The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Dude, check the link.

 

 

Balta FTW!

 

I've been gotten. Its been a long week, and this is what I get for scanning and not following the links.

 

[StrangeSox]

All sites in the country are performing INPO-guided comprehensive reviews of their emergency plans, and they're doing it on a very short timeline.

[southsider2k5]

All sites in the country are performing INPO-guided comprehensive reviews of their emergency plans, and they're doing it on a very short timeline.

 

Yeah this is the wrong time to be caught with your pants down. I imagine we will see plenty of reaction, and over-reactions, in the United States over nuclear power.

[Balta1701]

Yeah this is the wrong time to be caught with your pants down. I imagine we will see plenty of reaction, and over-reactions, in the United States over nuclear power.

At least in my eyes, over-reaction is exactly what you want.

[Y2HH]

Yeah this is the wrong time to be caught with your pants down. I imagine we will see plenty of reaction, and over-reactions, in the United States over nuclear power.

 

You mean like jackasses accidentally poisoning themselves and ending up in the ER by sucking down potassium iodine because of something that happened half way around the world?

[Balta1701]

You mean like jackasses accidentally poisoning themselves and ending up in the ER by sucking down potassium iodine because of something that happened half way around the world?

At least we'll continue to prevent goiters.

[Balta1701]

I love the headline on principle. The article is good, but headline is gold.

 

Does Moore's law apply to solar cells?

[HuskyCaucasian]

Ken Salazar To Make 'Major Energy Announcement' In Cheyenne

 

CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead say they're going to make a "major energy announcement" in Cheyenne.

 

Officials in the Interior Department and governor's office aren't providing details about what's going to be announced Tuesday afternoon.

 

Several others including prominent insiders in Wyoming's energy industry say they're not privy to whether the announcement might involve coal, oil, gas or wind energy.

 

Environmentalist Jeremy Nichols with WildEarth Guardians says it might involve coal. But Marion Loomis, executive director of the Wyoming Mining Association, says if that's true, nobody has told him.

 

Just having Salazar visit is big news for a state with public land covering nearly half of its total area. Wyoming seldom gets visited by the top federal official in charge of all that real estate.

[Balta1701]

Ken Salazar To Make 'Major Energy Announcement' In Cheyenne

"We have found oil produced by arsenic-based life."

 

(retracted 6 months later).

[Balta1701]

TIME with a good overview piece on the problem of developing new nuclear, even before Fukushima.

Even before the earthquake-tsunami one-two punch, the endlessly hyped U.S. nuclear revival was stumbling, pummeled by skyrocketing costs, stagnant demand and skittish investors, not to mention the defeat of restrictions on carbon that could have mitigated nuclear energy's economic insanity. Obama has offered unprecedented aid to an industry that already enjoyed cradle-to-grave subsidies, and the antispending GOP has clamored for even more largesse. But Wall Street hates nukes as much as K Street loves them, which is why there's no new reactor construction to freeze. Once hailed as "too cheap to meter," nuclear fission turns out to be an outlandishly expensive method of generating juice for our Xboxes. (See pictures of an aging nuclear plant.)

 

Since 2008, proposed reactors have been quietly scrapped or suspended in at least nine states — not by safety concerns or hippie sit-ins but by financial realities. Other projects have been delayed as cost estimates have tripled toward $10 billion a reactor, and ratings agencies have downgraded utilities with atomic ambitions. Nuclear Energy Institute vice president Richard Myers notes that the "unrealistic" renaissance hype has come from the industry's friends, not the industry itself. "Even before this happened, short-term market conditions were bleak," he tells TIME.

 

Around the world, governments (led by China, with Russia a distant second) are financing 65 new reactors through more explicit nuclear socialism. But private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill.

 

In fact, the economic and safety problems associated with nuclear energy are not unrelated. Trying to avoid flukes like Fukushima Daiichi is remarkably costly. And trying to avoid those costs can lead to flukes.

[StrangeSox]

TIME with a good overview piece on the problem of developing new nuclear, even before Fukushima.

 

Vogtle and VC Summer are moving right along.

 

Of course, if we're going to complain about the need for government subsidies for nuclear, you can't turn around and whine that wind and solar don't get enough subsidies (and they don't). You're still left with the problem that we've no way to replace baseload power supplies with a non-nuclear power plant that doesn't emit carbon for any time in the foreseeable future.

 

The article mentions both the hyped "nuclear renaissance" and the failure to pass carbon laws but doesn't take that to it's logical conclusion: nuclear was being hyped several years back because it was assumed that the Democrats would finally stop being a bunch of p*****s and actually pass something for once.

