Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[AngelLestat]

This is a continuation of that started discucion of Nuclear vs Renowables which started in the Solar Freakin Roadway Topic.

First I would give a list of posssible alternatives:

Source SUN (Fusion)

1-Solar Photovoltaics

2-Solar Thermal (Heat salt cycles using mirrors)

3-Wind turbines IN-OUT shore.

4-Wind Kite Power using high altitude wings. (in development)

5-Hydroelectricity

6-Sea Waves or currents (few spots to choose in the world)

Source Moon´s gravity.

1-Tidal power (few spots but with huge potential)

Source Weak Nuclear Force (Radioactive decay)

1-Geothermal Energy

Source Fossil fuels (nonrenewable energy accumulated by the sun)

-All these with new Co2 capture systems and higher efficiency technologies-

1-Coal Thermal Plants

2-Oil Thermal Plants

3-Gas Thermal Plants

4-Biodiesel Thermal Plants

5-Other chemical options.

Source Nuclear

1-Thermal Fission Nuclear Plants

2-Thermal Fusion Nuclear Plants (20 or "who knows" years away)

When we talk about energy, its also very important to talk about how to storage it. There is hundred of ways, Kinetic, batteries, air pressure, chemical, gravity, etc.

If I forget something important please let me know.

What is your favorite and why?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In responce to previus answers of Wind turbines vs Nuclear:

phoenix_ca:

It's not even close to that simple. That kind of reductionism is just absurd. You're lumping-in modern reactors with piles of safeties with old and poorly managed reactors that didn't even have a freaking containment vessel (like Chernobyl).

And how many old reactors there is still in use? What you would do with those?

After Chernobyl all nuclear sociaty said: yes, it was a disaster, but we learn from that, It would not happen again.

Well many other issues happen after chernobyl, and ****ushima was worst in many levels.

Even Michio Kaku is against Nuclear, and he is a nuclear physicist.

http://youtu.be/STSmFZeE50E?t=11m21s

Another explanation (not from michio kaku) why nuclear even with new designs is unsafe:

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/michio-kaku-nuclear-power.htm

Vger:

When you're done acting like a religious crusader, let me know.

What you would said if somebody tells you that universe has 6000 years old or that a manned trip to mars would cost less than 10 millons.

I just answer what I think is wrong. Compare a house with a nuclear plant is wrong. Said that due to chernobyl only 40 people die is wrong. Said that Nuclear energy is cheaper than Wind is also wrong. I am just standing to support facts.

78stonewobble:

The cost of not going nuclear = 125.000.000.000 lives (WHO numbers btw.).

If chernobyl cost 4.000 lives: We'd need 31.250 chernobyl sized accidents to make nuclear power unsafer than the alternative.

If chernobyl cost 60.000 lives: We'd need 2.083 chernobyl sized accidents to make nuclear power unsafer than the alternative.

If chernobyl cost 200.000 lives: We'd need 625 chernobyl sized accidents to make nuclear power unsafer than the alternative.

If chernobyl cost 985.000 lives: We'd need 127 chernobyl sized accidents to make nuclear power unsafer than the alternative.

In other words... In the absolutely worst calculation of the chernobyl accident, we killed 124 mio. people to save under a mio.

Offcourse... That's a whole nother way of solving the worlds problems, but I doubt people would vote on it.

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.

gpsic:

The problem with nuclear power plants is not that they are not safe. The problem is Murphy's law:"Anything that can go wrong will go wrong."

That is also my position. The risk is high, the cost too, and we have already too many other nuclear plants to be worry about.

Edited June 15, 2014 by AngelLestat

[vger]

What you would said if somebody tells you that universe has 6000 years old or that a manned trip to mars would cost less than 10 millons.

I just answer what I think is wrong. Compare a house with a nuclear plant is wrong. Said that due to chernobyl only 40 people die is wrong. Said that Nuclear energy is cheaper than Wind is also wrong. I am just standing to support facts.

Kneejerk response to extreme 'catastrophising.'

You even mentioned making nuclear plants safe against terrorists when there's practically nothing in our universe that isn't safe from terrorists. Imagine if one of the twin towers had toppled over instead of collapsing straight down. That alone would've been an unbelievable death toll.

Fukishima is currently the poster child for "bad nuclear bad," but unfairly so. It's comparing routine operations with the Apollo 13 of nuclear mishaps. And go ahead and look at the statistics for harm to human life from nuclear power. It's ridiculously low. Certainly no more dangerous than any other 'dangerous' industrial job.

