Comprehensive energy study concludes wind power cleanest

[bascule]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html

 

A comprehensive study of various modes of power generation has concluded that wind, solar, and geothermal are the cleanest technologies, whereas nuclear, clean coal, and ethanol are the least.

 

The study analyzed the entire lifecycle of the power generation process. Nuclear, for example, lost out due to the CO₂ emissions involved in construction and decommissioning of plants along with the costs of procuring, transporting, and refining uranium ore, along with shipment of nuclear waste.

 

Now I'm starting to wonder if Democratic opposition to nuclear power (in favor of wind, solar, etc.) is actually a science-based position, rather than just an ignorant one.

[Mokele]

Wind isn't without major problems, though. Apparently, wind turbines are killing loads of bats, which will eventually disrupt the ecosystem (they're truly prodigious consumers of insects).

[Pangloss]

Sometimes I think these studies get a little obsessed with minutiae. I'm just not seeing a big reason to worry about emissions during the construction of a nuclear power plant that could last for, what, a century or more? Oh well.

 

I agree with bascule's point about ignorance but I think this is the proverbial "bed" that we've "made" with this election, and I guess sometimes you have have to accept the bad with the good. I'd be okay with "no" or "limited" on the issue of nuclear power if we were willing to take a less panicky and more realistic view on okay-it's-almost-clean coal and offshore drilling.

 

I'm still not really seeing a problem with clean coal on a technology front. You make a mess, but you clean it up -- how is that different from anything else we do these days? If it's off in some areas, you fix it. We know how to fix things -- this isn't the 19th century. Some of those extremists won't be happy until the entire world runs on wind and solar, and if that's not enough power, well too bad -- no hospitals for you!

 

But I do agree with them that wind and solar need vast expansion in this country. It irks me to think about all those empty office building rooftops going completely to waste.

[CaptainPanic]

Wind isn't without major problems, though. Apparently, wind turbines are killing loads of bats, which will eventually disrupt the ecosystem (they're truly prodigious consumers of insects).

 

Then build the turbines at sea. There are (almost?) no bats there. Off shore wind energy has more benefits. You need lower towers, you get more wind, the wind is more stable, less turbulent... and you have a tough job doing the maintenance, although even that is being solved as we speak...

 

[...]

I'm still not really seeing a problem with clean coal on a technology front. You make a mess, but you clean it up -- how is that different from anything else we do these days? If it's off in some areas, you fix it. We know how to fix things -- this isn't the 19th century. Some of those extremists won't be happy until the entire world runs on wind and solar, and if that's not enough power, well too bad -- no hospitals for you![...]

 

I'm assuming you're talking about CO2 storage underground in empty gas fields? Perhaps you can address the issue of safety? In gas fields, small earthquakes occur because the pressure of the gas is reduced. The surface actually sinks a bit during these quakes. If we can increase that pressure again, then won't there be new earthquakes? Would it be possible that we eventually create a leak through which the gas can escape again? A big cloud of CO2 in a densely populated area would be lethal for many people.

[iNow]

I'm still not really seeing a problem with clean coal on a technology front.

That's probably because there is really no such thing. There is perhaps cleaner coal, but clean coal is an oxymoron. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

[gcol]

 

It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

 

Useful population control>

[Pangloss]

I'm assuming you're talking about CO2 storage underground in empty gas fields? Perhaps you can address the issue of safety? In gas fields, small earthquakes occur because the pressure of the gas is reduced. The surface actually sinks a bit during these quakes. If we can increase that pressure again, then won't there be new earthquakes? Would it be possible that we eventually create a leak through which the gas can escape again? A big cloud of CO2 in a densely populated area would be lethal for many people.

 

That's probably because there is really no such thing. There is perhaps cleaner coal, but clean coal is an oxymoron. It's like saying "desirable AIDS."

 

Yup, yup, those are problems alright. And a nuclear plant can melt down and contaminate an entire metropolitan area for thousands of years, existing coal-fired plants are nasty, and existing fuel plants blow up and kill hundreds of people all the time. Scary stuff, huh?

 

So here's a thought -- how 'bout we make our decisions based on pragmatism and compromise (neither of you advocates going back to living in trees and caves) instead of fear and potential for disaster, ignoring our ability to fix things with science and technology.

 

I think that's bascule's point here, and it's a good one. I think Obama is going to reflect that in his energy policy, and I think you'd better resign yourself to that fact. Compromise will build our future, bolstered by the promise of science and technology.

[iNow]

I'm not sure how my post indicated to you that I didn't think Obama had a good policy, nor that Bascule had a good point. I was just commenting that there is no such thing as clean coal.

 

http://thisisreality.org/#/?p=facility

[Pangloss]

It was a generalized comment. Do you agree with my point?

