Keep burning fuel, or go Nuclear?

Lennoxschips

piraka wrote:

Don’t forget that we are at the end of the gas pipeline. Remember what happened last year with the Russians if you are worried about the cost increases and supply.

I'm not advocating using gas either, I'm just saying that that nuclear power is not the CO2-free wonder energy people make it out to be, i.e. that in the near future, as the easy to find and mine uranium runs out, the nuclear cycle could be as carbon producing as natural gas per kilowatt hour. (But with the added mega-costs of security, cleanup and waste storage as well as the operational risks involved.)

What about the CO2 emission for the production of one turbine to be installed in an upland mountain site?

6 months is the time it takes for a wind turbine to earn back the total energy used in it's prodution (smelting, construction, transport, installation, wiring). I remember seeing this figure somewhere.

What about the loss of the carbon sequestering due to the loss of peat? (Under the Kyoto protocol peatland is regarding as a carbon sink.)

Yeah, burning peat is a doubly disastrous, you release CO2 by burning it and lose a CO2 sink as well in the process.

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote:

6 months is the time it takes for a wind turbine to earn back the total energy used in it's prodution (smelting, construction, transport, installation, wiring). I remember seeing this figure somewhere.

The report I've read states that if it is a properly managed project, a windfarm would have a carbon payback of 3 years through the loss of the carbon sink , but if not managed correctly, resulting in peat degradation this payback can be up to 20-30 years. The report excluded off site carbon costs.

As has been pointed out in previous posts, the inefficiencies in completion of large scale projects in this country, one you believe the latter figures to be true. (remember landslide at Derrybrien)

piraka

Lennoxschips wrote:

I'm not advocating using gas either, I'm just saying that that nuclear power is not the CO2-free wonder energy people make it out to be

Neither are renewable energy sources.

John_C

This 'not 100% CO2 free' argument strikes me as very weak. Nothing is 100% CO2 free but is it the case that both nuclear and wind have much lower CO2 emissions than the alternatives?

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

It says in the article that the reason why only 3.3% of Denmark's energy consumption comes from wind is because they are exporting 84% of their wind energy, not because the wind farms aren't providing enough energy. I don't know if I accept the reasoning provided in the article, but it sounds plausible.

The article also says that all of this energy is exported and a very large loss. That it hasn't caused a single fossil fuel plant to be closed (in fact they've built new ones since).

The fact that it is so heavily exported shows that it is actually a very bad source of energy, if you understand how the energy markets work. It means that it is very unreliable, can't be used as a normal steady power source for Denmark and can only be used to be sold to other countries when demand arises from them (probably at peak times) and the wind happens to be blowing strongly.

Lennoxschips wrote:

A massive change in energy usage and efficiency is required first and foremost. The western world is currently extremely inefficient in terms of energy usage, product and food distribution, cultivation, packaging. The cornflakes we eat come in a throw away plastic bag and box and have traveled thousands of miles to get to our bowls. Nearly everything we do is done badly from an energy point of view.

Mucco wrote:

This is what we should focus on. It's the easiest and cheapest way to address our Kyoto obligations. Not very glamorous, but things like insulation, double glazing, smaller, fuel efficient cars (tax the high consumption models) can make a massive difference.
The states could do this too by increasing the CAFE standards to give them European levels of fuel efficiency in cars etc....

That is the problem, people seem to think that we can reduce our energy usage with just minor adjustments to our lifestyles. The reality is that in order for you to reduce your energy use to required amounts, you must:

1) Sell your car (even hybrids are too much)
2) Never fly anywhere ever again (uses far too much co2).

Now I don't own a car out of choice (can easily afford one) but even I'm also a realist and I don't believe for a moment that the majority of people are going to give up their cars and their foreign holidays/business trips.

And it also completely ignores the massive increasing demand from energy from India and China. What do you all propose to do with India and China, do you propose keeping the 1 billion people from these regions poor and uneducated living on subsistence farming and with no electricity, cars and machinery?

RedPlanet

piraka wrote:

What about the CO2 emission for the production of one turbine to be installed in an upland mountain site?

Iron ore to mined, smelted rolled, formed, welded, cast and transported to the site. Emissions in digging out the peat, digging the road (include the CO2 emission for the disturbance of the peat as well as the machines required to build it). Life expectancy 15 years.