And if you want to compare it to a resource that requires mining, you not only need to consider the planet itself, but the threat to the miners. I'd certainly rather be working in a nuclear plant than digging for fuel a quarter mile beneath the surface.

And I've got no issue with wind farms, if only we can find places to put them where there are no humans (aside from maintenance workers) in harm's way. Like it or not, the frequency where turbines can become a threat to the public is far more common than nuclear accidents. People have been seeing turbines hurl gigantic pieces of ice around like a freaking catapult. And that's not even a case of the turbines operating in a way they're not supposed to.

[Sirrobert]

Nuclear.

Clean, easy, and cheap.

If only the public wasn't so paraniod about it, we would have already developed it to the point of being completely safe

[lajoswinkler]

Michio Kaku is a sensationalist who, for the most part, speaks good stuff, but then spills some heavy crap. People buy it because they generally can't distinguish what's crap and what isn't. He showed his true face when Fukushima happened. He had absolutely no clue on what was going on, and immediately presented himself as the authority on the subject matter, which he is not. He's a theoretical physicist, not a nuclear engineer.

So whatever he says about fission, I'd take with a huge bag of salt.

We don't know if we can stop global warming. Saying we can is without scientific basis. We might slow it down, and the fact is that if we don't do anything, we're gonna have a bad time.

If you plan to do anything about it using today's photovoltaics, you're going to mess up the biosphere a lot more than you think. Phovovoltaics are for certain areas on Earth where they can ease the peak loads, but only if they're applied rationally. They will not save energy crisis. Solar thermal has more hope, but has the same downsides.

Wind helps intermediate load and requires backup. You've guessed it - gas power plants.

Wind kite... what? LOL

Hydroelectricity - most countries have already developed what could be developed. Additional development is for peak loads, not base load.

Sea waves - will not save the crisis. Mostly LOL.

Tidal power - helpful in a few spots around the globe. Will not save the crisis.

Geothermal energy - just like tidal power.

Thermal nuclear plants? You do realize that's fission you're against, and that it utilizes strong nuclear force?

[rtxoff]

Nuclear.

Clean, easy, and cheap.

If only the public wasn't so paraniod about it, we would have already developed it to the point of being completely safe

Clean yes if you find some end solution for the waste.

Easy is clearly no, there are many others easier than that.

Cheap is also no, building a nuclear plant is very expensive. To keep it running is also very expensive. Luckily there are many energy wasters in the world paying much $$$ to have their air conditions running at full loads when outside temperatures are 40°C and the heat exchangers are heating even more the atmosphere by cooling your homes.

Hell yeah let's build more power plants. Earth is not cool enough and we have plenty $$$ to spend.

(Devil is mischievously grinning and rubbing his hands)

[Ralathon]

It kind of depends on the location (Geothermal in Iceland is a lot more potent than in Luxembourg f.ex). But in general I'd go with nuclear for base load and biofuels for the transportation industry. Nuclear because that's the only realistic option we have to satisfy our current energy demands without drastic cuts in consumption. It is also more directly compatible with the current energy net and not subject to the whims of nature. We need to use biofuels for the transportation industry because most current cars can easily run on biofuel, so we won't have to convince everyone to buy a brand new electric car.

As for the future, invest in fusion and get that running ASAP and slowly introduce more and more electric cars. This way you can cleanly transition to a completely fusion driven economy with minimal drastic changes.

Nuclear waste is a bit of a problem. But in the grand scheme of things it really is a very small amount and people are waaaay too concerned about it. Worst case scenario we'll just keep it stored in the fuel pools for a couple of centuries.

[lajoswinkler]

Clean yes if you find some end solution for the waste.

Easy is clearly no, there are many others easier than that.

I'll assume we're talking about the leftovers from recycling, when unfissioned fuel has been reclaimed and only the most concentrated waste is left over.

Why is the waste bothering you? Its volume is relatively tiny, it does not present an immediate problem, unlike mountains of coal ash and lakes of chemical waste.

Cheap is also no, building a nuclear plant is very expensive. To keep it running is also very expensive.

You should know that building is very expensive, but running is very cheap. The fuel is cheap per kWh obtained. That's one of the key things about fission power plants. Great investment, crapload of cheap, stable base load energy.

Luckily there are many energy wasters in the world paying much $$$ to have their air conditions running at full loads when outside temperatures are 40°C and the heat exchangers are heating even more the atmosphere by cooling your homes.

