Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[peadar1987]

*sigh* The risk of nuclear energy does not lie within the reactor is lies within the waste. The risk and cost resulting from old reactors, nuclear fuel and contaminated waste is a number that can't be calculated. Right now there is no FINAL way of disposal of nuclear waste. So ..

how could you say that something is cheaper if you don't even know how much it will cost in the end?

How could you say something is less risky if you don't even have a faint idea how to deal with it?

The renewable energies are at least predictable in their repercussions down in the future.

Well, so is nuclear. I'm not denying that waste is a problem, but we know how much waste is going to be produced, how radioactive it will be, and for how long (A previous one of my posts goes into it here. It's not actually as bad as some people make out: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77494-How-should-we-get-rid-of-Nuclear-Waste?p=1114295&viewfull=1#post1114295)

[peadar1987]

For those of you who haven't seen in before, this is a pretty awesome video:

[rtxoff]

Well, so is nuclear. I'm not denying that waste is a problem, but we know how much waste is going to be produced, how radioactive it will be, and for how long (A previous one of my posts goes into it here. It's not actually as bad as some people make out: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77494-How-should-we-get-rid-of-Nuclear-Waste?p=1114295&viewfull=1#post1114295)

Even if it's only 10,000 years we have no way of saying how the future will develop. 10,000 years is a long time, many governments could fall and rise in this time. And the responsibility for observing that waste could be forgotten. IMO it's the same like a timebomb. No one of us can really say what will happen with it in this (for a human beeing) long time.

[peadar1987]

Even if it's only 10,000 years we have no way of saying how the future will develop. 10,000 years is a long time, many governments could fall and rise in this time. And the responsibility for observing that waste could be forgotten. IMO it's the same like a timebomb. No one of us can really say what will happen with it in this (for a human beeing) long time.

The thing is, for deep geological repositories, it doesn't even need to be observed.

My point was that after a few hundred years, nuclear fuel is only hazardous if you spend a lot of time right next to it, or if you ingest it. It's still not brilliant, but it's comparable to ordinary chemical toxic waste (which doesn't generally become less dangerous over time). In a few hundred years, the groundwater around a rare earth metal mine will still be heavily contaminated with arsenic and heavy metals, and it will be just as unhealthy to be around, and probably spread over a far greater area than nuclear waste buried in a geologically stable rock formation beneath a desert.

[rtxoff]

The thing is, for deep geological repositories, it doesn't even need to be observed.

My point was that after a few hundred years, nuclear fuel is only hazardous if you spend a lot of time right next to it, or if you ingest it. It's still not brilliant, but it's comparable to ordinary chemical toxic waste (which doesn't generally become less dangerous over time). In a few hundred years, the groundwater around a rare earth metal mine will still be heavily contaminated with arsenic and heavy metals, and it will be just as unhealthy to be around, and probably spread over a far greater area than nuclear waste buried in a geologically stable rock formation beneath a desert.

Well my point was, that in 10.000 years the climate could change and a desert can become a part of the world where it rains regularly. The rockformation could get flooded and that nuclear waste could find it's way into earth's eco cycle.

When we talk about such great time spans there is no bury and forget.

[phoenix_ca]

Hmm. We use nuclear flasks precisely because shipping it is in fact dangerous. We can mitigate the risk through technical measures, but it's a process that requires a bit of care. A good general principle for handling any dangerous goods is that you don't handle them more than you absolutely need to, as every time you move them you accept a risk.

But yes, the main stumbling block to setting up geological repositories is NIMBYism. But we've been pulling spent fuel out of reactors for decades now and the NIMBYs keep winning, so don't expect that problem to go away any time soon.

I'll grant you that the material is dangerous, and yes, you'd be pretty dumb to just shuttle it all over the place, but the act itself can be made quite safe.

[peadar1987]

Well my point was, that in 10.000 years the climate could change and a desert can become a part of the world where it rains regularly. The rockformation could get flooded and that nuclear waste could find it's way into earth's eco cycle.

