Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[rkman]

Nuclear is more resource effective.

Still comes out at a higher social cost than solar, wind and hydro. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1220061&viewfull=1#post1220061

[theend3r]

Still comes out at a higher social cost than solar, wind and hydro. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/83102-Best-energy-alternatives-to-stop-global-warming?p=1220061&viewfull=1#post1220061

It has high initial costs and low operating costs versus lower initial and higher operating costs for solar and wind. Nice sumup here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Overall only hydro is better, which I agree with but it's a source that's highly situational. Great for Norway and its fjords but useless inland.

[rkman]

higher social cost than solar, wind and hydro.

It has high initial costs and low operating costs versus lower initial and higher operating costs for solar and wind. Nice sumup here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Overall only hydro is better, which I agree with but it's a source that's highly situational. Great for Norway and its fjords but useless inland.

That excludes a couple of factors that are relevant to society/people.

Do you think the low "cost" of nuclear outweighs its high "social cost" compared to solar, wind and hydro?

[lajoswinkler]

To debunk something as a lie you will have to show some evidence against that "lie".

I am curious what evidence you have regarding this matter?

Edit: I hope for you that some or the remaining families don't get ever the chance to meet you in real life. Who knows what would be the methods of teaching you how many liquidators really died from that accident. Luckily we are all protected by some shielding coat called internet and we can't be held responsible for the pain we inflict to some persons by saying some stupid things.

I'd like to see evidence for the 50,000 dead liquidators, first. The one who claims something first needs to present his evidence.

Few thousand deaths are a statistical calculation on the total longterm effects from the contamination. It will be impossible to know who exactly died because of Chernobyl, but it is possible to estimate the number of deaths, which falls down exponentially each year, approaching zero, asimptotically.

So, before I get evidence about the fabricated lie, I will not back up. I have World Health Organization numbers behind me.

Using the deaths and injuries of brave men to spit on something one doesn't understand... that's appaling.

I dont think that burning the waste is a good idea. Electronics should be recycled and produce lots of nasty stuff when burning. Plastic just increases the CO2 since (most if it) is made from oil. Biowaste can be composted or fermented to gas (im not sure if whats more efficient).

Also we afaik we dont produce enough waste to power our economy with it (and we should be happy about that.)

(Most) plastic was made from oil. Why not burn it instead of oil? That way we keep the oil for our petrochemical industry, and we get rid of plastics.

There are incinerator systems today which don't let the nasty stuff out. It's not like some guy is shoveling crushed computers on a bonfire beneath a water tank.

E-waste can be recycled, and it's actually done. Precious metals are inside. The rest should go into inferno.

[phoenix_ca]

While many of the liquidators did not die immediately many of them died from the implications of a radiation sickness. And many of them are still suffering of such an radiation sickness.

That's not how radiation sickness works. You either die because too many cells were killed and your body couldn't repair the damage, or you suffer through it and live because your body was able to repair the damage, albeit with an increased risk of cancer.

[xcorps]

You forgot about 50.000 liquidators who died from radiation after helping at chernobyl.

Also i have no idea how people die from solar panels. Maybe they fell from the roof while monting them but same accidents happen when building nuclear power plants...

That number is so outrageously inflated it's not even funny. If you're going to use gross hyperbole, why not go with the conspiracy nuts that claim a million? Or 10 million?

50,000. What, are you attributing every death of every single liquidator to Chernobyl, even deaths due to car crashes and murder? Give us the number that WHO claims. (Hint, it's less than 60)

[ziogatto]

Still comes out at a higher social cost than solar, wind and hydro.

Hydro?

I'm pretty sure your sources ignored the banqiao dams when they rated hydro as safer than nuclear while still taking in account chernobyl.

It may be unfair to add the banqiao dams in but if you factor in chernobyl in nuclear then you should factor banqiao in hydro and seeing as 171.000 people died from that disaster hydro's death toll skyrockets way past nuclear.

[MoparGamer]

Personally, I think we should take a better look at antimatter. The current issue with any sort of antimatter energy production is obtaining the antimatter, If we can somehow (Looks towards the Van Allen belt & then NASA) obtain it, the physics behind creating energy from it are simple; Matter + Antimatter = Energy + Radiation.

[SargeRho]

Personally, I think we should take a better look at antimatter. The current issue with any sort of antimatter energy production is obtaining the antimatter, If we can somehow (Looks towards the Van Allen belt & then NASA) obtain it, the physics behind creating energy from it are simple; Matter + Antimatter = Energy + Radiation.

Producing electricity from gamma rays is somewhat problematic. You'd also have to take into account the energy needed to transport and contain the antimatter. It's probably easier to mine Uranus for Helium 3.