The amount of CO2 released in creating wind turbines undoubtedley pales in comparison to the massive amounts used in creating a nuclear power plant.
In fact a wind turbine itself can be manufactured with recycled material (stuff we've already mined).

Lemming

RedPlanet wrote:

The amount of CO2 released in creating wind turbines undoubtedley pales in comparison to the massive amounts used in creating a nuclear power plant.
In fact a wind turbine itself can be manufactured with recycled material (stuff we've already mined).

*yawn* so we're getting into micro-management arguments.

ok. Since you want to take this route, what about the installation of the massive amounts of wind-farms needed? The amount of vehicles, multiple runs, how about feeding workers? That needs energy to cook food, etc? Heating? Lighting? How about the power needs involved for the buildings needed to manufacture wind turbines? How about the workers? etc etc etc allow me to puke etc etc etc.

Am I being overly pedantic? Oh most definitely. But to make a point. Pick a different argument. Nobody would argue that wind power isn't cleaner than anything like fossil fuels or nuclear engery. But wind power carries other implications like reliability, or ... and I'm surprised this hasn't really been mentioned ... the destruction of large swathes of natural habitat and/or tourism-dependant locations to provide what is inherently an unreliable source of power.

As for the "off-shore" variant ... how would they be secured? How well would they stand up to the elements.

It's amazing the amount of environmentalists will harp on about one thing whilst completley neglecting the ironic twist that what they propose would equally destroy the landscape in another way.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.

Lennoxschips

The report I've read states that if it is a properly managed project, a windfarm would have a carbon payback of 3 years through the loss of the carbon sink , but if not managed correctly, resulting in peat degradation this payback can be up to 20-30 years. The report excluded off site carbon costs.

This must be a very specific report regarding building windfarms on bogs. Solution: don't build windfarms (or anything else for that matter) on bogs.

This 'not 100% CO2 free' argument strikes me as very weak. Nothing is 100% CO2 free but is it the case that both nuclear and wind have much lower CO2 emissions than the alternatives?

If you had read the report I had posted you would have seen that the Nuclear power cycle could be as CO2 emmitting as natural gas within a couple of decades (based on current use) as we have to go after harder to find uranium. (I must have mentioned this three or four times now) So the whole advantage of nuclear power is wiped out and we are only left with the disadvantages. In that case you may as well burn gas.

SeanW

This is a tired old excuse.

1: Noones been looking for Uranium in the last 30 years.
2: Some of the biggest users of nuclear power abuse their Uranium on a once-through basis fissioning less than 5% of the fuel.
That means:
A: It is possible to get way more out of existing, known fuel supplies.
B: The waste mountain is reusable about 20 times.
C: Even if high yield ores ran out, which you can assume they wont unless you ignore points 1 and 2, even if it took more energy to make fuel than was recovered in the first pass through, the nuclear programmes of reprocessing countries would still be viable as fuel from low grade ores would pay for themselves after one or at most two passes. However that we will get to this point is unlikely.
3: There are new reactor technologies being developed which can use other fuels and would in any case be ready by the time current fuels became unviable.

John_C

Lennoxschips wrote:

the Nuclear power cycle could be as CO2 emmitting as natural gas within a couple of decades (based on current use) as we have to go after harder to find uranium. (I must have mentioned this three or four times now) So the whole advantage of nuclear power is wiped out and we are only left with the disadvantages. In that case you may as well burn gas.

But we're running out of gas, is that not the point?

In any case, gas is a pretty clean fuel so being as bad as gas isn't that bad.

Lennoxschips

B: The waste mountain is reusable about 20 times.

once, at most

Lemming

Lennoxschips wrote:

once, at most

Once what? Re-usable at least 20 times only once? Or usable only once? Which is it?

What's your point?

Hotblack Desiato

Lennoxschips wrote:

The released coolant water heats up rivers killing fish stocks.
Radioactivity is released to the surrounding environment.
Drying concrete is a sizable source of global CO2 emissions, massive containment structures use plenty of concrete.

