Comprehensive energy study concludes wind power cleanest

[waitforufo]

Do you not realize that economics takes a back seat to ecology? We must prioritize survival and protections. Is that so hard to understand?

 

It is precisely this comment that is the problem. Countries with good economies not only worry about the environment, but actually do something about improving it. When the economy is bad or in countries with perpetual bad economies the environment is damaged. The worse the economy, the worse the damage. You cannot separate these two things. You can't put the economy in the back seat. What part of that don't you get?

 

What needs to happen is for the environmental movement to accept gradual gains. The environmental movement today would rather persist with the status quo rather than accept marginal or even significant improvement. They hold out for 100 %. They are their own worse enemy. In most cases significant improvement from the status quo can be achieved with marginal cost. For some however significant improvement is not enough.

[iNow]

Reach for the stars and you may ultimately reach the moon...

 

 

However, I appreciate your points about being pragmatic. That is of vital importance in these types of changes.

[npts2020]

Well, this environmentalist has talked often about a new electric grid albeit usually in conjunction with upgrading other utilities and our national transportation system. I find the generalizations about environmentalists to be irrelevant to any merits about such ideas. It is similar to dismissing the entire anti-nuclear movement because a few uneducated individuals think that a nuclear power plant can explode like an nuclear bomb. I am sure if I wanted to take the time to do it I could come up with just as many or more ridiculous propositions believed in by those who feel no regulations of any kind are necessary. Deciding things completely by economics is all well and good providing you have the proper values attached to all the parts of the economic model.

[waitforufo]

My point is you have less to worry about from the likes of me, and those like me, then you do about the people showcased in this NOW program as environmentalists. Wind, solar, and geothermal power generation, I'm all for it. You want to give these industries tax breaks, okay with me. I'm all for tax breaks as long as the government is not refunding tax credits that these companies never paid. You want to cover acres of useless desert wasteland with a solar grid, I'm happy you made this land productive. You are never going to hear me give sympathy to some pretend cowboy that is upset that his view now includes a power line. You are never going to here me insist that miles of power line be buried in an environmentally conscious way, causing project cost to skyrocket. I would rather see that money spent building a bigger power grid with more power plants (renewable or not). I'm all in favor of increasing our power generation capacity. I may not be in favor of mandating a fixed percentage of new power generation coming from renewable sources, but I'm also not going to stop renewable projects by nuisance lawsuits and increased government regulation. The environmentalists showcased in the NOW program will actively work to stop the development you want. These people are not your allies. If you believe that CO2 reduction is critical now, these people are not your friends.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/governator.html

 

Q: Critics say the state's mandates for renewables—getting 20 percent of your electricity from renewables like wind and solar by 2010, 33 percent by 2020—are too aggressive.

 

Schwarzenegger: First of all, let me tell you something. We can reach our goal on renewables by the year 2010 easily. I love these goals of 20 percent by the year 2010.

 

The only thing is, we have environmentalists who love these goals but who say, "Well, yes, we would love you to build solar plants in the Mojave Desert and all of those places where there's a lot of sunshine. But when it comes to building the transmission lines to get it on the grid, no. Because that could harm a squirrel that we have never seen in this area, but it could appear in this area. We want to hold off a little bit. Or, for every square mile of solar panels that you build, we want you to buy three square miles of land in case the squirrel appears down the line."

 

So it's this crazy stuff. You have environmental regulations holding up environmental progress. That's what we are suffering under right now. That's what we have to comb through. Because we have the technology, and we have companies from all over the world—from Japan, and from Canada, and from Germany, and from China, all over—that want to build solar plants in California.

 

It takes more work to bring the environmentalists to the table and make them realize that it is counterproductive. But we can easily reach those goals. And we can reach 33 percent by the year 2020. We can do all of this, and I think we should.

 

A third source.

Edited January 21, 2009 by waitforufo
Consecutive post/s merged.

[iNow]

Yeah, thanks for the sources. I happen to agree with Governor Arnold on this one. I was watching that last one on NOVA just last night.

[bob000555]

I really do think that all the supposed disadvantages of nuclear power are either far over blown of self imposed.