[AngelLestat]

FINAL STRIKE FOR THE NUCLEAR OPTION

I cant asnwer reply by reply, becouse many of you ask the same things, so I would answer all in one. Including the facts and numbers that all Nuclear fans refuse to see.

First let's talk about cost.

If we take the Levelized Energy Cost, that calculate the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even over the lifetime which include: initial investment, operations, maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital and MW generated by year.

We get that wind is cheaper in all cases. Please study these values yourself.

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

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/ce17780900c3d223633ecfa59/files/Lazard_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_v7.0.1.pdf

Thats not all, there are more nuclear cost that should be taken into account to see how profit real is, here are some:

Nuclear decommissioning:

The price of energy inputs and the environmental costs of every nuclear power plant continue long after the facility has finished generating its last useful electricity. Both nuclear reactors and uranium enrichment facilities must be decommissioned, returning the facility and its parts to a safe enough level to be entrusted for other uses. After a cooling-off period that may last as long as a century, reactors must be dismantled and cut into small pieces to be packed in containers for final disposal. The process is very expensive, time-consuming, dangerous for workers, hazardous to the natural environment, and presents new opportunities for human error, accidents or sabotage.

The total energy required for decommissioning can be as much as 50% more than the energy needed for the original construction. In most cases, the decommissioning process costs between US $300 million to US$5.6 billion. Decommissioning at nuclear sites which have experienced a serious accident are the most expensive and time-consuming. In the U.S. there are 13 reactors that have permanently shut down and are in some phase of decommissioning, and none of them have completed the process. Current UK plants are expected to exceed £73bn in decommissioning costs.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

Waste management cost including accidents by leaks:These threats include the problems of processing, transport and storage of radioactive nuclear waste, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation and terrorism, as well as health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

I dont have estimations cost values, just use your imagination.

Disaster cost:

Chernobyl was 235 Billions.

Fukushima is estimated from 200 to 500 Billions, Japan already borrow 35 Billions to start with the clean operations.

I remember to anyone that fukushima had 3 fully reactor meltdowns. The good news is that in those moments the wind blow toward the ocean, so the 80% of the radiation was out of japan. If the wind in those moments would be toward Tokio, Japan economy would collapse.

This image, only takes into account the cost already approved to start the cleanups and excludes the cost of shutting down the actual reactor units, which is projected to take several decades and cost the government around $150 billion.

Then we have to add all the lawsuit in progress.

France did a case study to simul the consequences of a full meltdown in one of their plants. The report was kept it in secret by many years due to how serious was.

It evaluated a range of disaster scenarios that might occur at the Dampierre plant. In the best-case scenario, costs came to €760 billionâ€â€more than a third of France’s GDP. At the other end of the spectrum: €5.8 trillion! Over three times France’s GDP. A devastating amount. So large that France could not possibly deal with it. Financially, France would cease to exist as we know it.

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/France-Predict-Cost-of-Nuclear-Disaster-to-be-Over-Three-Times-their-GDP.html

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

Nuclear defenders said that the death caused by fossil plants it has not comparison against nuclear death. But this is not a way to defend Nuclear.

First Co2 death would not collapse a country economy, if this happen many people will starve and other consequences arise.

Replacing all thermo fossil plants with nuclear, is like remplace Co2 with Radioactivity, why follow the wrong path again? if we can make the things right from the begining this time, we have better alternatives to nuclear.

With radioactivity is only matter of time, today or tomorrow, but you would need to deal with that eventually.

China is already making 30 new nuclear plants.

Even if the new nuclear plants are more safe, the cost is still a lot higher than any renowable alternatives.

Even if their use the actual nuclear wastes to power the new ones, the risk of an accidents due to waste management and transportation increase.

They also said that is the only way to deal with load base generation if fossil plants are remplaced. But that is not true either.

The renowable cost decrease so much these last years that in some places that is even more cheap that the fossil option.

If we include the cost of storage, is still cheaper than Nuclear in many cases.

See the LAZARD study already linked.

This link also explain why even without storage, solar and wind energies are most cost effective than nuclear with base load.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wind-and-solar-harvest-enough-energy-now-to-pay-back-manufacture-plus-add-storage/

Is important that if you would read an article about cost and technologie about renowables, try to find studies made it in the last year.

Becouse the grow of these technologies is stunning.

So the question now is... Nuclear fans would reconsider their standing with these numbers? Or just they would look to other side ignoring or diverting the facts.

Nuclear energy is considered for many as symbol of country status and development, I hope to see this trend over in the same way as once was considered cool to smoke.

