Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[phoenix_ca]

When we already talking CANDU, why don't you mention things like this:

Interestingly english Wikipedia does not mention that CANDU reactors are very usefull for production of weapons grade Plutonium and that India build almost all of their nuclear weapon arsenal with CANDU technology.

Wikipedia doesn't "mention it" because it's not true, and if you bothered to do your research you'd know that. The concentration of plutonium from the output fuel from a CANDU reactor is about half (or less) than that from most LWR designs, and even less than other reactors that are purpose-built for plutonium production. Furthermore, India's weapons tests were not done with material from a CANDU reactor, but another Canadian design, the NRX research reactor. Straight from the Wikipedia page on CANDU reactors:

There is a common misconception that plutonium for India's first nuclear detonation, Operation Smiling Buddha in 1974, was produced in a CANDU design. In fact, it was produced in the unsafeguarded Canada-supplied CIRUS reactor whose design is based on the NRX, a Canadian research reactor.

The idea that these reactors are somehow super-useful for generating weapons-grade plutonium is wildly over-blown fear-mongering. If you want to have a serious discussion about nuclear proliferation fine, but get your facts straight first. (Here's a fun fact: Every nuclear fission reactor poses a proliferation risk. Even thorium reactors do, by creating U-233. There are, however, many ways to reduce or eliminate this risk, primarily with public policy designed to do so.)

And what's-more, India's reactors are CANDU-derived, not licensed designs. We only had a part in building two of the things. Canada stopped offering nuclear technology to India after those tests. And this is why I'm so strongly opposed to people saying that all nuclear power is bad and dangerous. Fine, live in your fantasy world, just get your hands off our nuclear reactors. We're keeping them, because they work and work well, and what's more, we aren't stinking-up the world with nuclear weapons. In fact we're instead figuring-out ways to stick that plutonium back into the reactor and burn it.

Edit: And if you want even more information, start here and read sections F2, F3, and F4.

Edited June 15, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[rtxoff]

Well we have a problem here because German language Wikipedia is saying exactly what you are denying.

They are also explaining there why it is so easy to obtain relatively pure plutonium 239 from this type of reactor.

It sounds very plausible to me.

[Nothing But Rubus]

I would like to point out another potential renewable energy source would be found through the use of hydroelectric dams (disregarding the catastrophe caused by flooding a river). to my knowledge, hydro dams are relatively "clean" but only useful in areas with plenty of rivers.

(if this has been brought up before please disregard the first sentence as i only skimmed)

[phoenix_ca]

Well we have a problem here because German language Wikipedia is saying exactly what you are denying.

They are also explaining there why it is so easy to obtain relatively pure plutonium 239 from this type of reactor.

It sounds very plausible to me.

Whether or not it sounds plausible to you is immaterial. Whether or not it sounds implausible to me is also immaterial. I cited evidence, and those citations are backed-up by piles of literature.

The German Wikipedia is wrong and should be corrected.

I would like to point out another potential renewable energy source would be found through the use of hydroelectric dams (disregarding the catastrophe caused by flooding a river). to my knowledge, hydro dams are relatively "clean" but only useful in areas with plenty of rivers.

(if this has been brought up before please disregard the first sentence as i only skimmed)

Actually hydro is quite useful, if you have the geography for it. Canada gets a lot of power from hydro, but that's because we're lucky enough to have lots of good sites for placing dams. There are many other countries, like Japan and France, that simply don't have the land nor the appropriate locations for hydroelectric dams and have thus primarily used nuclear fission.

Edited June 15, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[lajoswinkler]

O you considered him correct in everything and a good guy, but in this case becouse he disagree with your point of view, you said he is full of crap?

He is not given his single opinion about ****ushima, he was invited like a member in a comite of selected people to analize the fukushima case in USA, he was chosen to explain the circustances becouse is a media person.

But if you think that he is talking crap or giving wrong information, can you point what is wrong with sources?

No, it's not just Fukushima. He's full of crap with lots of his futuristic ideas. And look, he even has a page on RationalWiki!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

Please, do read the article. It's backed up with references. A respected physicist wouldn't make such mistakes. He said the Chernobyl's core is still molten, and I remember his fear mongering when Fukushima happened. He had NO idea what kind of reactors are involved, and he joined the fearmongering train of BS.

