Home › Blog › Page 1657

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Nuclear

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.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Nuclear

Larry Lemmert, astute as always, wrote a terrific comment here, to the effect that our assessments of the dangers of nuclear energy are unfounded, and the math we attempt to apply here unfair.

I think it’s true that there is a kind of mass hysteria about nuclear, which, given the statistics to date, is unfair.  It’s also true that new designs in nuclear facilities make them far safer than they were 40 years ago.  However, I’m worried about waste disposal, and I’m also worried about costs.  The latter is the reason that I think it’s essentially over for nuclear.  Obviously, if a practical breakthrough in thorium comes along, I’ll be (most happily) eating these words.  But for now, the cost of renewables is falling steadily; the cost of nuclear is going the other way.  

As we’re seeing with natural gas and the buzz about shale oil, cost/price is the 600-pound gorilla, as there is no political will to price in the externalities of energy generation.

Tagged with: , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Climate Change

Here’s an article about Germany, and the incredible work they’ve done to replace their fossil fuel-based energy consumption with renewables.   There, the clean energy movement, Energiewende, (“energy transformation”) estimates that at least 80 percent, perhaps 100%, of Germany’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2050.

So, are Germans leftists who don’t understand math?  I was a BMW driver most of my life; I don’t think so.  But, as Europeans, they tend to see the world through a completely different lens than Americans.  They don’t put stock in arguments from TV weathermen and pastry chefs who deny climate change, and they, as one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, don’t argue that clean energy would kill their economy, since their experience has demonstrated the precise opposite. 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Photovoltaics

Readers may want to check out Christopher Willis’ excellent comment on my post yesterday on nuclear and solar energy, in which he points out that a complete replacement for the energy Americans consume would require enough solar PV to cover the entire state of South Carolina. 

I’ve always argued (though it’s the ultimate moot point, because we’re not doing it anyway) that the acreage really isn’t the gating issue.  If there weren’t other concerns, I’m sure, if I could provide enough education on the subject, I could get the average American to vote for a distributed set of solar arrays totaling the size of the state of SC scattered around the southwestern desert in exchange for the end of ecologic, health, and national security concerns associated with fossil fuels, and the fear surrounding nuclear. The real issues are the costs of installation, storage, and transmission.  

Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Nuclear

Rick Maltese is a bright, thoughtful guy, and makes some very solid statements on behalf of nuclear energy.  He writes:

Statistically safety for nuclear power in the US does better than renewables, mind you it is only marginally. You may have noticed my blog before. The reason for the name “Deregulate the Atom” is to raise awareness about how a great technology has been prevented from maturing because of the over regulating authority of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the fossil industries campaign against their best competitor. I see the 3rd and 4th generation reactors as a huge improvement over the designs that were built 40 years ago and are still running. China will lead the way with the most number of new reactor designs.

My other pronuclear blog is http://thoriummsr.com which is supportive of molten salt reactor technology which is the safest design for a nuclear reactor possible.

Thanks for your posts against fossil fuels. They are well thought out and provide me with some ideas too. Best of luck.

Thanks, Rick.  I’m not rabidly anti-nuke, though I do reiterate my concerns about waste disposal and cost.  

Also, as I’ve written before, I’m not positive that deregulation is what you really want when it comes to something with the potential consequences of nuclear energy.  Greedy coal companies cut corners, mines collapse, miners get sick, the coal companies cover it up, a few people go to jail, blah-blah-blah.  That’s tragic, but I’m not sure I want to see this played out on a nuclear stage.  

As far as I’m concerned, the most credible solution for a planet at this stage of technological evolution, 93 million miles from its star, a star that provides our Earth with 6000 times more power than we need, is to find a way to tap into that energy stream.  Here’s the poignant part: if it weren’t for the power of the almighty dollar, the fossil fuel monopolists wouldn’t have the stranglehold they maintain over our political discourse, and we would already have clean energy in the bag.

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Climate Change

I just signed this petition to U.S. President Obama, asking him to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline. If you agree with the vast majority of scientists studying the issue who urge us to curb our dependence on fossil fuels, you may wish to do the same. 

Tagged with: , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

Nice to see the Tesla Model S win Motor Trend’s “Car of the Year.” It’s the first time in the magazine’s 64-year history that the prize hasn’t gone to an automobile with an internal combustion engine.  Writing for Motor Trend, editor-at-large Angus MacKenzie sums it up: “It drives like a sports car, eager and agile and instantly responsive. But it’s also as smoothly effortless as a Rolls-Royce, can carry almost as much stuff as a Chevy Equinox, and is more efficient than a Toyota Prius.”

I want one!

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Electric Vehicles

When asked what 2GreenEnergy is, I normally talk about what we’re doing to forward the cause of clean energy, but I quickly add that we’re about sustainability more generally.  I want to ensure that we play a role in any aspect of cleantech applied to transportation, agriculture, or any other discipline that affects humankind’s long-term viability. 

Here’s a good example — our ongoing conversation on electric transportation, in which frequent commenter Glenn Doty wrote: (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Renewables - Politics

In response to a friend in South Africa who wanted my opinion on a business plan to bring fuel cells and solar PV to rural Africa, I wrote:

Very interesting.  Certainly the solar product with batteries makes sense. I think (hope, at least) that the world is destined to bring renewable energy to rural Africa, leapfrogging the fossil fuel / utilities model of the rest of the world. I’m not as sure on the natural gas / fuel cell piece.  I’d like to see microgrids with PV and wind, perhaps using microwind products like WindStream and mid-sized wind like Continental Wind or the Wind Turbine Company.

How all this works politically in Africa is anyone’s guess.  Donors have trouble getting food and medical supplies to where they’re needed; I can’t imagine what this is going to be like.

Good luck!

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by craigshieldsPosted on Posted in Sustainability

In response to my recent piece on population growth and sustainability, frequent commenter Chris Daum writes:

The main issue, as I see it, is the education and empowerment of women. Educated women have fewer, healthier children and are able to contribute more to their community than just being breeders. Unfortunately, many of the poorest countries with high birth rates have cultures/religions that are against such empowerment. How are they to be convinced of their self-interest gained by educating their girls and women? (more…)

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,