This is a crock.
The river is just a means of cooling, conventional power plants need cooling too (the alternative is cooling towers)
Far more radioactivity is released by burning the equivalent amount of coal, as has been repeatedly stated on this thread.
Conventional power plants tend to use a lot of concrete, especially with cooling towers. Large wind and tidal projects will use huge amounts, and hydroelectric dams take the cake.

Lennoxschips

the straw men are out in force again

i'm not defending coal or hydro

just countering the assumption made that nuclear plants cause no environmental damage whatsoever

The river is just a means of cooling, conventional power plants need cooling too (the alternative is cooling towers)

indeed, which is why there was an energy crisis during the last heatwave (in france as well), because the rivers were heating up too much, and the coolant water released was too warm. the plants had reduced capacity in order to comply with environmental regulations

Lennoxschips

Lemming wrote:

Once what? Re-usable at least 20 times only once? Or usable only once? Which is it?

What's your point?

only once. i don't know where the "20 times over" figure is coming from

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

only once. i don't know where the "20 times over" figure is coming from

I think you are confusing the reprocessing of spent Uranium for the production of weapons grade Plutonium (which can only be done once) and the reprocessing of used Uranium which can be done up to 20 times.

In a Nuclear reactor, only 3% of the Uranium is used, after which it is removed. With reprocessing and enrichment, it can be reused up to about 20 times.

bk

Lennoxschips wrote:

i'm not defending coal or hydro

just countering the assumption made that nuclear plants cause no environmental damage whatsoever

No proponent of Nuclear claims that it causes no environmental damage at all. But the point is it causes an incredibly small fraction of the damage of burning fossil fuels.

A report done in Germany found that the amount of CO2 produced by the entire Nuclear lifecycle (including mining and reprocessing) is just 0.5% of the CO2 produced by an equivalent coal burning plant.

Let me repeat that, 0.5% of a coal burning plant!!!!!

So this whole argument is completely ridiculous.

Yes, Nuclear might produce more CO2 then renewables, but that is irrelevant, since renewables (other then hydro) can't supply base load energy (which makes up 80% of our energy needs).

Akrasia

There is a very interesting presentation by a prominant venture capitalist on the viability of BioFuels to power the motor industry.

Some of his interesting points were

60% of the U.S. farm output went into producing food for animals, and biofuels have a bi-product that makes very good animal feed, far better than what animals are currently being fed on.

BioFuels are very good as a part of crop rotation. Instead of setaside land, if these crops were grown, the land from that year will be used productively, and not only do these crops replenish the land, but they suck carbon into the soil which helps future plant growth and it also makes them more carbon efficient.

A large proportion of our agriculture industry is export orientated. If we grew biofuels on this land, we would offset our reduced exports with a reduction in our energy imports, and our economy would be stronger and more self sufficient.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-570288889128950913

There are loads of other very good points.It comes from a firmly pro business standpoint. It's well worth a watch

Akrasia

And another really interesting thing he mentions is the 'algae into biofuels' industry which can produce up to 95,000 tonnes of biodiesel per hectare and even better (about 40 times better then the next best crop), these plants can be located beside sewage treatment plants or other places with high nitrogen waste problems and turn that pollution into raw materials for our energy production.

Akrasia

And there's a google video clip here that explains how algae biofuels can work

this clip is only 4 minutes long. But it explains this system very very well.

SeanW

I've been following developments in the BioDiesel sector for a while now and I've read that there's already a pilot algae bioreactor biodiesel plant hitched up to a gas-fired power station somewhere in the U.S. I forget where. However, before we run away with ourselves saying algae has saved us, there are 2 key things to note:
1: Algal biodiesel depends on a source of CO2 emissions.
2: If it works, which I seriously hope it does, the biodiesel will have a potentially insatiable market to fulfill before using it for electricity is even considered. I'm talking about cars, buses, trains, agricultural equipment, fuel hungry aircraft, ocean freighters and cruise ships that get one sixth of an inch to the gallon of fuel. That kind of thing - this would have to satisfied by an algae biofuels programme before you could consider wasting the stuff making electricity which is something we can already do better.

Lou.m

And what is that 7.5 billion gallons of bio-ethanol to supplant? Since the farming industry is going to be expected to supplant existing crops with this new stuff, can I ask a quick question? Can people live off bio-ethanol as a dietary concept?