Hell yeah let's build more power plants. Earth is not cool enough and we have plenty $$$ to spend.

(Devil is mischievously grinning and rubbing his hands)

Nobody sane is against the reduction of energy consumption, but that alone is not the solution.

[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.

[rtxoff]

I'll assume we're talking about the leftovers from recycling, when unfissioned fuel has been reclaimed and only the most concentrated waste is left over.

Why is the waste bothering you? Its volume is relatively tiny, it does not present an immediate problem, unlike mountains of coal ash and lakes of chemical waste.

So highly toxic and dangerous waste is known to be less dangerous when it's volume is tiny? Please define the phrase "the volume is tiny". 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).

You should know that building is very expensive, but running is very cheap. The fuel is cheap per kWh obtained. That's one of the key things about fission power plants. Great investment, crapload of cheap, stable base load energy.

Yes it feels good to get cheap uranium from countries having cheap workers mining that uranium for almost no $$$ at all. I just hope they won't show us their middle fingers at some point. Because i like the way things are. Plenty $$$ for us.

Nobody sane is against the reduction of energy consumption, but that alone is not the solution.

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)

[SargeRho]

1: Currently it's stored submerged in water pools. Water is an awesome radiation shield.

2: Most of the world's Uranium comes from Canada and Australia.

3: You totally strawman'd him.

[rtxoff]

1: Currently it's stored submerged in water pools. Water is an awesome radiation shield.

Wow you are a genious solving world's problems. Splendid idea dude let's submerge all of our radioactive waste in the deepest point of the oceans. Who knows what good stuff can come up from there, maybe some huge mutated kraakens.

2: Most of the world's Uranium comes from Canada and Australia.

Hmmm wait a moment looking at the map down there, oh yes, yes, now i can see it. Most of world's uranium comes from Canada and Australia, wait, what's the other colored places, nah your right, they are not countries.

[sal_vager]

gpisic, please mind your tone in these discussions, there is no need to take such a confrontational stance.

[rtxoff]

I apologize for my behaviour. Won't continue like that.

[m4v]

nuclear power plants give cheap energy because nobody is calculating right the cost of the decommission when its time to shut down the plant.

[lajoswinkler]

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.

So highly toxic and dangerous waste is known to be less dangerous when it's volume is tiny? Please define the phrase "the volume is tiny". 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).

Exactly.

What does it mean tiny? Consider that a typical 700 MW nuclear power plant produces, in 40 years of power production, one full spent fuel pool of rods.

Something like this.

It sits in the pure water, cooling down. Most of the "waste" is uranium and plutonium which can be recycled.

The remainder material, for which we don't have use today, can be vitrified and sealed into concrete casks in stable depositories underground where it will not be disturbed by anyone or anything for a long time, enough to decay to background levels.

Yes it feels good to get cheap uranium from countries having cheap workers mining that uranium for almost no $$$ at all. I just hope they won't show us their middle fingers at some point. Because i like the way things are. Plenty $$$ for us.

Unlike the rest of your talk, this is actually one of the things that are a problem with some companies, mainly bigass ones like AREVA. They don't really give much crap about the poor miners. It's not like better management would do significant harm to the industry.

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.

nuclear power plants give cheap energy because nobody is calculating right the cost of the decommission when its time to shut down the plant.

Wrong. The costs are calculated in. Nuclear power plants are projects which, unlike photovoltaics, consider total life cycle. That's exactly one of the reasons why they're so expensive to build. Loads of insurance and financial crap.

[AngelLestat]

I fix the nuclear plant source category, sorry by that.

My favorite technology is Wind Kite Power, but is still in development.

You can use this aplication to see how strong the jet streams are:

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/orthographic=-25.30,4.32,363

This aplication is amazing to see the weather in the whole world, you can see winds at different altitudes, pressure, temperature, ocean currents, all.

Many times you sure hear how much energy there is in the wind in comparison with the world consume. Well that measure is just take into account surface wind in the best spots. Now if we add jet streams, that is a huge volume of energy and is pretty constant.

Some approachs are:

Google new acquisition:

Different approach

This picture is not in scale or with the good angles. But is another approach.

You even mentioned making nuclear plants safe against terrorists when there's practically nothing in our universe that isn't safe from terrorists. Imagine if one of the twin towers had toppled over instead of collapsing straight down. That alone would've been an unbelievable death toll.