Edited March 22, 2011 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

Vogtle and VC Summer are moving right along.

 

Of course, if we're going to complain about the need for government subsidies for nuclear, you can't turn around and whine that wind and solar don't get enough subsidies (and they don't). You're still left with the problem that we've no way to replace baseload power supplies with a non-nuclear power plant that doesn't emit carbon for any time in the foreseeable future.

 

The article mentions both the hyped "nuclear renaissance" and the failure to pass carbon laws but doesn't take that to it's logical conclusion: nuclear was being hyped several years back because it was assumed that the Democrats would finally stop being a bunch of p*****s and actually pass something for once.

 

Perhaps I am not remembering this right, but isn't there existing technology (aka, elements) that give off the same energy producing reactions without the radioactive elements? It seems to me that there's technology that's out there besides uranium that gives us the energy needs but it's much more rare and much more expensive? Or am I not remembering right?

[StrangeSox]

Commercial-grade thorium reactors are still years away, but that's probably what you're thinking of.

[kapkomet]

Commercial-grade thorium reactors are still years away, but that's probably what you're thinking of.

 

 

Yep. That was it. See, to me, that's what you invest in. Do it. Now. And you get rid of a lot of problems.

 

So, what's the risk (I see the "downsides" but that's different then risk).

 

Advocates for liquid core and molten salt reactors claim that these technologies negate thorium's disadvantages. Since only one liquid core reactor using thorium has been built, it is hard to validate the exact benefits.[citation needed] The lack of relevance to the nuclear weapon industry can be seen as a disadvantage to the development of Thorium usage in power generation,[dubious – discuss] but a worldwide resurgence of nuclear power use could provide enough incentives and funding to negate this disadvantage.

 

That's from wikipedia... it's very interesting to me that people aren't way more in favor of figuring this out.

[Balta1701]

Of course, if we're going to complain about the need for government subsidies for nuclear, you can't turn around and whine that wind and solar don't get enough subsidies (and they don't). You're still left with the problem that we've no way to replace baseload power supplies with a non-nuclear power plant that doesn't emit carbon for any time in the foreseeable future.

I'd be 100% thrilled to get rid of subsidies for everything and let everything compete on its own grounds.

 

This of course means removing the yearly tens of billions of subsidies for fossil fuel dollars.

 

This of course means pricing the externalities for both fossil fuel use and nuclear use. Both pricing carbon emissions and the health costs of fossil fuels. Right now, the health insurance industry (cough) provides a huge subsidy towards fossil fuel use. Right now, the taxpayers provide huge subsidies towards fossil fuel use in

that the government pays for rebuilding after weather related disasters (floods, storms, droughts).

 

This of course means that the government shouldn't be paying to take care of nuclear waste.

 

Complaining about renewables being non-baseload is silly when you're simultaneously arguing in favor of trillions of dollars in new nuclear construction (the price of 100+ plants). For that amount of money, you can easily build a grid that can deal with non-baseload power, you can work in battery backups, and I really don't care if we're 85% renewable and 15% natural gas.

[StrangeSox]

this will be multipart since my phone deleted my wot reply.

 

first, i would strongly oppose elimination of energy subsidies. "free hand of the market" is a libertarian fantasy when it comes to scientific development, especially the basic science needed to advance nuclear, solar and battery technologies for the next generations.

 

externalities should be priced. unfortunately,because the democrats failed to act when they had the chance, this likely wont happen for years. this, coupled with the recession, is the primary reason the nuclear renassaince is stalled. the financial incentive isnt there because fossil fuel plants save billions on health and environmental costs.

[Balta1701]

this will be multipart since my phone deleted my wot reply.

 

first, i would strongly oppose elimination of energy subsidies. "free hand of the market" is a libertarian fantasy when it comes to scientific development, especially the basic science needed to advance nuclear, solar and battery technologies for the next generations.

 

externalities should be priced. unfortunately,because the democrats failed to act when they had the chance, this likely wont happen for years. this, coupled with the recession, is the primary reason the nuclear renassaince is stalled. the financial incentive isnt there because fossil fuel plants save billions on health and environmental costs.

Now wait a second...there is a huge difference between funding future research and subsidizing current production. If you can't grasp that then don't bother with a second reply.

 

I have zero problem with spending a lot of money on actual "CO2 sequestration" projects to see if they can be made to work, for example.

[StrangeSox]

third, spent fuel is a national security and regional/national environmental concern. it makes sense for the federal government to handle this especially since they have their own radioactive material thats much more dangerous than commercial-grade fuel. and of course they promised to do so. in the end, spent fuel reimbursements dont amount to much anyway.