 

Here's another generalized comment, not aimed at you but rather reflecting what actually happens in the politics of energy: It's easy to toss out catchy phrases like "there's no such thing as clean coal" and ignore the necessities of actual life in the real world. The left won the election, now it has to actually fix things. It can't just say "no" to everything scary or fossil-based, assuming wind and solar can't do the job alone.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

Here's another generalized comment, not aimed at you but rather reflecting what actually happens in the politics of energy: It's easy to toss out catchy phrases like "there's no such thing as clean coal" and ignore the necessities of actual life in the real world. The left won the election, now it has to actually fix things. It can't just say "no" to everything scary or fossil-based, assuming wind and solar can't do the job alone.

 

Well, when considered in light of the heinous effects it's having on our environmnent, our planet, and the life on it, I have to ask you, why not? Saying no to the detrimental activities will by default encourage activity and invention in the cleaner ones (the renewable energies sector).

 

I urge you to recall that "there is no such thing as clean coal" is more than a catchy phrase. It's also a statement of fact, much like "smoking cigarettes causes lung and other cancers."

[Sisyphus]

Well you can't "just say no" to it, because that would literally mean going without electricity. We can, however, try to reduce its necessity as much as possible as quickly as possible, which I'm all for. But no matter what happens, we're still going to be burning coal for electricity for at least a couple more decades, and we have to face that reality and mitigate its consequences, rather than denying it outright.

 

Interesting about nuclear, though. If that study is accurate, then it's very disappointing, since I always considered nuclear a pretty important component of the solution.

[npts2020]

Changing to wind power can happen much faster than most people think, especially if you can put a soon to be unemployed auto sector to work on it. I have recently read (I will try to find the source) that grids the size of Australia, U.S., or E.U. may not even require storage for backup. The same authors say that a grid the size of the British Isles is approaching minimum area required for no backup but probably would not be 100% dependable. I wonder where tidal generation rates on their scale, I didn't see it mentioned?

[waitforufo]

First, he envisioned a nightmarish, but not inconceivable, scenario—a “limited nuclear exchange,” or the detonation of 50 fifteen kiloton bombs. He estimated the deaths directly resulting from the bombings, and then calculated the number of deaths caused by soot and pollution from the burning cities.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html from bascule OP.

 

How does "limited nuclear exchange" legitimately impact a study on cleanliness of nuclear power? If the US replaced all of its coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants would the world be more likely to have a limited nuclear exchange? How about China or India? To even consider nuclear exchange is just stupid. Talk about stacking the deck to suppress a viable technology.

[Sisyphus]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081215-good-news-for-wind-bad-for-ethanol-in-major-energy-study.html from bascule OP.

 

How does "limited nuclear exchange" legitimately impact a study on cleanliness of nuclear power? If the US replaced all of its coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants would the world be more likely to have a limited nuclear exchange? How about China or India? To even consider nuclear exchange is just stupid. Talk about stacking the deck to suppress a viable technology.

 

The article said it was weighted for (im)probability and therefore only had a small effect on the overall score. To justify even that small effect, I would say that making the technology (or at least related technologies) more widespread inherently makes nuclear weapons more likely to proliferate, which in turn makes them more likely to fall into the wrong hands. The stuff they use isn't even close to weapons-grade, it's true, but still, the skills are not entirely non-transferable. Yes, it's all extremely unlikely, but the consequences are also extremely bad. Hence the small but still significant factor.

[Pangloss]

Well, when considered in light of the heinous effects it's having on our environmnent, our planet, and the life on it, I have to ask you, why not? Saying no to the detrimental activities will by default encourage activity and invention in the cleaner ones (the renewable energies sector).

 

I urge you to recall that "there is no such thing as clean coal" is more than a catchy phrase. It's also a statement of fact, much like "smoking cigarettes causes lung and other cancers."

 

So then you don't support compromise even if science and technology can fix the problems? Certain technologies cannot be explored, is that your position?

 

Okay, but I'll just repeat the same point I made before which you pretended you weren't addressing. All technologies for power generation have their drawbacks, and those that are realistically capable of powering are society are all dangerous. Science and technology are our built-in tools for solving those problems over time.

 

I believe, as does Obama (and as was Bascule's point), that we should make our decisions based on pragmatism and compromise instead of fear and potential for disaster, ignoring our ability to fix things with science and technology.

 

Well you can't "just say no" to it, because that would literally mean going without electricity. We can, however, try to reduce its necessity as much as possible as quickly as possible, which I'm all for. But no matter what happens, we're still going to be burning coal for electricity for at least a couple more decades, and we have to face that reality and mitigate its consequences, rather than denying it outright.

 

Exactly. Well put.

[waitforufo]

The article said it was weighted for (im)probability and therefore only had a small effect on the overall score. To justify even that small effect, I would say that making the technology (or at least related technologies) more widespread inherently makes nuclear weapons more likely to proliferate, which in turn makes them more likely to fall into the wrong hands. The stuff they use isn't even close to weapons-grade, it's true, but still, the skills are not entirely non-transferable. Yes, it's all extremely unlikely, but the consequences are also extremely bad. Hence the small but still significant factor.

 

Increasing the number of nuclear power plants in countries currently producing most of the man made CO2 would increase the probability of limited nuclear exchange by zero. They all have nuclear power plants now. Considering it is stupid.