 

People like to bring up Chernobyl when talking about nuclear power with out realizing that Chernobyl was such a poorly designed plant it would never have been approved for construction in the United States. First off the thing had a positive power coefficient, meaning it reacted faster as it got hotter, which is highly illegal in the United States(it was a carbon block moderated plant, all US plants are water moderated/cooled) . Secondly it lacked the five feet of steel, and ten feet of reinforced concrete shielding required of any plant in the United States. To put it quite simply a Chernobyl type accident could not happen in the US.

 

As for the idea of a melt down it is so unlikely that it is basically imposable . The fallowing chain of events would have to happen for a melt down to occur. First there would have to be a leek allowing all the coolant to escape(coolant pipes are required to be inspected frequently, IMPORTANT if the coolant, which is also the moderator, leeks out of a water cooled design the chain reaction will STOP, this is because with out a moderator the neutrons will be sufficiently fast that they will all be absorbed by the u-238 this reaction releases no extra neutrons and stop the chain reaction). Secondly the fuel pellets would have to melt through their containment devices, this assumes that the emergency core cooling system has failed, but since it is required that this system be inspected literally daily this is exceedingly unlikely. The molten fuel would then form a puddle at the bottom of the core, next it is assumed that the puddle melts through the five foot steel container which is exceedingly unlikely. At this step it is a virtual certainty that the fuel would spread out and cool off becoming a solid agene, but people ignore that fact and assume its SOMEHOW gets through the ten foot thick concrete containment building into the ground killing every one(even if it gets through the building the above process would have taken a very long time and everyone would have been evacuated)

 

As for nuclear waste and “it sticks around for 24,000 years blah blah blah” this really is a self imposed problem. Before the Carter administration all nuclear waste in the country was reprocessed, that is to say plutonium-239, the stuff with a half life of 24,000 years, was extracted and used for nuclear weapons, excess uranium was also extracted and reused . The stuff that was left behind consisted largely of fission fragments with half lives between 20 and a few thousand years, it is still dangerous but much preferable to burry then the stuff we put in Yucca mountain currently.

 

For anyone who really thinks building a rector has more impact then building a windmill they should take into account that thousands of wind mills over a huge arrear would have to be built to get a comparable output.

T Boone Pickens, has not only offered ideas for alternative energy, he has placed 12 Billion Dollars at risk to developer a very small source. 2700 Wind Turbines over 540 Square miles, on private property (paying portions of any profits) and producing a usable 4MW of electrical power (about the same as ONE Nuclear Generator). The State of Texas has agreed to build the needed transmission lines power lines (est. 7-13B), taking the power to a current grid.

 

In conclusion I would be proud to have a reactor in my back yard.

[Pangloss]

People like to bring up Chernobyl when talking about nuclear power with out realizing that Chernobyl was such a poorly designed plant it would never have been approved for construction in the United States.

At risk of digressing too far, aren't there two plants of the "Chernobyl type" in the United States -- Hansen and Savannah River, the two nuclear weapons facilities? Or is that an unfair comparison when safety is fully taken into consideration? I'm just dimly remembering press stories here, so don't shoot me.

[iNow]

You forgot to mention cost and time to build. These are both significant.

[bob000555]

You forgot to mention cost and time to build. These are both significant.

Apparently you can get two nuclear power plants capable of a hell of a lot more output then T. Boone Pickens’ wind farm for about the same cost and with out the need for 540 square miles of land. Not to mention that one of the largest costs in building a reactor is battling for licensing due to peoples’ irrational fears.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/10/nuclear.nuclearpower

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN3143208820080331

 

T Boone Pickens, has not only offered ideas for alternative energy, he has placed 12 Billion Dollars at risk to developer a very small source. 2700 Wind Turbines over 540 Square miles, on private property (paying portions of any profits) and producing a usable 4MW of electrical power (about the same as ONE Nuclear Generator). The State of Texas has agreed to build the needed transmission lines power lines (est. 7-13B), taking the power to a current grid.