Germany, one of the smartest countries in the world, did the first step to end this.

Edited June 18, 2014 by AngelLestat

[m4v]

Some food for thought: http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

Compare it to nuclear power: Eating one banana (they contain tiny quantities of naturally occurring Potassium-40) yields more sieverts than living next to nuclear powerplant for one year. Pretty much the same thing with nuclear waste - it's contained and under control.

missing my point, since I was arguing that solar cells don't use rare earth elements so they aren't reason we have open pit mines, but because rare earth elements have a myriad of applications.

But I don't understand your point either, that does that link says? that the PV manufacturing industry handles hazardous materials so is an occupational risk? so is mining uranium, their workers have to be careful so they don't breath too much radon gas. Likely building a nuclear reactor isn't a harmless process either.

Ok. Let me rephrase it. Nuclear is more resource effective.

Only because nobody factors in the costs of storing radioactive waste for several centuries, the cost of a nuclear accident if it happens and underestimates the decommissioning costs.

Edited June 18, 2014 by m4v

[crazyewok]

Thorium nuclear.

sure there may be small increase in cost. But clean and plentiful energy wont be free. May just mean we have to turn the TV and not put in on standby and use energy efficient light bulbs but better that than the dark ages.

Still I hear lockheed Martin have made some huge strides in fusion.

[78stonewobble]

@AngelLestat

Wow, thats cheap...

Setting a human life to just a 100.000 $, then the cost of solar plus wind and doing little to nothing to replace coal/oil and other co2 releasing sources is: 12.500.000.000.000 $ (53 chernobyl accidents worth) In human costs alone. Add to that the cost of production, infrastructure and getting rid of hundreds of thousands of windmills and thousands of square kilometers worth of solar panels when at their end of life.

-..-

Another thing nuclear power has against it... It potentially kills people in close to us, people we identify with.

The other route, kills many more people, but noone ever cared about the faceless masses in the third world anyway.

[AngelLestat]

Lol, so the only thing that you can reply is something that I dint said and something that you dint read?

I never said that human life has a value.. (Of course it has, but I dint said it! haha joke xd)

I was just mention that an economic collapse has consequences too. And I also said that there is not point to compare fossil vs nuclear becouse we dont need nuclear to remplace fossil, we can just use renowable, even with storage is by far more cheaper if you count all nuclear costs. Read the link of the scientific american that is explained why load base is not an issue for renowable.

I can not explain all, that post was large enoght.

And all the things that you said "production, infrastructure, etc etc.." why you mention ?? is already included in the cost. And wind is cheaper!

What? you dont need production, infrastructure or space to set nuclear plants?

You can place a nuclear plant in a city or urban area? No! you cant.

The problem is that urban areas expand and some end being very close to nuclear plants, that is the reason why some of them needs military protection all the time. Becouse the risk with all that people so close increase.

And I am not saying "lets stop to use all our nuclear plants" that is silly. I am just saying "if we have the money to remplace a coal plant or to invest in more energy, lets choose a renowable option instead a new nuclear plant).

Edited June 18, 2014 by AngelLestat

[theend3r]

First let's talk about cost.

If we take the Levelized Energy Cost, that calculate the price at which electricity must be generated from a specific source to break even over the lifetime which include: initial investment, operations, maintenance, cost of fuel, cost of capital and MW generated by year.

We get that wind is cheaper in all cases. Please study these values yourself.

Only onshore - not the case of my country.

Replacing all thermo fossil plants with nuclear, is like remplace Co2 with Radioactivity, why follow the wrong path again? if we can make the things right from the begining this time, we have better alternatives to nuclear.

With radioactivity is only matter of time, today or tomorrow, but you would need to deal with that eventually.

There is no radioactivity (released). The only thing with a negative impact is the mining and even counting that, it's death toll is puny. Miniscule. Spent fuel is reusable by newer reactors (thorium) - it's by no means just a waste. It's like batteries.

China is already making 30 new nuclear plants.

Seems there are at least some advantages to their one party system.

Edited June 18, 2014 by theend3r

[phoenix_ca]

So the question now is... Nuclear fans would reconsider their standing with these numbers? Or just they would look to other side ignoring or diverting the facts.

Oh yeah, sure, that's not going to make anyone defensive, is it?

That said, you finally provided source material we can look at. Yay! Now we all get to read. Aka I'll get back to you later.

[xcorps]

Including the facts and numbers that all Nuclear fans refuse to see.

I dont have estimations cost values, just use your imagination.

might occur

bunch of statements with no numbers

So the question now is... Nuclear fans would reconsider their standing with these numbers?

