Best energy alternatives to stop global warming

[rtxoff]

47 workers died in the clean up and disaster and 4000 people are expected to die from cancer caused due the radiation. Very shy of 50000.

While I do think that we all need to become a bit more objective in this discussion I can't blame lajoswinkler for the reaction that was given. It's akin to saying 100s of people have died from Fukushima.

Edit

Common guys. Let's stick to the arguments here.

Well the facts:

According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600 000, liquidators) and 165,000 disabled.

Honestly i really think this thread should be closed in respect to the 60,000 dead man that gave their life in preventing a desaster of a much greater scale. It's obvious that nothing more productive will come ot of this thread beside lying and denying of the hard facts in favor of a technology mankind is not ready for.

The best evidence for this statement is this thread where a peaceful discussion about alternative energies is simply not possible.

[Red Iron Crown]

gpisic: Are those deaths directly related to the work at Chernobyl though? It happened almost 30 years ago, which would make most of the workers 50 years old or more. Old enough that some attrition would likely be occurring anyway.

[shynung]

It's possible to have peaceful, productive discussion about alternative energy sources, as long as things like these don't come up:

It's obvious that nothing more productive will come ot of this thread beside lying and denying of the hard facts in favor of a technology mankind is not ready for.

This statement riles people up very quickly. No offense, but you may need to think twice before throwing accusations around.

=======================================

Now, continuing the discussion, I propose burning trash to generate electricity. The air pollution is still problematic, but at the same time, it's a waste management solution. Two birds with one stone, I'd say.

[Seret]

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

That's not how it works. The person making the original claim should be able to back it up with evidence. You can't just throw out an assertion and then ask everybody else to go to the trouble of disproving it.

lajoswinkler's reply was an ad hominem as well so I was just returning the favor.

Sorry, but the right to use the "two wrongs make a right" defence expires some time before puberty.

[Elthy]

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.)

[Seret]

Now, continuing the discussion, I propose burning trash to generate electricity. The air pollution is still problematic, but at the same time, it's a waste management solution. Two birds with one stone, I'd say.

EFW is starting to be pretty widely used, but it's largely seen as a solution to the logistic issues associated with waste disposal, rather than any attempt at a positive energy supply. Local governments tend to build them close to population centres so the waste can be disposed of more easily, but this does raise non-trivial air quality issues.

Like you I tend to come down on the side of pragmatism and grudgingly support it. After all, we have to do something with the waste, and things like RDF are an acceptable alternative to burning coal in the interim while we transition to future energy systems.

[Seret]

Electronics should be recycled and produce lots of nasty stuff when burning.

They don't burn electrical waste. That would be illegal in the EU, and presumably most other places. Generally modern EFW plants incorporate recycling facilities. How well set up for this depends on what your local government has in place. For example, some cities do compost food waste from the kerbside (or use other technologies like anaerobic digestion), and others will quite happily burn it.

[rtxoff]

gpisic: Are those deaths directly related to the work at Chernobyl though? It happened almost 30 years ago, which would make most of the workers 50 years old or more. Old enough that some attrition would likely be occurring anyway.

As far as i know of the life expectancy in the western world 50 years is still at least 20 years too short to die of an natural death. What is this thread now? Denying the dangers of radiation?

How can you people be so disrespectful to all people already died because of it. 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. They are still alive but only because they get treated medicaly and they deaths won't be natural for sure. Also the suffering they are going through is not mentioned by anyone.

Chernobyl itself is still beyond radiation levels suitable to be inhabited. But no, it's easy to troll here and say there are no radiation dangers, and everything is overdone regarding this matter.

[shynung]

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.)

I agree that burning electronics are a bad idea (heavy metals inside), but there are some plastics that can't be recycled easily. These plastics are usually just sent to the incinerator anyway; why not burn it to make electricity?

Also, another idea: ferment biowaste into gas, and burn the resulting gas in a gas turbine generator.

[Red Iron Crown]

*snip*

That's a lot of words you put in my mouth there, gpisic. I just asked a question.

[Seret]

Also, another idea: ferment biowaste into gas, and burn the resulting gas in a gas turbine generator.

That's not a million miles away from IGCC, which is starting to see some use. Gasification is more scalable than things like fermentation and anaerobic digestion.