[Pangloss]

I don't think it's right to call that "stupid" -- why be rude about it? And it's a reasonable concern when applied to countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons, even if the concern does have logical opposing arguments.

 

But I agree with the point that just because there are more nuclear plants doesn't mean there will be more nuclear weapons. Given the long history of nuclear and the short list of weapons-capable nations, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job so far. There's no reason to think that can't continue, and in fact we pretty much have to continue to monitor and control proliferation regardless of whether people agree that more nuclear plants are needed, so it's a completely different subject, really.

[bascule]

I don't think it's right to call that "stupid" -- why be rude about it? And it's a reasonable concern when applied to countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons, even if the concern does have logical opposing arguments.

 

Depending on the reactor technology involved, that's sort of like arguing that by letting people heat their homes with fire they're one step closer to building explosives.

[waitforufo]

I don't think it's right to call that "stupid" -- why be rude about it? And it's a reasonable concern when applied to countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons, even if the concern does have logical opposing arguments.

 

My comments were directed at the paper and its author. Thank you for your feedback and I will reduce the tone of my rhetoric.

[iNow]

So then you don't support compromise even if science and technology can fix the problems?

Compromise is useful sometimes, yes, but the only argument in favor of coal is "it's the best we've got right now." That's not good enough. It's understood to be disasterous on our environment, and I'm taking the longer term view that it needs to go away as soon as absolutely possible.

 

I hope we all agree on this point. If not, another thread may be in order.

 

 

Certain technologies cannot be explored, is that your position?

No. That is NOT my position. Coal is not a "technology to be explored." We've been using coal for centuries, and it's a "technology" to be discarded. THAT'S my point.

 

 

Okay, but I'll just repeat the same point I made before which you pretended you weren't addressing.

No need to repeat anything. You first asked if something was my point (and it wasn't) then moved into a reply on the assumption that it was. I think I clarified my point in this post, making the reply not necessary.

 

 

Also, I pretended nothing. I made that post early this morning, before I'd even had a cup of coffee. I think you give me far too much credit sometimes. Not everything I say has some deeper political meaning. Often, I just say what I think authentically, and that's all there is to it.

[Pangloss]

No need to repeat anything. You first asked if something was my point (and it wasn't) then moved into a reply on the assumption that it was. I think I clarified my point in this post, making the reply not necessary.

 

I feel that it was. I don't see a rejection of my argument, but I do see a dismissal of it. That warrants a repetition and a call for a more meaningful response. You know that better than anybody else on this board.

 

I'll start a separate thread per your excellent suggestion, thank you.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37101

[iNow]

Cool. I look forward to seeing what others think in that new thread.

 

 

Also, would it be possible for you to summarize your argument (again)? It's been a tough week for me (read: I'm really damned exhausted), and I did not intend to dismiss anything. I think I just missed the point you were trying to make, and welcome a helping hand finding where we happen to agree or not.

 

Basically, if you'd be so kind, I'd like another chance to address specific arguments, but need you to go "bullet-point" with them.

[Pangloss]

Sure. In a nutshell, I was saying that if we assume that science can clean up fossil fuel power production, then the objections to fossil fuel consumption were comparable to the objections to nuclear power production. Science didn't always have the answers to the scary potentials for nuclear disaster. It developed them over time. And yet we accept that that works for nuclear power, but we assume that that's impossible with fossil fuels. Why?

 

If you prefer to answer as part of your answer on the issue of coal in the other thread, that's cool with me, or I could merge those posts back if you feel they're similar enough. My feeling was that this was in keeping with bascule's point in the OP, when he said "Now I'm starting to wonder if Democratic opposition to nuclear power (in favor of wind, solar, etc.) is actually a science-based position, rather than just an ignorant one." I think it's reasonable to ask whether that point can be extrapolated to all fossil fuels.

[iNow]

Sure. In a nutshell, I was saying that if we assume that science can clean up fossil fuel power production, then the objections to fossil fuel consumption were comparable to the objections to nuclear power production. Science didn't always have the answers to the scary potentials for nuclear disaster. It developed them over time. And yet we accept that that works for nuclear power, but we assume that that's impossible with fossil fuels. Why?

I assume no such thing. I state as fact that it's not currently possible, so I cannot with any reasonable justification include that proposed option in my toolbox of potential solutions.

 

 

"If" is a mighty powerful word, but not quite as powerful as "when."

[bascule]

Sure. In a nutshell, I was saying that if we assume that science can clean up fossil fuel power production, then the objections to fossil fuel consumption were comparable to the objections to nuclear power production. Science didn't always have the answers to the scary potentials for nuclear disaster. It developed them over time. And yet we accept that that works for nuclear power, but we assume that that's impossible with fossil fuels.

 

It's not impossible, and the technology exists today, however it's not yet practical for wide scale commercial production, particularly in regard to carbon sequestration.

 

This is something I'm excited about and have been interested in for awhile however for the time being I don't think it's particularly practical.