But wind energy it does not need to be safe against terrorist. What they would do? Joint 2 shoes and drop it into the blades? It does not need to bann a fly zone to avoid airplane collisions. It does not need to be worry against natural disaster, in the worst case you would lose some wind turbines in a earthquake or tornado. You can remplace them with easy without interrupt the energy production.

Like Michio Kaku said, Nuclear plants has also a hidden cost, the ensure cost that is paid by civilians in 2 ways, being victims and using its tax contributions to paid the damage.

And that cost is not only limited to the Nuclear owner; rivers, sea, wind, animals spread the consequences to other countries who has nothing to do. So their also paid the cost of your selfish choice.

For example the Nuclear plant of Indian Point

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

That nuclear plant is one with the higher risk to had an accident. By natural disaster like earthquake or by bad management or terrorism. Is very close to new york, in case of a fail you need to move million of people.

They wastes management is very poor. There is examples like these in all the world. Who would paid the cost if something happen?

And I've got no issue with wind farms, if only we can find places to put them where there are no humans (aside from maintenance workers) in harm's way.

I am agree with that, the same happen with nuclear facilities, they need to be far of populated zones.

Michio Kaku is a sensationalist who, for the most part, speaks good stuff, but then spills some heavy crap. People buy it because they generally can't distinguish what's crap and what isn't. He showed his true face when Fukushima happened. He had absolutely no clue on what was going on, and immediately presented himself as the authority on the subject matter, which he is not. He's a theoretical physicist, not a nuclear engineer.

SO 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?

We don't know if we can stop global warming. Saying we can is without scientific basis. We might slow it down, and the fact is that if we don't do anything, we're gonna have a bad time.

If you plan to do anything about it using today's photovoltaics, you're going to mess up the biosphere a lot more than you think. Phovovoltaics are for certain areas on Earth where they can ease the peak loads, but only if they're applied rationally. They will not save energy crisis. Solar thermal has more hope, but has the same downsides.

Wind helps intermediate load and requires backup. You've guessed it - gas power plants.

There are many coutries that still are very far to acomplish the 10 % of renowable energy, and we already see many countries with almost half of solar or wind energy without big problems in load managements. When these countries achieve the 25%, elerctric cars would be already a good option taken into account the advance on batteries technology, in that case you dont have much problems to storage it.

We need to use biofuels for the transportation industry because most current cars can easily run on biofuel, so we won't have to convince everyone to buy a brand new electric car.

Biofuels is not a solution, the defenders said like you are not using accumulative co2, that you are using it only the co2 that was enclose for the same plants that you grow, meaning that you are not increasing the co2 level. But you are. You are burning co2 that it may be keep enclose if you use it for other things like food. And if this bussness grows up then we have another problem, people using virgin terrains to cultivate proper crops for biofuels.

I'll assume we're talking about the leftovers from recycling, when unfissioned fuel has been reclaimed and only the most concentrated waste is left over.

Why is the waste bothering you? Its volume is relatively tiny, it does not present an immediate problem, unlike mountains of coal ash and lakes of chemical waste.

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..

You should know that building is very expensive, but running is very cheap. The fuel is cheap per kWh obtained. That's one of the key things about fission power plants. Great investment, crapload of cheap, stable base load energy.

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.

Edited June 14, 2014 by AngelLestat

[mstrfalco]

I think any alternative is a better alternative. The sooner we stop polluting the atmosphere the better... I honestly don't care how we do it. It is very sad to see how the world is being polluted but yet no one person could do anything about it. The worst thing I've seen is the report by the IPCC that guaranteed we are going to have a mass extinction in about 100 years and the only way we could prevent it would be unfeasible with current political situations.

[rtxoff]

My country banned nuclear power, i am proud for that and we did not miss it since.

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

Edit: Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Austria

Edited June 14, 2014 by gpisic

[phoenix_ca]

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 as 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 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.

Hmmm wait a moment looking at the map down there, oh yes, yes, now i can see it. Most of world's uranium comes from Canada and Australia, wait, what's the other colored places, nah your right, they are not countries.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Uranium_Reserves.png

Maybe you should stop strawmanning and actually present a cogent argument. Where the world's estimated supply is isn't the same as where most of the supply is being mined, and guess what, a lot of that supply does come from Canada and Australia, but the top producer is Kazakhstan.

@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.

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.

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.

My country banned nuclear power, i am proud for that and we did not miss it since.

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

Edit: Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Austria

By making policy banning fission power generation, Austria shot itself in the foot. Thorium reactors may be available soon, and promise to be far, far safer than uranium-fuelled reactors.

