Predictions on Nuclear Energy
On my post on the costs of nuclear energy, frequent commenter Larry Lemmert writes:
Nuclear may go away for the next 50 years or so, not because of renewables beating them on price but because gas from fracking has become dirt cheap.
In the words of Yogi Berra, “It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future.” Having said that, let me ask you to take a trip forward in time, into the most likely set of future circumstances that constitute our world in the year 2062.
Is it possible that some form of nuclear energy will have broken through between now and then? Sure. It could be based on another large, fissionable atom like thorium. It could also be some form of fusion. But isn’t it far more likely that, given that the Earth receives 6000 times more power from our sun than the whole energy-starved world consumes, that renewable energy (essentially, some form of solar) will win the day, if we still have a civilization in place at that point?
I’ll be 107 in 2062, and, though I plan to be healthy as a horse from my exemplary clean living :), it’s meaningless to make a bet with you on the subject. I wish that weren’t the case. I’d love to plunk down a wager.
In any case, thanks for hanging around here, Larry. I always appreciate your insights.
My only comment on your solar option is the same one I make about wind. Until you have either a viable power storage facility OR a planetary level power grid capable of moving electricity from any part of the world to any other part of the world, it is NOT an effective source of power no matter how much you would like it to be. It can only be used to supplement some sort of burning fuel (carbon based or atomic) power supply during daylight hours.
“But isn’t it far more likely that, given that the Earth receives 6000 times more power from our sun than the whole energy-starved world consumes, that renewable energy (essentially, some form of solar) will win the day, if we still have a civilization in place at that point?”
That statistic is about as useful to us as knowing the distance between Saturn’s moon Titan and Saturn.
Most of the sun’s energy which falls upon the earth falls upon the oceans in places where collecting the energy will forever be impractical. Also, at any one place, it falls upon the earth for only 12 hours per day on average. In some of those places, i.e, the polar regions, there is no sunlight for several months per year. In other regions, it is often blocked by clouds. Even when there are not clouds, the sun is for a while each day too low in the sky to impart enough energy to be useful. In some desert regions where sunlight is plentiful, there are moving sand dunes which would cover access roads and sometimes even cover the solar installations. Even when that doesn’t happen, deserts tend to be dusty and significant water is required to keep the collection surfaces clean, a problem which is often exacerbated by water scarcities.
Even so, solar energy is useful in remote places where the cost of connecting to the grid is prohibitive. It is also useful in places where only small amounts of power are required and connecting to the grid would be inconvenient, such is for school crossing lights. But as a major source of power for large countries, it is unlikely ever to be practical. That’s especially true in countries which have high population densities where the weather is often cloudy since the cloudy weather would greatly increase the required collection area and the population density would decrease the per capita area available. We must think globally, not only locally, and consider the practicality of energy systems in other areas of the world.
Delaying the implementation of nuclear power will result in more CO2 emissions to the detriment of the environment. And global warming itself will greatly increase the demand for power to deal with the effects of global warming. It will change air conditioning from a matter of comfort to something that is essential for survival. Changing patterns of rainfall will greatly increase the need for sea water desalination which is energy intensive. It may also increase the energy required to ship food to areas where food crops can no longer be grown.
“That statistic is about as useful to us as knowing the distance between Saturn’s moon Titan and Saturn.”
I firmly disagree, Frank. The 6000 figure that Craig mentions are both highly relevant to our own planet and our biosphere, and these numbers he shares obviously serve to encourage the wider acceptance of the known and demonstrated viability of solar thermal, and solar energy applications in general, among readers who have not been exposed to the numbers elsewhere.
In contrast, the distance between Titan and Saturn is useless to nearly all but astronomers and spaceflight technicians. I strongly suspect that you must have realized that your comparison is complete hyperbole, and therefore not particularly useful in itself.
Your comment reveals a level of antagonism toward solar thermal that is quite unwarranted, given the potential of efficient High Voltage Direct Current transmission over long distances from both ideal and highly suitable climate areas that are widely dispersed in many nations (and therefore available to nearly all nations), and given the recent advances that resolve concerns about storage. Indeed, people in Germany are looking at solar generation in Africa for consumers in Europe.
Solar thermal a relatively simple and highly elegant solution set that is being seriously pursued by entities both commercial and governmental, and they are thoroughly considering and addressing your aging concerns. Advances continue and efficiencies increase – it is only a matter of time and political will.
Great, great video on Gas from Daniel Schrag, nuclear isn’t the only think at risk, but carbon capture and reneable investments. Highly recommended viewing. Not enough time to weigh in on the commentary going on here directly, at work still 😀
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPqSZvcIKJc&feature=g-all-u
Definitely hard to predict the future but actually trying to engineer change is a worth while challenge. We as bloggers can be fairly certain that the results of blogging have a tiny effect on the overall picture but what about the government actually spending on ads to educate the public so that changes such as allowing cheaper nuclear energy designs to be promoted and revising the regulatory bodies so that safety is maintained yet cost is alleviated. We have licensing, insurance, start-up expense all enormously inflated because of public perception and misinformation. I recently posted a blog on a related topic about government action in China.
http://deregulatetheatom.com/2012/11/social-risk-assessment-and-data-mining-vs-good-pr-planning/
Rick Maltese