When we talk about such great time spans there is no bury and forget.

Not in 10,000 years. 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in geological terms.

[Seret]

Well my point was, that in 10.000 years the climate could change and a desert can become a part of the world where it rains regularly. The rockformation could get flooded and that nuclear waste could find it's way into earth's eco cycle.

When we talk about such great time spans there is no bury and forget.

Geologists can identify rock formations that are very stable, and places that wouldn't be adversely affected by changes in climate. You wouldn't site your repository in low-lying land, for example, or near the coast. There are parts of the Earth's surface that are literally billions of years old.

[rtxoff]

I would feel more comfortable if we develop some tech to get rid of it at all. Hopefully in some near future there will be space lifts or something to lift that waste into orbit and then shoot it into the sun.

However i am drifting off the topic.

[peadar1987]

I would feel more comfortable if we develop some tech to get rid of it at all. Hopefully in some near future there will be space lifts or something to lift that waste into orbit and then shoot it into the sun.

However i am drifting off the topic.

To be honest, I'd be more worried about a failure in the space elevator than a geological repository (although that's without any real analysis or numbers behind it, I'm sure if we wanted we could build nuclear waste containers that would survive being dropped from outside the atmosphere)

[shynung]

I would feel more comfortable if we develop some tech to get rid of it at all. Hopefully in some near future there will be space lifts or something to lift that waste into orbit and then shoot it into the sun.

Reprocessing it into new fuel (most likely plutonium) and reacting it inside another reactor (generating more power in the way) would be one way to do it. Even if some spent fuel remains useless (fission products), this would reduce the amount of nuclear waste needed to be stored/disposed of.

^{Problem is, plutonium is useful for nuclear weapons, so care has to be taken regarding where the technology is implemented. But I digress.}

Edited June 20, 2014 by shynung

[magnemoe]

Hmm. We use nuclear flasks precisely because shipping it is in fact dangerous. We can mitigate the risk through technical measures, but it's a process that requires a bit of care. A good general principle for handling any dangerous goods is that you don't handle them more than you absolutely need to, as every time you move them you accept a risk.

But yes, the main stumbling block to setting up geological repositories is NIMBYism. But we've been pulling spent fuel out of reactors for decades now and the NIMBYs keep winning, so don't expect that problem to go away any time soon.

We use nuclear flasks because yes its dangerous, it done of very safety concerned people who think wearing a set of pants with just one belt and a set of suspenders is high risk.

And it face lawfare from all directions so not wearing two belts and two suspenders on the skirt you wear over the pants would be criminal neglect.

And if the main argument against using nuclear power to shut down coal too reduce global warming is the long term storage I call the bluff.

If you think global warming is and close and civilization ending event you don't care about long time problems.

Almost as fun as the people complaining that windmills will destroy their view.

In short if you are an realist you select the important problem, yes its obvious that any change will bring new problems. The issue is to make the new problems far smaller than the problems you wanted to solve. (at least in short term )

If you are not an realist I have an unicorn egg I want to sell

[lajoswinkler]

I would feel more comfortable if we develop some tech to get rid of it at all. Hopefully in some near future there will be space lifts or something to lift that waste into orbit and then shoot it into the sun.

However i am drifting off the topic.

"Shoot it into the Sun"?

You should know better, being on KSP forums and all. You don't shoot stuff into the Sun. You cancel its orbital speed around the Sun, so it falls down onto it. That would be insanely expensive for the masses involved, and very risky. Too risky to be justified. It's a pipedream for ignorant people.

[Elthy]

The problem with nuclear disposal is that its not stored where its safe for the longest time, but where its cheapest and less people can protest against it...

[technicalfool]

Re: Nuclear waste.

It comes from the ground, right?

So after reprocessing the heck out of whatever you can, you dilute whatever can't be used down to the level of ore again, and put it back where you got it from.

Or am I being completely thick?

[m4v]

Re: Nuclear waste.

It comes from the ground, right?