He was protesting against Cassini launch because of RTG power source.

He's a theoretical physicist and a futurist, yet he's presenting himself as an authority on just about any natural science, and he's a sensationalist.

We are discussing wind vs nuclear in this case, so is pointless mention coal ash wastes.

Not all nuclear plants manage so well their wastes. There always would be Nuclear plants directors who prefer keep so money in their pockets instead secure wastes.

There is no technology advance which can solve that problem.

Deal with nuclear wastes is like generate danger criminals to kill your enemy, and every time that your criminal finish the job, you put them in jail. The criminal number in jail increase over time, is just matter of time to many of them achieve to escape.. And they had time..

Except some minor testing with dumping sealed waste into the oceanic trenches decades ago, what exactly happened with the waste? What bad management are you pointing to?

High level waste isn't something you can dump like e-waste, hoping that no one will notice. It's incredibly radioactive and even minute leaks would eventually be registered somewhere. You can't hide it.

We do have the technology to deal with the waste, but it is not an urgent thing. The spent rods can be recycled and used again as MOX, and breeder reactors can destroy a lot of the waste. It's simply not yet neccessary. Securing the rods is not expensive, and they don't rot. After few months of initial cooling, their heat output is low enough for them to be stored in dry casks. The idea that with power loss, they catch fire is true for freshly spent rods which are extremely radioactive. Decay heat output drops down fast.

They can stay like this for hundreds of years if needed, and it's not like a thief will come and steal them. You can't steal a huge concrete block, and if you open it to steal the rods, you will die.

Dont try to look up the cost becouse nuclear always lost, wind energy is cheaper in the initial investment, the investment recover is faster (for a nuclear plant you need to wait to is finished, with a wind farm you make 1 turbine and its already producing energy), the maintaince cost is lower, the dont need fuel or trained operator or security.

Dude, comparing wind farms with nuclear reactors is just futile. As I've said, we don't live in Sim City.

[phoenix_ca]

No, it's not just Fukushima. He's full of crap with lots of his futuristic ideas. And look, he even has a page on RationalWiki!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

There's nothing rational about RationalWiki. (They're just as ideologically puritanical as Conservapedia.)

Edited June 15, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[lajoswinkler]

If it does not present an immediate problem would you volunteer to store it in your backyard?

I live on this planet and i say no to nuclear waste storage on it (and also to all other forms of waste).

I forgot to comment on this.

Yes, I would have zero problems with living above a final repository. It could not affect me in any way.

You say no to storage? Then what do you want to do with it? Sprinkle it around?

There's nothing rational about RationalWiki.

Why is that? It's quite cynical about kooks.

[YNM]

I'd say a mix of all of it. But without the non-renewable ones. Hydroelectrics, Wind, PV, Geothermals, a slight nuclear fission...

- Geothermals are quite abundant. We still have active volcanoes people !

- PVs... Utilize what Sun do. Why wouldn't you ? It's huge...

- Hydroelectrics are well proven.

- Winds are caused by different temperatures and pressures in our atmosphere. Lots of places can be used for this.

- Nuclear... backup option, to ensure there's something if everything else fails...

WRT Biodiesel, mind you that the site to grow the plants for it are competing with the site to grow your food and vegetables. And also, forests. It is renewable but on longer timescales slightly unethical.

Please, do tell me how would you use an active volcano. I'm dying to hear this.

The amount of heat in the Atlantic ocean is enormous. By your logic, we should use that, too. Google "energy density" to see one of the problems with PVs.

As I've said, there's basically not much left to use. Base load hydroelectric potential has been already used.

Not every wind can be used. That narrows it down quite a lot.

Biodiesel is a problem, you've described it properly.

We can't rebuild forests. We can rebuild stacks of trees. Forest is a super-organism.

- As someone who lives in the Ring of Fire (Indonesia, to be exact), volcanoes provide a natural spot for heat from the Earth's interior to get out. Hence why you see hot water springs, and the same goes for geothermal... The (logical) site are scarce but even it can be utilized well.

- I know that PVs are low density. But it's better that we utilize it, even if we need to make a roof out of it. It's quite a thing that we have beaten biological process by a factor of 3.