 

At risk of digressing too far, aren't there two plants of the "Chernobyl type" in the United States -- Hansen and Savannah River, the two nuclear weapons facilities? Or is that an unfair comparison when safety is fully taken into consideration? I'm just dimly remembering press stories here, so don't shoot me.

 

If we went back to reprocessing waste instead of burring it there would be no need for separate weapons reactors to generate plutonium. Even so both reactors are still much safer then Chernobyl as they have shielding and emergency cooling apparatuses which Chernobyl lacked. Chernobyl was approximately comparable to the pile built by Enrico Fermi at the University of Chicago in the 1940s with the notable difference that the Chicago pile was actually closely monitored and run by knowledgeable staff.

Edited January 22, 2009 by bob000555

[waitforufo]

At risk of digressing too far, aren't there two plants of the "Chernobyl type" in the United States -- Hansen and Savannah River, the two nuclear weapons facilities? Or is that an unfair comparison when safety is fully taken into consideration? I'm just dimly remembering press stories here, so don't shoot me.

 

I don't know about Hansen and Savannah River but I know the N-Reactor at Hanford was shut down due to Chernobyl like concerns.

 

N-Reactor was built with a confinement building instead of a containment building. In the event of an accidental release of steam, air and steam would vent through filters that confined any radioactive particles present.[1] It was partially moderated with graphite, but had a negative void coefficient, meaning it was thermally stable

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_reactor

 

I doubt confinement would have worked with a Chernobyl like explosion. The reactor was shut down in 1987 (Chernobyl was in '86)

 

I do think one should differentiate between reactors that have plutonium as its primary product with power as a byproduct and those that are designed for opposite purposes.

 

Also, I think we do learn from our mistakes.

 

Three Mile Island is an interesting case. Bad reactor design, human controllers made every bad decision conceivable, still only minor radiation leaks. Good thing they had a containment building.

[Pangloss]

Ok, thanks for the replies.

[npts2020]

bob000555; I would like to point out that one of the reasons Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was is because one those "self imposed disadvantages" is having containment for a breached core. Do you think there could ever be any legitimate objections to building more nuclear power plants? Also what you describe is not what is typically meant by meltdown (although it would be an extreme case).

[bob000555]

bob000555; I would like to point out that one of the reasons Three Mile Island wasn't worse than it was is because one those "self imposed disadvantages" is having containment for a breached core. Do you think there could ever be any legitimate objections to building more nuclear power plants? Also what you describe is not what is typically meant by meltdown (although it would be an extreme case).

 

Who said containment was a disadvantage? When I spoke of self imposed disadvantages I was referring to the waste issue which is only so bad because we refuse to engage in reprocessing. The sequence of events I presented is exactly what would have to happen for a literal melt down and even for a partial melt down the cooling pipes would have to leek, which is unlikely to began with, then the emergency cooling system would have to fail and stay off long enough for the fuel to melt the containment device, even more unlikely.

 

Of course there are some valid criticisms of nuclear power but unless you want to go back to the dark ages we need to chose some form of power and I propose that the best choice is nuclear.

[npts2020]

I really do think that all the supposed disadvantages of nuclear power are either far over blown of self imposed.....

 

Well, this quote, followed by a lengthy description of the accident at Chernobyl and utter rejection of any arguments against nuclear power led me to believe that you think safety features on a reactor are one of those "unnecessary costs" or "self-imposed disadvantages". The dichotomy you present in the above post is a false one, since we have many alternatives to nuclear and therefore no reason to "go back to the dark ages" regardless of the one we choose. We can argue the specifics of cost until the cows come home but I have never seen the cost of a new nuclear power plant end up being less than initial projections (they are almost universally substantially over cost) whereas some of the alternatives are competitive now and likely to become cheaper in the future. Deciding our best choice depends entirely on what you hope to achieve. If the goal is to provide technical jobs and keep energy production centralized and in few hands, then nuclear would certainly be at or near the top of the list. If you wish to control costs and enable entreprenuership in the area of energy production, I would think nuclear should be near the bottom. I am well aware of the safety record of nuclear power but so long as you have profit as the underlying motive for operation you have the potential for an occurrence like Three Mile Island. In that case, the safety features worked fine, it was the human operators who overrode them (supposedly over concern about how much money would have been lost due to shutting down).