I don't think that any of the elements present in high-level radioactive waste is found naturally in the ground.

[AngelLestat]

I promised to left the nuclear discussion to continue with other technologies, but there are so many things that I wanna reply.

To avoid an endless discussion, lets try to reach an agreedment point.

Yes is true that renowables can not be the average global solution right now to avoid the use of nuclear plants. But this would change in just 5 years.

The storage cost would drop faster than renowables energies.

Of course if we build a nucler plant right now it would be active at least 40 years. The question is, will we stop building them once no longer need?

Now, to those who knows about energy distribution, with coefficients of simultaneity in consumption and generation, lets see if you agree with this theorical example:

Even with full renowables world wide (solar and wind) with only 6 hrs backup instead 12 as I mention (this storage maybe be electric cars or other storage options), with countries selling energy to others when they need it in a smart grid integration; Then there is not need of any nuclear or fossil plant as backup and the amount of energy not used would be negligible.

Of course the grid cost would increase depeding how much we want to deal with the extreme cases of simultaneity.

This is totally possible, the capacity factor of 52% for wind it does not take into account the integration with solar and storage with smart grid.

Of course I am not saying that I want a world with only solar and wind, I am just saying that is possible to get all our energy from renowables at a competitive cost starting in 5 years, and the change process will take 50 years or more.

He graduated from University of Edinburgh with a Master's degree in Science, in the year 2010.^{Seriously, do you have even the slightest idea?}

I dont know what "MSc." means. I write in english, I read in english, but it does not mean that I understand all I wrote or read. My language is Spanish.

I am an almost graduate Systems Engineer, I work as a web applications developer and I am trying to make the most interesting page about sustainability with a complex mechanism to allow visitors post-edit solutions or ideas to solve the main listed problems with a evolutive and vote principle.

This is my passion and I know almost all the different technologies already in use or development. I try always see as many sources as possible to understand and avoid wrong judgments in my opinion, nonetheless all my opinions are free to change when the evidence presents.

As part of basic operation of our nuclear facilities, they must be prepared to deal with all of those risks. The reactors in Ontario are prepared to deal with a severe earthquake, even though the area is very unlikely to see a severe enough earthquake to damage any of them, or at least within our lifetimes.

And as I've said before, this is par for the course for good management of nuclear power. If you screw-up your policy, you are doing it wrong.

Sorry if I dont answer all, but we need to move on to discuss other things.

But let me said this.

If you sell guns, many people would buy it, this does not mean that they are liable enoght to use it.

Maybe living in Canada is hard for you to imagine such lack of common sense that people must had with respect to nuclear.

But I live in Argentina. Here is common than people in charge take decisions based purely in how much money would enter in its pocket. They dont lessen to advisers, if an adviser show to be a pain in the ass in the leader, they get fired.

And there is a lot of worst cases than Argentina. If we start to sell nuclear as oranges, I would start to worry in what hands may end, becouse the world is connected, every thing that happen eventually all world paid the prize.

Ohhhh, yes we do; we're part of NATO. We might be slightly less hated than the Americans by some groups, but there are plenty of countries that don't like us, and when it comes to Islamic extremists, there's no distinction between us and the USA beyond "it's easier to get into the USA if you spend time in Canada first".

hahaha, good try to make looks your nation as a menace for others, but everybody knows that you are one of the nicely countries in the world.

About Canada Natural disasters.. Really?

Already have, and if I had argued that nuclear power is perfectly safe no matter who is running it, you'd have a point, but I didn't, and I've specifically said many times that adequate policy is a requirement for safe use of nuclear power. Given this, I think its absurd to suggest that nations fully capable of maintaining the required amount of security and safety should hamper themselves.

I can give you an study of the safety and elements of the new nuclear reactors. It said very clear that any body who knows its weakness can sabotage them. Also said that the concrete shield from the already plants in construction is not enoght to counter an airplane falling or a missile.