[StrangeSox]

fourth, if we started building 100 plants today for a total cost of $1t(somewhat generous in your favor), we'd have over a terawatt of carbon-free generation online by 2020. solar and wind, even with ng backups emitting carbon, are no where near that capability, especially across the entire country. the grid also couldnt sustain that sort of intermitent power and would need to be completely revamped.

[Balta1701]

third, spent fuel is a national security and regional/national environmental concern. it makes sense for the federal government to handle this especially since they have their own radioactive material thats much more dangerous than commercial-grade fuel. and of course they promised to do so. in the end, spent fuel reimbursements dont amount to much anyway.

You just changed the subject again. Spent fuel reimbursements are only a small portion of the total subsidy regime...although as Japan just proved, it's an underappreciated part. There are lots of other elements of the government paying for the waste.

 

Reprocessing facility operation. Security. Storage of the lower-grade water waste. If you want to count everything, here's the UCS's version.

The report evaluates legacy subsidies that helped build the industry, ongoing support to existing reactors, and subsidies available for new projects. According to the report, legacy subsidies exceeded 7 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh), well above the average wholesale price of power from 1960 to 2008. In effect, the subsidies were more valuable than the power the subsidized plants produced.

 

Yucca Mountain has a $90 billion price tag for crying out loud.

[Balta1701]

fourth, if we started building 100 plants today for a total cost of $1t(somewhat generous in your favor), we'd have over a terawatt of carbon-free generation online by 2020. solar and wind, even with ng backups emitting carbon, are no where near that capability, especially across the entire country. the grid also couldnt sustain that sort of intermitent power and would need to be completely revamped.

The grid needs to be completely revamped every time a new plant is built to bring the electricity built in that plant to market.

 

Hell, the grid needs to be completely revamped anyway, regardless of renewables or not.

[StrangeSox]

Now wait a second...there is a huge difference between funding future research and subsidizing current production. If you can't grasp that then don't bother with a second reply.

 

I have zero problem with spending a lot of money on actual "CO2 sequestration" projects to see if they can be made to work, for example.

 

no reason to be a dick about your unclear phrasing.

 

while were researching carbon sequester that may or may not work for the next decade+ (maybe futuregen will get around to starting by 2020), what are we going replace or expand baseload coail oil and gas plants with?

[StrangeSox]

The grid needs to be completely revamped every time a new plant is built to bring the electricity built in that plant to market.

 

Hell, the grid needs to be completely revamped anyway, regardless of renewables or not.

you are being delibaretly obfuscatory. the entire national grid does not need to be rebuilt to bring new nuclear plants online. even to expand it to 85% of our generating capacity. the same cannot be said for sources like solar and wind with battery backup systems (that dont yet exist). the technological capabilitis to bring wind and solar to that level along with some sort of carbon-free backup is likely decades off. in the meantime, id like to prevent a single new coal plant from being built while also replacing existing plants with a carbon-free source.

 

ideally this would be the last generation built.

[Balta1701]

you are being delibaretly obfuscatory. the entire national grid does not need to be rebuilt to bring new nuclear plants online. even to expand it to 85% of our generating capacity. the same cannot be said for sources like solar and wind with battery backup systems (that dont yet exist). the technological capabilitis to bring wind and solar to that level along with some sort of carbon-free backup is likely decades off. in the meantime, id like to prevent a single new coal plant from being built while also replacing existing plants with a carbon-free source.

 

ideally this would be the last generation built.

No, the entire national grid does not need to be rebuilt to bring single nuclear plants online, but again, that is responding to my point by switching topics. A huge amount of grid construction is required to bring electricity from a single large generating plant to market. If one were to build 100+ nuclear plants, doubling the current number, one would simultaneously need an enormous amount of grid construction...nearly the entire country. In addition, a huge amount of maintenance on the current system has been deferred or ignored for financial reasons, which of course, makes it even harder for the current grid to absorb the electricity generated from new large sources. Furthermore, the grid as it stands right now is incredibly vulnerable, not only to accidents like the one we saw in 2003 but to natural events as well (a good chunk of the western U.S. grid will need to be completely rebuilt when the San Andreas goes).

 

The capabilities to integrate huge fractions of non-baseload sources into a smart grid exist right now. This is not a problem of innovation. It's a problem of inertia.

[StrangeSox]

expanding existing sites does not require substantial invest in power grid innfrastructure.

 

btw, where is the 100 plant number coming from? whats the current fossil fuel generating capacity in the us? id look it up but my phone sucks.