- Well... but even then we still tried to create micro-hydroelectrics.

- But winds on the coasts will... And as someone who lives at a country with a lot of islands, that should do it.

- I'm not sure what do you mean, but if anyone else think that forests can be replanted, then you're not seeing things. We produce around 50% of the world's palm oil, but you have to know how many forests and local's farming field is lost for it...

[PakledHostage]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread so forgive me if I am duplicating something that was already said but here's a TED video of Bill Gates speaking about reducing CO₂ emissions:

Personally, I am more of an advocate for using a combination of renewables and energy storage schemes such as flow batteries but I understand from the video that Bill Gates is funding research into traveling wave reactors. They sound more promising than a lot of current reactor technologies.

[phoenix_ca]

They're more promising, but like fusion reactors, they aren't ready for mass deployment. Current fission designs are something we can build and use right now to generate massive base loads for reasonable cost.

[shynung]

The United States is sitting on the largest active caldera in the world at the moment. It's called Yellowstone. Why in blazes haven't we found a nice out of the way spot somewhere in there, run some pipes down, and started up some turbines?

Because if Yellowstone erupts, it will turn itself inside out and end up like Lake Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia. Not only would the damage and the death toll involved be enormous, it would completely and irrepairably demolish any thermal power plant sitting on top of it.

Granted, I might have overestimated the probability of Yellowstone ever erupting in our lifetime, but these will do for a start.

[magnemoe]

Because if Yellowstone erupts, it will turn itself inside out and end up like Lake Toba in Sumatra, Indonesia. Not only would the damage and the death toll involved be enormous, it would completely and irrepairably demolish any thermal power plant sitting on top of it.

Granted, I might have overestimated the probability of Yellowstone ever erupting in our lifetime, but these will do for a start.

if Yellowstone erupt the loss of the geothermal plant will be an very minor issue.

Main issue with building a large geothermal plant in Yellowstone is that its a national park and an unpopular place to build large power plants.

[shynung]

if Yellowstone erupt the loss of the geothermal plant will be an very minor issue.

Compared to whatever environmental damages and climate-changing effects such a volcano might let loose, yes.

[phoenix_ca]

Yellowstone National Park is very much an example of environmentalism taken too far leading to absurd problems. "We need greener power sources! Like geothermal! NO NO NO!!! Don't build it in Yellowstone! It won't look pretty! We'll build WIND FARMS instead!"

[AngelLestat]

But it could be the beginning of some solution, wait, actuall no i can understand you perfectly. I also like my AC very much. Would have died without it. How can someone exist without an AC.

Everyone needs an AC. (Turning that AC down to 19°C now)

I don't use air conditioning. It's too expensive. I have a fan and I'm sweating like a pig.

AC is one of the major energy consumptions, and you need 19C!! Are you joinking?

If outside there is 40C degrees, I am content if the AC reach to 29C. We dont need much potence for that, The house is very well insulated.

Why is everyone still talking about Fukushima-Daiichi

Becouse like all major disasters, are not easy to buried.

@AngelLestat: Your separation of power sources into strong force and weak force categories betrays your ignorance of the mechanisms involved in energy production. By that logic, I should consider all of those energy sources nuclear fusion, because ultimately that's where all the energy came from: The Sun. Furthermore, both strong and weak force interaction are involved in both nuclear fusion and fission...which might be part of the reason you never see them used to categorize nuclear power, and instead see (wait for it) nuclear fusion and fission.

I know, but the strong force is where the energy really come from. Well nevermind, I already change it, happy now?

Fusion is more-or-less right around the corner, not 20-or-whatever years away. Maybe it'll take that long for widespread use, maybe a little longer, but working prototypes for dense plasma focus and polywell designs are very close to achieving net energy output.

But we need the comercial use, not the prototype. You know how these things are, is a very complex technology, before enter in comercial phase, they need to be sure that a new easy efficiency improvements is not around the corner that would make absolute the first reactors.

And after 50 or 70 years of development, they would love to have some payment back, so the cost would not be very competitive.