Saying that growing and producing that amount of bio-fuels is all fine and well, but in order for it to be grown it has to replace something else ... or else more farm land needs to be found.

Also a point to note, the US is geographically large enough to find space (assuming that food crops don't suffer) to grow that amount of bio-fuels to support itself. Most other countries are not so lucky. How much arrable land would Ireland have to sacrifice in order to achieve a similar result?

To focus on another area, what kind of climate can support the growth of these bio-fuel crops? Are they succeptible to altitude issues? ie. moving from the theoretical, just how practical are the growth of these crops to most countries when other needs and considerations are factored into the equation?[/QUOTE]
Modern farming doesnt work that way crops are not necessarily grown on land anymore, in fact a lot of what we eat is grown from sythetic means which greatly reduces the land needed. Plus in every country including Ireland farmers are on their knees producing around four times what is needed to get subsidies because what supermarkets pay is peanuts. Very little of what we eat is actually grown fron the ground any longer you be freaked out if you saw modern farming methods. Most farmers agree that bio fuel could save their industry. We have stock piles of food as said before.

Lou.m

bk wrote:

Lou.m it amazes me that you know so much about Nuclear power, yet know so little about renewable energy sources.



Where did you get this figure?

I assume this includes the theoretical maximum output of wind power, but not the real output.

For instance as I pointed out, many people say that Denmark gets 20% of it's power from wind, but that is only the theoretical maximum, a detailed study has found that in reality it has only been supplying 3.3% of Denmarks energy supply, due to the intermittent nature of wind.

I also assume this figure includes hydro power and geothermal power, both of which are fantastic sources of good, consistent energy. However unfortunately nearly all the good hydro and geothermal sites around the world are already being used, so unfortunately won't be able to expand in usage in the future.

So that only leaves Wind which is not a base load form of energy, solar (doesn't work at night and not great in the Northern hemisphere), wave (completely unproven and very fragile from what I've seen) and finally bio-fuels.



If you truly believe this, then you should do far more research into bio-fuels. If you did, you would quickly come to realise that it can't give us even a small percentage of the worlds energy needs, due to the need to use arable land to grow crops for people to eat.

Most environmentalists are actually strongly against biofuels, because:

1) As demand rises for biofuels (and therefore price), African farmers will probably be forced into growing this, instead of food crops, leaving far less food for African people.

We could end up with a 21st century version of the Irish potato famine, where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Africans will likely die so we can drive around in environmentally friendly cars!!!

2) It encourages poor countries to cut down forests and natural animal habitats to convert to arable land to grow the biofules.

3) Many of the best bofuels are actually genetically modified crops.

(Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the use of Biofuels, up to socially responsible levels, but I just haven't seen any evidence that it is sufficient to replace our dependence on fossil fuels).

So in the end, we come back to where we start. Renewable forms of energy cannot replace our dependence on fossil fuels, so it comes back to either coal or nuclear.

Lou.m, you have honestly not shown me any alternative, I know all about these "alternatives", as I use to believe in them myself, until I looked at the bigger picture and started studying the alternatives in detail and found that non of them will replace fossil fuels.

So what is it, coal or nuclear?

Actually this is quite funny as i actually have a little bit of a background in enviromental studies in my education, although i admit it has been a while, from a few years ago. My figures come from the department of energy in the united states and a few other sources. And actually the vast majority of enviromental scientists i know( and i know a few) support well managed bio fuel programmes.
And strangely so do most physicists i know which might surprise you. (It surprised me).

Lou.m

the french nuclear system is the best way to go.[/QUOTE]
Actually most other EU countries are calling for the closure of the french plant and the French government has penalised it for its misdeeds. And if you read my earlier posts you will see they cannot find a place to dump their waste.

Akrasia

Lou.m wrote:

And what is that 7.5 billion gallons of bio-ethanol to supplant? Since the farming industry is going to be expected to supplant existing crops with this new stuff, can I ask a quick question? Can people live off bio-ethanol as a dietary concept?

Well, if 60% of the land is used to grow animal feed, (like in the U.S.) then biofuels production would not need to supplant anything because there is a very nutritious animal feed by product.

Lou.m

Akrasia wrote:

Well, if 60% of the land is used to grow animal feed, (like in the U.S.) then biofuels production would not need to supplant anything because there is a very nutritious animal feed by product.