*sigh* The risk of nuclear energy does not lie within the reactor is lies within the waste. The risk and cost resulting from old reactors, nuclear fuel and contaminated waste is a number that can't be calculated. Right now there is no FINAL way of disposal of nuclear waste. So ..

how could you say that something is cheaper if you don't even know how much it will cost in the end?

How could you say something is less risky if you don't even have a faint idea how to deal with it?

The renewable energies are at least predictable in their repercussions down in the future.

We are paying the bill of wrong decission made years back, and our childrens-childrens would paid the bill of our decisions. The system works!

Where are you getting your 40,000 figure from? Which accidents have caused all these deaths? Three Mile Island? Fukushima? Windscale? You can't count Kyshtym, because it was a weapons plant.

Is my personal estimation from all the radiation release in chernobyl, fukushima, etc. It can take many years but eventually of one way or another (direct or inderect way) will reach that number.

It is a qualification. I have a Masters Degree in Sustainable Energy, as well as having worked in the energy field for the last 4 years, so that is who I am to determine which sources are militant and biased.

Great, but nobody is the owner of the truth. Only logic and evidence can point to the truth. I give you enoght logic and evidence. And my source was Nature magazine.

These pretty much back up what I've been saying. There is great potential for renewables, at low grid penetrations they are as cheap or cheaper than conventional and nuclear plants, but they are not quite there yet. Everything else is pie-in-the-sky. Basing your energy policy on solar power halving in price based on past trends is too risky when we're talking about something as important as energy security. If it happens, great, but we need to plan for other eventualities.

So you are agree? then why you said that my sources are militant and biased? And I dont remember read in the note that "they are not quite here yet", of course I think that we need to wait at least 5 years.. But that is not a lot of time dont you?

Not in 10,000 years. 10,000 years is a blink of an eye in geological terms.

But not in weather times. And we are the ones driving that fate.

Edited June 20, 2014 by AngelLestat

[shynung]

Is my personal estimation from all the radiation release in chernobyl, fukushima, etc. It can take many years but eventually of one way or another (direct or inderect way) will reach that number.

Please do note that on a long enough time scale, the death toll becomes 100%(nobody is immortal, as of today). We are at the point where people who were at their late 30s in 1986 were starting to die naturally (they'd be in their 70s by now), regardless of their participation or exposure to anything that has any connection to the Chernobyl incident. Even if we reach the 40K people mark after a few years, that fact alone would be useless to estimate Chernobyl-caused deaths; it'd be too noisy with data from other deaths.

[phoenix_ca]

If you sell guns, many people would buy it, this does not mean that they are liable enoght to use it.

Which is why you should do thorough background checks on people before you hand them the gun.

Maybe living in Canada is hard for you to imagine such lack of common sense that people must had with respect to nuclear.

But I live in Argentina. Here is common than people in charge take decisions based purely in how much money would enter in its pocket. They dont lessen to advisers, if an adviser show to be a pain in the ass in the leader, they get fired.

And there is a lot of worst cases than Argentina. If we start to sell nuclear as oranges, I would start to worry in what hands may end, becouse the world is connected, every thing that happen eventually all world paid the prize.

I don't find it hard to imagine that there are people who wouldn't manage a nuclear power plant properly. What in my many previous posts didn't make that clear? From the outset I've said that policy is an important part of nuclear power management, and if you screw it up, you end-up with situations like Fukushima-Daiichi.

hahaha, good try to make looks your nation as a menace for others

That is exactly not the point I was making. The point was that Canada has enemies just like every other nation on the Earth, not that it's a particularly menacing country. And yes, there are people who want to kill us too. What a cheerful world.

So, you design the important stuff like reactors to deal with it, and pay your security services enough to stop these sorts of things.

but everybody knows that you are one of the nicely countries in the world.

This is well off-topic but that isn't really true either. We're a nation that sells natural resources. We still sell asbestos to India, knowing that they'll use it without proper safeguards. We sell bitumen to whomever will take it, even though it's literally ruining hundreds (even thousands) of square kilometres by turning it into a toxic wasteland. And on top of all that, our armed forces, though small, are just as ready to kill as the next country's. To be honest, CANDU reactor designs are one of the few things we actually demonstrate responsibility in how we sell.