[waitforufo]

If nuclear power has so many problems, how is it that the French pull it off so well?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

 

In France, as of 2002[update], Électricité de France (EDF) — the country's main electricity generation and distribution company — manages the country's 59 nuclear power plants. As of 2008[update], these plants produce 87.5% of both EDF's and France's electrical power production (of which much is exported),[1] making EDF the world leader in production of nuclear power by percentage. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh was from nuclear power (78.8%).[1]

 

France is the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.[1][2]

[npts2020]

If nuclear power has so many problems, how is it that the French pull it off so well?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

 

Well, one thing I notice is they don't make the claim that it is the cheapest energy generated. I am not saying that good management of nuclear power is impossible, just that there are better alternatives that are just as competitive costwise. I would like to see how the costs of disposal and decommissioning are accounted for and what, if any, subsidies the government has for the industry.

[iNow]

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."

 

 

 

W-_U1Z0vezw

[Mr Skeptic]

Personally, I prefer activated carbon for my filtration systems. Not in spray bottle form though.

[The Bear's Key]

We may see an example of a town rebuilt on green principles and drawing strongly from wind power. If you haven't seen the Weather Channel doc on Greensburg, the town ruined in 2007 by a tornado and being rebuilt into a "green town", check it out.

 

In order of appearance dates, below is a list of news coverage on the transpired events.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17643060

Building to this standard for working-class families is unusual, Prahl said.

 

"A lot of what's happening in Greensburg is some of the first in the country," Prahl said.

 

..............

 

Leaders in the environmental movement have embraced the plan. The Discovery Channel is filming a show here, called Greensburg Eco-town, and green architects are working overtime.

 

Wallach says residents here embraced environmental sustainability as good old-fashioned thrift and independence.

 

"They really get it, and they say 'OK, it's not this crazy tree-hugger agenda.' It's common sense, and it's what these people are really about," Wallach said.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/05/02/greensburg.green/index.html

Yet what is happening in the city's rebuilding process may not only re-invent Greensburg but provide a model for "green" building everywhere.

 

Just a week after the deadly tornado hit May 4, 2007, a similar idea sparked in the mayor, a representative from the governor's office and a nonprofit expert from a nearby town.

 

The concept: If the whole town had to be rebuilt anyway, why not be bold and build it as a global example of conservation, energy efficiency and creativity?

 

Daniel Wallach, the nonprofit specialist, soon got the green light to help residents and businesses start over in a project known as Greensburg GreenTown.

 

"Kansas is known for being very conservative," Wallach said.

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-01-greensburg_N.htm

After a monster tornado devastated Greensburg, Kan., one year ago this Sunday, the city faced tragedy and the daunting task of rebuilding from scratch.

 

It also got an opportunity, Mayor John Janssen says.

 

This rural county seat 109 miles west of Wichita has made "green" its rebuilding mantra, declaring itself a national model for environmentally conscious living — and winning attention and resources in the process.

 

.............

 

"We're building a living lab," he says.

 

Greensburg became the first city in the nation to pledge that all city-owned buildings larger than 4,000 square will get the highest rating of the U.S. Green Building Council, called Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum, the council says. The buildings are expected to use 42% less energy than building code standards allow.

 

 

Obama acknowledged Greensburg in his speech to Congress last tuesday (near end of article).

 

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/02/24/Obama-calls-for-defense/1235533534.html

I think about Greensburg, Kansas, a town that was completely destroyed by a tornado, but is being rebuilt by its residents as a global example of how clean energy can power an entire community - how it can bring jobs and businesses to a place where piles of bricks and rubble once lay.....

 

The Sundance Channel also has five 2-4 minute episodes detailing the greening of the town of Greensburg.

[waitforufo]

Perhaps someone should tell the honorable madam Feinstein that if the global warming crowd is correct we will have plenty of pristine aesthetically beautiful desert to enjoy if we don't build these solar and wind facilities.

 

Again, another example of the environmental crowd encouraging continuation of the status quo.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/21/feinstein-dont-spoil-desert-solar-panels/