Fission is the most viable option. Not because it's amazingly safe (it is), but because it produces tremendous amounts of power for base load generation, with cheap and abundant fuel. If you use thorium as a fuel source it's even more cheap and abundant (it's quite literally everywhere on the surface of the planet, in varying concentrations, and is one of the primary contributors to radioactivity on beaches). And on top of all that, we know how to use it, we know how to use it safely and we know how to go about making it even safer.

You are not very good processing info dont you? Becouse we already give you hundred of examples and facts explaning why is not safe (not matter how many secure systems you use) and you keep repeating the same thing. Besides, what you mean by tremendous amount of power?? It only matters one thing, how much cost 1GW of nuclear against 1GW of Solar or Wind. And Nuclear always lost from any point of view less the storage.

The United States is sitting on the largest active caldera in the world at the moment. It's called Yellowstone. Why in blazes haven't we found a nice out of the way spot somewhere in there, run some pipes down, and started up some turbines?

But is a national park. You can not put geothermal plants in such places. It would be a crime.

He said the Chernobyl's core is still molten, and I remember his fear mongering when Fukushima happened. He had NO idea what kind of reactors are involved, and he joined the fearmongering train of BS.

The corium lave in the upper levels seems to be cold, its know that the corium lave reach lower levels and is unknown its state. They are still planning seal the plant with a new concrete dome.

He's a theoretical physicist and a futurist, yet he's presenting himself as an authority on just about any natural science, and he's a sensationalist.

Sensationalist? The Japaneses said that the problem was in part into control, they said INES 5, but Michio Kaku said the truth from the begining, he said INES lv 7, In fact 3 INES lv 7 (three complete meltdown).

If you had been there, lessen the Kaku alert would have saved your life.

Except some minor testing with dumping sealed waste into the oceanic trenches decades ago, what exactly happened with the waste? What bad management are you pointing to?

High level waste isn't something you can dump like e-waste, hoping that no one will notice. It's incredibly radioactive and even minute leaks would eventually be registered somewhere. You can't hide it.

Is amazing the faith that you put in nuclear managers and workers.

If we were so cautious and responsible, we would not be talking about global warming.

If you buried something and it leaks, it goes down due gravity, with the time can reach an aquifer, then the water moves horizontal until reach a "well", then town people drink the water (with low radioactive levels), with the time many cancer cases appear, it takes a time to alert doctors that something is wrong, eventually they discover the cause but is already too late.

That is just one example, it can be hundreds of different ways.

They can stay like this for hundreds of years if needed, and it's not like a thief will come and steal them. You can't steal a huge concrete block, and if you open it to steal the rods, you will die.

Only hundreds? But the radiactive decay last thoudsens... well... who cares the future people.

- As someone who lives in the Ring of Fire (Indonesia, to be exact), volcanoes provide a natural spot for heat from the Earth's interior to get out. Hence why you see hot water springs, and the same goes for geothermal...

How deep they are?

I haven't had time to read this whole thread so forgive me if I am duplicating something that was already said but here's a TED video of Bill Gates speaking about reducing CO₂ emissions:

I saw the video... I wish him good luck, but I am good in Poker.. I know when somebody is keeping something for them. I dont know this technology, but just analizing his face in the last presentation minutes, mmm I would bet half of my money that this project still need to solve some biggest issues.

[78stonewobble]

Of course that would be true if we dint have any other alternative. But we have others alternatives.

Wind is cheaper, clean and safe. Of course if you rise too much the Wind % you need to deal with storage. But that is very easy to solveable if electric cars gain popullarity and the new batteries technologies arrive. Also solar is a good alternative.

No! .... They are not alternatives, since they do not remove the need for having coal powerplants running in my country.

I know of no battery or other storage solution that can generate 5.000 mw's of energy for even 8 hours, 12 hours or however long would be necessary.

[78stonewobble]

And the comparison of a nuclear powerplant to a house is entirely valid.

A house will collapse in on itself, if it is damaged enough. Actually happens alot during earthquakes.

So, no, just because a house can collapse due to natural disasters, idiot intervention (remove a loadbearing wall during DIY) or just sloppy construction, does not mean the concept of a house is flawed.

To claim that nuclear power is very unsafe, is the equivalent of claiming that flying is very unsafe compaired to driving. Because when planes crash alot of people die right?