Organic waste in landfill that naturally rots down produces methane. This needs to be collected and burned anyway, as it's a powerful greenhouse gas otherwise. Some landfills do recover energy from that.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Seret

[peadar1987]

Well the facts:

Honestly i really think this thread should be closed in respect to the 60,000 dead man that gave their life in preventing a desaster of a much greater scale. It's obvious that nothing more productive will come ot of this thread beside lying and denying of the hard facts in favor of a technology mankind is not ready for.

The best evidence for this statement is this thread where a peaceful discussion about alternative energies is simply not possible.

As others have said, 10% of the liquidators dead in 30 years isn't really that much of a shock.

This link: http://www.irpa.net/irpa10/cdrom/00666.pdf has an age profile of a sample of 114,000 liquidators. The life expectancy for men in the Soviet Union in 1990 was 65 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Soviet_Union#Life_expectancy_at_birth). That's the average age people can be expected to live to, so as a gross estimation, half of Soviet people would have died by the age of 65.

Liquidators who were 37 and above in 1986 will be 65 now. From the link I provided, this is, give or take, 40%.

This implies that, purely by natural attrition, you would expect 20% of any group of 37 year olds from 1986 to have died by now, whether they had been liquidators or not (note that I assume all of the group were 37, not even 37-and-older).

The liquidators were absolute heros, and have my eternal and undying gratitude and admiration.

What is really a disrespect to those brave men is using inaccurate hyperbole about them in order to advance your own agenda.

Edited June 19, 2014 by peadar1987

[peadar1987]

Chernobyl itself is still beyond radiation levels suitable to be inhabited. But no, it's easy to troll here and say there are no radiation dangers, and everything is overdone regarding this matter.

More accurately, some pockets inside the restricted zone of Chernobyl are too radioactive to be inhabited.

This:

Is a Rare Earth Metal mine. It's an incredibly toxic scar in the landscape, and yet it is needed for pretty much every piece of electronics in the world today, including, no, especially solar panels.

I wouldn't live in one of those things any more than I'd live in Chernobyl's restricted area.

Edit: m4v has pointed out that I am mistaken about this, the majority of solar panels do not use rare earths in great amounts. However, other forms of renewables do.

Edited June 19, 2014 by peadar1987

[Elthy]

And this is an uranium mine...

I would say that this is a tie.

[peadar1987]

And this is an uranium mine...

I would say that this is a tie.

My point exactly. It's a tie, not a whitewash, where you have perfect, butter-wouldn't-melt renewables, versus nuclear plants killing puppies and kittens, grinding up their irradiated corpses and putting them in or children's breakfast cereal.

[Seret]

All energy sources have negative impacts. Some however do have more negatives than others. Attempts to assess this usual centre around trying to sum up disparate issues like health, land use, and carbon emissions into a single monetary value per unit produced.

What we find when we do this is that renewables have very low (but non-zero) impact. Gas and nuclear are middle of the road, and coal and oil are horrendous.

Some numbers (in 1992 UK pence per kWh):

Coal: 5.4

Oil: 6.05

Gas: 0.39

Nuclear: 0.48

Solar: 0.07

Wind: 0.04

Hydro: 0.04

Source: Pearce et al "The Social Costs of Fuel Cycles" 1992

Edited June 18, 2014 by Seret

[rtxoff]

What is really a disrespect to those brave men is using inaccurate hyperbole about them in order to advance your own agenda.

And what exactly is this agenda? I am very curious what you have to tell about such an agenda.

All of you still not knowing what happened there at chernobyl watch this Youtube video.

However i fear many of you do not have the guts and time to face reality.

[m4v]

Is a Rare Earth Metal mine. It's an incredibly toxic scar in the landscape, and yet it is needed for pretty much every piece of electronics in the world today, including, no, especially solar panels.

Huh... solar cells are made of mostly silicon, and small amounts of boron and phosphorus for the dopants, rare metals aren't used.

[rtxoff]

That's a lot of words you put in my mouth there, gpisic. I just asked a question.

Only the first sentence was meant for you. I apologize for not seperating the rest so it looks like it was for you.

[PakledHostage]

Just as an aside, I just did a quick Google search to find out how many nuclear plants are operating or under construction world wide. I found the European Nuclear Society's website. They are an advocacy group promoting the "advancement of science and engineering in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy". They have a lot of interesting plots. The two that I found most interesting are:

and reactor age in years:

[theend3r]

Huh... solar cells are made of mostly silicon, and small amounts of boron and phosphorus for the dopants, rare metals aren't used.