About Canada Natural disasters.. Really?

Yes. Really. Hence all the links.

I can give you an study of the safety and elements of the new nuclear reactors. It said very clear that any body who knows its weakness can sabotage them. Also said that the concrete shield from the already plants in construction is not enoght to counter an airplane falling or a missile.

I'm sure that'd be interesting, because it's exactly the opposite of what the designers and builders of nuclear power facilities explicitly claim.

[Red Iron Crown]

I believe Canada leads the world in fracking, too.

<--- Canadian

[AngelLestat]

No, of course I would not count natural death.

Just the death that would happen for our nuclear plants mistakes.

If someone ask you (and this being knows the answer)... How many people you think it would not dead if the main nuclear disasters would never happen? You need to take into account also the childrens lifes of people affected (which could pass dna defects as a consequence of this issues).

And your life would depend on how close your estimation is. What number you would said? I really dubt than anyone would risk to said the low numbers which they mention here.

PD: What is fracking?

[m4v]

I don't find it hard to imagine that there are people who wouldn't manage a nuclear power plant properly. What in my many previous posts didn't make that clear? From the outset I've said that policy is an important part of nuclear power management, and if you screw it up, you end-up with situations like Fukushima-Daiichi.

Japan isn't some backwater country, is a great power. It doesn't give great confidence to how the rest of the world is managing their nuclear plants.

[shynung]

You need to take into account also the childrens lifes of people affected (which could pass dna defects as a consequence of this issues).

How does one assess deaths resulting from DNA damage several years into the future? Moreover, how does one determine this damage occurs from the exposure of the person's ancestor to nuclear-accident-related radiation, and not from his own exposure to the environment(UV exposure from the sun can cause skin cancer)? Or, from the DNA replication mistakes that sometimes occur in otherwise healthy humans?

After all is done, how would I arrive at the 40K number, were I to perform the same estimation? Please do elaborate.

Edited June 20, 2014 by shynung

[AngelLestat]

This is well off-topic but that isn't really true either. We're a nation that sells natural resources. We still sell asbestos to India, knowing that they'll use it without proper safeguards. We sell bitumen to whomever will take it, even though it's literally ruining hundreds (even thousands) of square kilometres by turning it into a toxic wasteland. And on top of all that, our armed forces, though small, are just as ready to kill as the next country's. To be honest, CANDU reactor designs are one of the few things we actually demonstrate responsibility in how we sell.

So then you are saying that sellers dont really care what they are selling, why it would be different with nuclear plants?

Canana is the only one selling nuclear plants?

What can you do if your client dont care much about the wastes or their nuclear plant security? What if your client need it for make nuclear weapons?

So if someone is selling, they would not care to who are they selling. It can be also taken as discrimination if you denied to sell a country.

I'm sure that'd be interesting, because it's exactly the opposite of what the designers and builders of nuclear power facilities explicitly claim.

I found it.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/NPWWch6.pdf

How does one assess deaths resulting from DNA damage several years into the future? Moreover, how does one determine this damage occurs from the exposure of the person's ancestor to nuclear-accident-related radiation, and not from his own exposure to the environment(UV exposure from the sun can cause skin cancer)? Or, from the DNA replication mistakes that sometimes occur in otherwise healthy humans?

After all is done, how would I arrive at the 40K number, were I to perform the same estimation? Please do elaborate.

Is already elaborated. In the question I said that this "being" knows. It does not matter how it "knows".. Just give the answer XD

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

Well people, returning to the topic objective.

What technology in development you think that it has potential?

Edited June 20, 2014 by AngelLestat

[xcorps]

Japan isn't some backwater country, is a great power. It doesn't give great confidence to how the rest of the world is managing their nuclear plants.

Could you point out any great power in history not plagued by corruption? It's particularly bad in Japan, to the point where it is required. But you have a point on nuclear plant management.