Well, only if you ignore it when small planes crash and completely ignore how many people drive so and so far and how many crash.

Edited June 15, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[Aghanim]

Uranium 238 is not fissile, but it can be transformed into plutonium, which is fissile. The thing with that picture is that there is no use to recycle U238 without breeder reactor to burn it, and nearly all of those U235 is already been burned. If only we have more research on breeder reactors we can solve this problem, burning all those spent fuel

[phoenix_ca]

Why is that? It's quite cynical about kooks.

Answered via PM.

Why is everyone still talking about Fukushima-Daiichi

Becouse like all major disasters, are not easy to buried.

You totally just straw manned my argument. Was the rest of that paragraph too difficult to read? Here, let me quote it for you, with the relevant text in bold:

Why is everyone still talking about Fukushima-Daiichi as if it were caused by an inherent problem with nuclear engineering? It wasn't; it was a policy problem. They bloody well knew their retaining wall was too short and did nothing to fix it. They knew the buildings couldn't withstand an earthquake of significant magnitude. They bloody well knew that they had to resolve all these issues, and did nothing, because Japan has an absolutely terrible mentality when it comes to using nuclear fission. What they need is better oversight from an independent body that provides public reports; Canada has just that with the CNSC, and we've got lots of public data on the safety of our reactors (and yes, those reports include the various issues that crop-up over time too). There's practically no room in this system for power plant owners to ignore orders to improve safety at their plants and instead put all that money into resorts and bonuses.

Clearer now?

But we need the comercial use, not the prototype. You know how these things are, is a very complex technology, before enter in comercial phase, they need to be sure that a new easy efficiency improvements is not around the corner that would make absolute the first reactors.

And after 50 or 70 years of development, they would love to have some payment back, so the cost would not be very competitive.

50-70 years? Where in the world did you get that number? The expected turn-around on investment for these designs is about a decade.

It's a moot point until they reach net power output, but 50-70 years is a gross underestimate of how close the technology is to practical application.

You are not very good processing info dont you? Becouse we already give you hundred of examples and facts explaning why is not safe (not matter how many secure systems you use) and you keep repeating the same thing. Besides, what you mean by tremendous amount of power?? It only matters one thing, how much cost 1GW of nuclear against 1GW of Solar or Wind. And Nuclear always lost from any point of view less the storage.

Here we go again. Suffice to say, you are reducing a complex issue to a false dichotomy. Okay, I'll do the same thing:

Fission is the most viable option. Not because it's amazingly safe (it is), but because it produces tremendous amounts of power for base load generation, with cheap and abundant fuel. If you use thorium as a fuel source it's even more cheap and abundant (it's quite literally everywhere on the surface of the planet, in varying concentrations, and is one of the primary contributors to radioactivity on beaches). And on top of all that, we know how to use it, we know how to use it safely and we know how to go about making it even safer.

Solar and wind make for ****-poor base load generation. Why? Because they can get turned-off at the whim of the weather. Nuclear power can provide huge amounts of power (a.k.a. 1GW per reactor), and it can run continuously. The new ACR-1000 design here in Canada will likely replace our older EC6 reactors, and we don't usually build just one. A single station with eight reactors will output a whopping 8GW of power, with almost no stoppage. This is not achievable with solar, wind, or even hydroelectric power (unexpected lack of inflow water can lead to the station needing to run at well below capacity). You need backups, preferably ones that can start very quickly, like gas turbines, to fill the gap, or risk brown-outs and black-outs, which aren't just an inconvenience, but a serious public safety issue, as well as a huge hit to a local economy.

Nuclear power gives you a solid foundation to build on. Then you can slap all the other stuff on to deal with peak loads and maybe squeeze a little extra life out of your reactor fuel (though load following is a pretty new thing for reactor design and the jury's still out on just how good the results of that will be).

But is a national park. You can not put geothermal plants in such places. It would be a crime.

Not if you rewrite the legislation protecting it to allow for geothermal power generation. If wind power is good enough to go mucking-up the pretty landscapes of the world, a comparatively small geothermal station in a national park should be no biggie.

Only hundreds? But the radiactive decay last thoudsens... well... who cares the future people.