Perhaps , but it is a good point well done Akrasia. I think if everyone looks at the way farming is done today they will realize that huge amounts of power could be harnessed in this area. Anyway most farmers are keen to try it, as food crops do not give enough profits and the profit margins for bio fuel are huge in comparison, for them. Even if scientists were against it (which they are not) farmers would still be forced to go that way anyway.

professore

Akrasia wrote:

What about with a Lot of wind? If we use all of our wind resources we have more than enough to power the country several times over. But we don't even need to rely on wind, there are other sources, Biomass, wave power, solar power (for heating water) geothermal energy. We could reduce our emissions significantly by enforcing stricter building regulations (this 'voluntary' compliance thing really isn't working, many new homes don't even meet the minimum standards), Improved public transport would cut down emissions from transport (immediate solution, buy more buses) and if we made it compulsory for all petrol sold to have a 5% ethanol mix and for all diesel to have a plant oil mix, we would reduce C02 emissions overnight.
All of these things can be delivered faster than nuclear power, which, being realistic, would take at least a decade to complete in this country when you consider the amount of opposition there would be
So you disregard wind power because you don;t think it can supply all of Ireland's energy, but you support nuclear because it can shut down a few coal burning plants?
Also, there is nowhere in Ireland that is far enough away from anywhere else in Ireland to make it a safe location for a nuclear power station. the whole country would be in the damage radius. and given our prevailing winds, building it in the south of the country would mean the whole east coast could likely be contaminated

The Irish government can't even build and run a feckin swimming pool, do you seriously trust them with a Nuclear power plant? They're nothing but 166 homer simpsons
We could get cheaper electricity in loads of other different ways too. And nuclear energy isn't cheaper when you take into account all of the externalities, and externalities are the reason we're in a climate crisis in the first place.

neither

Wind goes up and down - and sometimes doesn't blow at all. It's not a constant steady source of energy and will never be the full solution. We need a viable base load replacement that doesn't emit much or no CO2 and we need it quickly. I would be all for renewables but being practical I don't see an alternative. BTW would be happier living beside a nuclear plant than a coal powered plant or a main road for that matter.

professore

Triangle wrote:

SeanW,

It anoys me when you tell others to do more research and then say a nuclear disaster cannot happen again. How can you guarentee an accident will never happen again?
It's like saying a loaded gun cannot go off without someone pulling the trigger.
Accidents do happen - and with nuclear power its one big accident.

I would not want myself or my children to live near a Nulear Station for the simple fact of how much damage a handful of radioactive material can cause.


Trig

How many people have died from nuclear accidents worldwide?

Read this :
http://www.whensmokeranlikewater.com/publications/scientific/Hidden_Benefits2.htm

Implementing climate policies now will yield immediate benefits locally and globally by reducing particulate air pollution, by slowing the build-up of greenhouse gases, and by protecting public health. Over the next two decades, at least 8 million deaths could be avoided.


8 Million !!!!!!!! How many have died from nuclear power ????? My kids are choking with asthma - and none of my or my wife's family had it!!! Wake up people ! Do the math !!!!!

professore

Akrasia wrote:

while there are safer cleaner alternatives, why would we take any risk with nuclear power? There are loads of things we could do right now. Nuclear power is not a panacea, and it is at least a decade away even if the decision is made today.
A decade from now, it will be too late.

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1957692,00.html
Solar power in the desert can easily provide green electricity to the whole world with zero carbon emissions, no safety risk and with the positive side effects of the provision of desalinated drinking water as a byproduct and air conditioning for nearby cities.

As well as this, we have huge domestic sources of renewable energy that are being ignored.

HELLO ??? Where are the deserts in Ireland we can put this solar power to the test in ?

Akrasia

professore wrote:

Wind goes up and down - and sometimes doesn't blow at all. It's not a constant steady source of energy and will never be the full solution. We need a viable base load replacement that doesn't emit much or no CO2 and we need it quickly. I would be all for renewables but being practical I don't see an alternative. BTW would be happier living beside a nuclear plant than a coal powered plant or a main road for that matter.

In other words, If I grow potatoes I will starve to death when potatoes are out of season because there is no other possible source of food available.