term changes to reduce CO2. I hate to adopt the coal-fired utility GW approach (try it you'll like it), but it took long time to get into this mess, may take a long time to get out.
     
  4. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    If the people who construct buildings also had to pay the lifetime energy costs, geothermal would be standard. The digging and the piping cost a bit more up front, but the payback continues for a very long time.
     
  5. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It may.
    Here is the costs info:
    Geothermal Technologies Program: Geothermal FAQs
    Cost of other types:
    Comparing Energy Costs of Nuclear, Coal, Gas, Wind and Solar
    [​IMG]

    looks like geothermal will be inline with nuclear/coal, just a penny or two more.

    Now the availability is an issue
     
  6. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    It especially makes sense for urban area, apartment complexes, office buildings, shopping malls, etc
     
  7. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Availability of geothermal? For the big power plants producing megawatts, it's just about anywhere on the 'Ring of Fire' where tectonic plates are most active. For the garden-sized variety of geothermal using the ground for local heating and cooling, it really is anywhere and everywhere.
     
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,602
    4,136
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I think geothermal has great potential for Heating and air conditioning. It doesn't do as well in tall buildings. Where I live is a hot place, and they estimate AC with Geothermal only uses about 1/4 of the electricity as an efficient air conditioner. New buildings are using it more and more, but it is expensive to retrofit many old buildings. It more than pays for itself since it adds value to the home or building and lowers cost. It has big gains for heating as well, but this depends more on the climate and power mix.

    I ran into some folks the other day that were trying to fund a start up for geothermal electricity that works well in cold places. They had some test facilities in alaska. Geothermal electricity is still in its infancy.
     
  9. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,531
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    Home PV installed at $5/watt in areas that collect 2 kwh/year costs 18 cents a kwh in today's dollars for the next 30 years. This is already cost parity for retail residential, and it is without any subsidies, and I mean NO subsidies.
     
  10. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    3,292
    547
    0
    Location:
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    The reality that it isn't. You can build really cheap geo-cooling system if you use existing water supply. Problem is that if it leaks the oil will get into fresh water supply; that's why it is banned by building codes.

    Air-to-water systems has been used in places where building codes are non-existent.
     
  11. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    World resources of Thorium: 6 million tons (US resources 440,000 tons)
    Energy available: 3.6 Billion kWh / ton
    Total energy: 2.1 x 10^16 kWh
    World energy usage (2008): 1.3 x 10^14 kWh/ year
    is 164 years (at today's usage rates. ha!)
    at a 2.2% growth rate it should last until 2077.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    How about estimated uranium?
     
  13. tripp

    tripp Which it's a 'ybrid, ain't it?

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    4,717
    79
    0
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    If we ramped up nuke power to 50% of all power produced how does that number above change? We'd push out another couple of decades I suppose.

    One of the nice things about thorium is that it's waste products have much shorter halflives and one of them is an element that's used in wind turbine rotor blades (starts with a v, can't remember the name).
     
  14. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Vanadium?
     
  15. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,602
    4,136
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Trip, 50% is a number that is much too high. Let's pretend costs are much lower than they are and look at France. They get to 80%, but this is problematically high. They trade some night and weekend power to other countries for peaking power. Since to get to this number they have some plants on rivers and lakes that must be shut down when temperatures get hot or water levels are low, only ocean access. Given access to water a peak would be closer to 40% of world power, and we see that some countries like japan and the us have even screwed this by putting them in earthquake and tsunami zones. Next you need regulation and since japan failed this what chance do you think a country like saudi arabia or moroco has to do this. No 30% is the outside high range, which means we have at least 500 years of fuel. Nuclear's problems are costs, safety, regulation, and waste, not running out of fuel. I don't think Germany, Texas, or California are going to add any more nuclear, but of course Iran wants it, and China and India are going to build more.
     
  16. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,075
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    My reference states that know thorium reserves "exceed 3 million (metric) tons." While this doesn't sound like much, it is almost as plentiful as lead, three times more abundant than uranium, five times more abundant than tin, and 200 times more abundant than silver. The energy locked up in thorium probably exceeds all known fossil fuels deposits. If we are going to run out of thorium by 2077, we will run out of fossil fuels even sooner.

    Tom

    - Emsley, John (2003). Nature's Building Blocks. New York: Oxford Press.
     
  17. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    If you start with roughly half as much (3M vs 6M) you are going to run out proportionally sooner. I should probably note that Thorium has not been searched for as fanatically as oil; there may be significant undiscovered resources.

    The upshot is that given an exponential growth curve for energy consumption, any resource is going to run out. "essentially limitless" means less than 100 years.
     
  18. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,341
    3,596
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
  19. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,563
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    And the high 'Solar' costs must be for large photovoltaic arrays. I can't imagine that local, passive solar would be so expensive.
     
  20. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,602
    4,136
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Prices vary a great deal based on location, and local regulation and subsidies, and assumptioins about fuel costs. If you are doing solar yourself it will be less, but may be more in a utility. That chart seemed far off of new plants. These at least are close to the ERCOT costs, coal, nuclear, and solar are more here, gas and wind less. In california my guess is solar would be cheaper, but everything else more expensive.

    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source"]Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Somehow the chart didn't pop up,so check the chart in the link.

    6.6 cents for natural gas, 10.4 cents for nuclear, and 9.7 cents for wind, 21 cents for solar. This is before talking about co2 output. Wind is the least corelated to peak demand (so think higher real cost) and solar the most corelated in a warm place (so lower real cost).