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.

Even if you count Chernobyl and othe nuclear disasters into the equation, nuclear power is far more eco-friendly. And cheaper. And more stable. And doesn't destroy your terrain like wind or solar power do. And has greater potential for future improvements.

[Elthy]

Nuclear Power isnt cheaper:

England builds 2 new reactors, Hinkley Point C1/C2. They cost about 19 billion Euros and are only pofitable because the british govenment guarantees an extreme price per kW/h (with inflation compensation) and pays when the powerplants cant sell all the power because the market cant take it, both for the next 35 years! The deconstruction and storage for the waste are not included.

The EEG subvention for renewable energy in Germany is lower, not inflation compensated and only for 20 years and still is everyone building wind turbines as fast as possible. Also it gets paid by higher energyprices and not higher taxes, which is better since it encourages to save energy.

Everyone knows that reactors are quite safe as long as everything goes right. But stuff never goes right, someone missreads the manual or a shady building company safes material on the reactor and if something happens you have another landscape not habitable for centurys and billions of costs.

Also renewables dont destroy the landscape. I have 5 200m windgenerators 2km from here and noone is complaining. Solarcells are not placed on a green field, you simply build them on existing roofs.

[PakledHostage]

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.

You know, it just struck me that many of us here may be debating this topic from the perspective of what we think the other guy thinks... Who cares how many sieverts you get from a banana vs. living next to a nuclear power plant? That isn't the issue. We're talking about energy alternatives that will stop or reduce global warming. Even "stupid hippies" like me will agree that nuclear power has its place... when used in moderation. The inarguable catastrophic consequences of a major nuclear disaster must be considered, as must the cost, technology and political problems associated with disposing of low, medium and high level waste. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. What we need to do is phase out oil, natural gas and coal as energy sources. Nuclear is a good alternative in jurisdictions that have the necessary regulatory clout and sufficiently low levels of political corruption that plants can be run safely. Likewise, solar, wind, hydro, etc have their place too.

I think Seret's statistics really highlight this fact. Nuclear, solar, wind and hydro power aren't the boogeymen... Oil, coal and natural gas are.

Edit:

The EEG subvention for renewable energy in Germany is lower, not inflation compensated and only for 20 years and still is everyone building wind turbines as fast as possible. Also it gets paid by higher energyprices and not higher taxes, which is better since it encourages to save energy.

I think this is a valid point. Maybe energy prices are too low? Maybe people would use less if prices were higher. On my city's streets, it seemed that everyone drove an SUV 10 years ago. Today, we see a lot less of them. Indeed we see a lot more electric and economy cars. The other day I saw a Tesla Model S and a Fisker Karma lined up beside each other at a street light. The two coolest and most expensive cars on the block and they were both electric/hybrids! I attribute this change to the cost of energy.

Edited June 18, 2014 by PakledHostage

[rkman]

The main benefic of decentralized energy production is the money save in transport.

Especially with 'fuels' that transport themselves, such as solar and wind.

Bonus advantage is that we don't have to dig those out of the ground. That's a lot of energy and pollution saved, relative to the conventional non-renewable energy sources. Also there's guaranteed enough for the next billion years or so.

[theend3r]

Nuclear Power isnt cheaper:

England builds 2 new reactors, Hinkley Point C1/C2. They cost about 19 billion Euros and are only pofitable because the british govenment guarantees an extreme price per kW/h (with inflation compensation) and pays when the powerplants cant sell all the power because the market cant take it, both for the next 35 years! The deconstruction and storage for the waste are not included.

The EEG subvention for renewable energy in Germany is lower, not inflation compensated and only for 20 years and still is everyone building wind turbines as fast as possible. Also it gets paid by higher energyprices and not higher taxes, which is better since it encourages to save energy.

Ok. Let me rephrase it. Nuclear is more resource effective. If your government does something stupid (like mine guaranteeing insane prices for solar energy - which is universally accepted as a criminal act done purely for speculative purposes we can do nothing about in Czech republic) that shouldn't influence this debate about advantages and disadvantages of specific power sources.

Everyone knows that reactors are quite safe as long as everything goes right. But stuff never goes right, someone missreads the manual or a shady building company safes material on the reactor and if something happens you have another landscape not habitable for centurys and billions of costs.

1) That's impossible with newer reactors. Impossible even if you wanted to do it/tried to sabotage it.

2) Even if it happens it's still safer than renewable sources.