My answer is yes. Absolutely yes. The more you argue against it, the more compelling I find it.

[StrandedonEarth]

My answer is yes. Absolutely yes. The more you argue against it, the more compelling I find it.

Ah, are we going to argue like parents of teenagers then?

Parent: "No, don't use nuclear. nuclear is bad, don't do it"

Teen: "Nuclear! Gotta have nuclear! Can't live without nuclear!"

[xcorps]

Ah, are we going to argue like parents of teenagers then?

Parent: "No, don't use nuclear. nuclear is bad, don't do it"

Teen: "Nuclear! Gotta have nuclear! Can't live without nuclear!"

We might as well, given the content of the debate. Propaganda, misinformation, histrionics, hyperbole, ad hominem, and fear mongering don't make for a rational discussion. And that's what the anti-nuke side brings to the table.

[fenderzilla]

Fusion would be good and efficient, also we'd have plenty of helium for balloons

[m4v]

Fusion would be good and efficient, also we'd have plenty of helium for balloons

I don't think you're taking seriously the consequences of releasing too many helium balloons to the environment.

[theend3r]

I don't think you're taking seriously the consequences of releasing too many helium balloons to the environment.

Everyone would speak in high-pitched voices?

[AngelLestat]

There is no radioactivity (released). The only thing with a negative impact is the mining and even counting that, it's death toll is puny. Miniscule. Spent fuel is reusable by newer reactors (thorium) - it's by no means just a waste. It's like batteries.

No radioactivity released? Maybe in a perfect world, but accidents happens. Mining the only negative impact? Why the wastes and disasters are not?

Use old wastes in new nuclear plants sounds great, but as I said, this not decrease the waste risk, becouse you still need to transport them.

Seems there are at least some advantages to their one party system.

China has 17 nuclear reactors and 30 are under construction. The model in construction is AP1000 (new model of nuclear plant that cost 5.1 billon with 1.1 GW)

This may sound like they are nuclear fans, but the true is that all their energy consumption is growing as hell so they are building anything that generate power.

http://www.usfunds.com/media/images/frank-talk-images/2013_ft/FT_Jul-Dec/chinas-energy-use-could-double-FT-08072013-lg.gif

This include more coal plants, wind, solar, hydro, etc. The % of each technology is similar to its price.

But the techonology with more grow is Wind followed of solar. The renowable investment was 298 billions in 5 years, at the end of this year they would got 100GW of wind energy and 35 GW from solar, in which a 55% is wind, a 30% is solar, plus other sources.

Of course there is places where the wind does not blow, so is logical to find other alternatives, one is solar, but its price is not competive yet with nuclear.

This can change is just 5 years, since PV is the technology with higher grow.

They also invest 7 Billion in smart grid.

Oh yeah, sure, that's not going to make anyone defensive, is it?

That said, you finally provided source material we can look at. Yay! Now we all get to read. Aka I'll get back to you later.

Take your time

We might as well, given the content of the debate. Propaganda, misinformation, histrionics, hyperbole, ad hominem, and fear mongering don't make for a rational discussion. And that's what the anti-nuke side brings to the table.

If I am wrong in something just point it. I will correct it with pleasure.

Edited June 19, 2014 by AngelLestat

[xcorps]

If I am wrong in something just point it. I will correct it with pleasure.

No you won't. Your argument is entirely rhetorical. You aren't interested in any facts other than the ones that you cherrypick to make you feel secure in your position. This is because your position isn't based on reality, it's based on emotion. The reality is that fewer people have died as a result of nuclear accidents and nuclear power has a smaller ecological footprint than any other source of power. That is not disputable. Your argument exists in the land of what-if's and may-be, and even...according to you..using your imagination.

We don't provide electricity to the world with imagination. We do it with engineering and science. In the other thread, you made mention of Three Mile Island and the other Russian nuclear accident, but you ignore the fact that A) Nobody died and they weren't that big of a deal. You use Fukishima like a club even though the reactor incident there was caused by A) Nature and Negligence. You also make claims about the impact of that event using spurious sources with an anti nuclear agenda.

Then you make the absurd claim that 50,000 people died from Chernobyl, even though the United Nations World Health Organization says that the attributable deaths are 48 or something. But you insist that that WHO is lying.

So, my zealous friend, you aren't interested in facts. Unless they are facts that support what you believe...like the facts about dihydrogen monoxide, which is much more dangerous than nuclear waste.

[bitbucket]

Fusion is going to be the only thing scaleable enough to get us off fossil fuels, and by the time we finally get it to work, it'll be too late to matter.