Yes, hundreds. We already have potential reactor designs that could reduce that waste to elements that will decay in hundreds of years. Like it or not, the best bet for cleaning-up all that nuclear waste are more nuclear reactors.

http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/library/power_line/detail/14/001.jpg

Uranium 238 is not fissile, but it can be transformed into plutonium, which is fissile. The thing with that picture is that there is no use to recycle U238 without breeder reactor to burn it, and nearly all of those U235 is already been burned. If only we have more research on breeder reactors we can solve this problem, burning all those spent fuel

Technically that work has already been done with regard to CANDU reactors. Mix it up as MOX and stick it back in. We just haven't bothered here in Canada because using new natural uranium is much easier and far more cost effective at the present time. I swear these things just eat-up whatever fissile material you throw at them.

Edited June 15, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Aghanim]

My god. An online refuelling nuclear reactor. It makes BWR and PWR seems silly in comparison

[lajoswinkler]

Problem with CANDU is that you don't want them in places like Iran because you can quickly make some tasty plutonium. Otherwise, it's a good design. Heavy water enables it to burn natural uranium, which is great.

Chernobyl reactor (RBMK type) was also an online fueling type, and was designed with producing plutonium in mind.

78stonewobble, well said. Those aren't alternatives. Alternatives can be used to replace something. PV can't replace base load sources. That's why it's best to call those things renewables or addon sources.

[YNM]

- As someone who lives in the Ring of Fire (Indonesia, to be exact), volcanoes provide a natural spot for heat from the Earth's interior to get out. Hence why you see hot water springs, and the same goes for geothermal... The (logical) site are scarce but even it can be utilized well.

How deep they are?

Not as deep as your average oil well (hence why the companies who do it are mostly oil exploration companies), some sites are even already venting out steam by itself. Look up oil companies ads for countries where geothermals are possible.

Edited June 15, 2014 by YNM

[phoenix_ca]

Problem with CANDU is that you don't want them in places like Iran because you can quickly make some tasty plutonium. Otherwise, it's a good design. Heavy water enables it to burn natural uranium, which is great.

That's a common misconception. CANDU "spent" fuel has a fraction of plutonium about one half that of an LWR. Of that, only about 60-70% is Pu-239. The target for a plutonium-based fission bomb is at least 93% Pu-239, the rest being other isotopes of plutonium. In this respect, CANDU designs have no higher proliferation risk than any LWR reactor, and given the smaller fraction of plutonium in that output fuel, practically speaking, even less.

You can't use a CANDU to cook-up plutonium at any reasonable speed. Certainly not fast enough for a weapons program. You want to use other reactors for that, and indeed, eventhough India has piles of CANDU-derived reactors, they use other reactors for plutonium production.

[lajoswinkler]

That's a common misconception. CANDU "spent" fuel has a fraction of plutonium about one half that of an LWR. Of that, only about 60-70% is Pu-239. The target for a plutonium-based fission bomb is at least 93% Pu-239, the rest being other isotopes of plutonium. In this respect, CANDU designs have no higher proliferation risk than any LWR reactor, and given the smaller fraction of plutonium in that output fuel, practically speaking, even less.

You can't use a CANDU to cook-up plutonium at any reasonable speed. Certainly not fast enough for a weapons program. You want to use other reactors for that, and indeed, eventhough India has piles of CANDU-derived reactors, they use other reactors for plutonium production.

I'm not talking about extraction from spent fuel. CANDU's calandria refueling system enables you to put whatever you want inside while the thing is working. That way, you can get your matter of choice irradiated in the intense neutron flux. This is exactly how RBMK produced plutonium.

Yes, there are more efficient ways to do it, but this is way more easier than messing with spent LWR fuel.

[rtxoff]

I'm not talking about extraction from spent fuel. CANDU's calandria refueling system enables you to put whatever you want inside while the thing is working. That way, you can get your matter of choice irradiated in the intense neutron flux. This is exactly how RBMK produced plutonium.

Yes, there are more efficient ways to do it, but this is way more easier than messing with spent LWR fuel.

I knew that there is something into it. German Wikipedia would not mention it for nothing. It looks like english speaking folks try to hide this fact.