Ignorance and planting your head in the sand because of your ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

Edited June 14, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[rtxoff]

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 as 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 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.

Maybe you should stop strawmanning and actually present a cogent argument. Where the world's estimated supply is isn't the same as where most of the supply is being mined, and guess what, a lot of that supply does come from Canada and Australia, but the top producer is Kazakhstan.

@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.

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.

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.

Well the core problem with uranium is if we switch all of our energy economy to it the prices will jump dramatically, because the estimated uranium deposits for the current usage (10% of whole production) will last for 200 years. So they will last for 20 years at 100%. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

Also the matter with thorium, it's not the problem that it is not abundant, the problem is to extract it from the surface and refine it into usable fuel. Also look at this: http://science.energy.gov/nbl/certified-reference-materials/prices-and-certificates/uranium-thorium-ores-price-list/

This are prices for the unrefined stuff. I wonder why it is so expensive when it is as common as you say.Also, to refine it to be usable as fuel takes away energy and money.

I do not think the mentality of Japan's people towards nuclear fission was the reason for having such lousy security measures. It was simply greed, nothing else.

If there is one thing you can not overestimate in this world it is greed.

[Elthy]

here are many coutries that still are very far to acomplish the 10 % of renowable energy, and we already see many countries with almost half of solar or wind energy without big problems in load managements. When these countries achieve the 25%, elerctric cars would be already a good option taken into account the advance on batteries technology, in that case you dont have much problems to storage it.

Germanay decided to shutdown all nuclear powerplants until 2022, half of them are allready down. Now we have over 25% renewable energy (still rising), so its not impossible and nothing for the far future to switch completly. The limiting factors are energystorage and -distribution (since most powerplants where in the south and now most windenergy come from the north).

Edited June 14, 2014 by Elthy

[Stargate525]

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?

[phoenix_ca]

Well the core problem with uranium is if we switch all of our energy economy to it the prices will jump dramatically, because the estimated uranium deposits for the current usage (10% of whole production) will last for 200 years. So they will last for 20 years at 100%. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/

For one, 200 years is something of a low-ball estimate for various reasons, that that very article points out. Again, that very article you're quoting explains how that supply of uranium could be stretched-out significantly, and how extraction from seawater could make available many thousands of years worth of uranium. Your argument is unsound, based on your own citation.

With a heavy water moderator, you can even use straight-up natural uranium, no enrichment required. Canada's ACR-1000 design is planned to use lightly enriched uranium that's at most half as enriched as that used in an LWR.

Also the matter with thorium, it's not the problem that it is not abundant, the problem is to extract it from the surface and refine it into usable fuel. Also look at this: http://science.energy.gov/nbl/certified-reference-materials/prices-and-certificates/uranium-thorium-ores-price-list/

This are prices for the unrefined stuff. I wonder why it is so expensive when it is as common as you say.Also, to refine it to be usable as fuel takes away energy and money.

And again, your own citation does nothing for your argument. I can even use it to refute it. Do you see just how much cheaper that thorium oxide is in comparison to uranium oxide? You're not even accounting for the energy density of that material. With some refining, that material can produce great heaping gobs (which is totally a technical term) of electrical energy.

I do not think the mentality of Japan's people towards nuclear fission was the reason for having such lousy security measures. It was simply greed, nothing else.

If there is one thing you can not overestimate in this world it is greed.

No, it absolutely is a problem in Japan, that is mired in the history of the nation after WWII and its relationship with the USA, and all the politics that surrounded that. They should've taken us up on CANDU reactors when we offered them, but CANDU wasn't American enough, so they wasted time and energy on horribly inefficient LWR designs, building at least twice as many reactors as would've been necessary. http://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2011/09/no-candu/

Edited June 14, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[mdatspace]

I do not think the mentality of Japan's people towards nuclear fission was the reason for having such lousy security measures. It was simply greed, nothing else.If there is one thing you can not overestimate in this world it is greed.

And geology. Not the best place to build reactors. Not at all, considering its history of large earthquakes. And its tectonic setting.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/world/historical_country.php#japan

[rtxoff]

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

Construction of the RAPP-2 reactor was still underway when India detonated its first atomic bomb in 1974, leading to Canada ending nuclear dealings with the country. Part of the sales agreement was a technology transfer process. When Canada withdrew from development, India continued construction of CANDU-like plants across the country.

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.