Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
At IPC 2015 I saw several proposals for SPS systems. One was geosynchronous; the rest were MEO. There's an obvious issue with LEO in that the Earth shadows the system for a significant time. The speaker (from NREL I think) talked about the tradeoffs with steering, shadowing, cleanliness of the orbit, distance and loss, size of the transmitter array, number of satellites required etc. Geosynchronous was the "easy" one since it never moves once it's there - and you only need one satellite - but the TX array has to be much larger.cricketo said:
billvon said:
Yeah, exactly my thinking. Even in GEO it can be a constellation, a set of smaller satellites focused on the same receiving end. Putting a single system out that far may be decades away if possible at all. Smaller satellites focusing on the same receiver is doable as soon as we have something like BFR flying larger payloads.
sendler2112
100 kW
Has anyone published an ER/EI study on orbitting solar PV? It requires most of the same materials as a ground based system, plus the antenna arrays. In order to gain a 2.5X? capacity factor and 24/7 output. And requires launching 100's of tons to GEO. Does anyone think we will have electric rockets?
classicalgas
100 W
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 138
"Talking about Hydroelectricity should be considered an IQ failure test on this thread and be banned complete with their IP-firewalled from the ES forums server for wasting folks time."
So should calling nuclear power "green".
Once again, low co2 emissions (co2 is released when making nuclear fuel and nuclear powerplants) does not define "green"
So should calling nuclear power "green".
Once again, low co2 emissions (co2 is released when making nuclear fuel and nuclear powerplants) does not define "green"
In that case, solar and wind isn't "green" either. CO2 is released when making the aluminum, glass, EVA and cells that solar panels require - and a lot of CO2 is released when you make all the concrete and fiberglass required by wind turbines.classicalgas said:
So nothing's really green. Does that mean it doesn't matter which source we choose?
classicalgas
100 W
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 138
"The Chernobyl exclusion zone is the healthiest ecosystem in the Ukraine. Several species we thought were extinct now live there in large numbers. People live there; others take tours through it.
From that perspective, the Chernobyl accident is the best thing to happen to that area ecologically since man arrived. Over 100 people live within the exclusion zone, and are in general outliving the people who stayed away. This is, of course, more a statement on the damage man does to the environment (and to himself) than anything about nuclear power being "good" for either - but claiming it is "uninhabitable" is alarmist nonsense."
Oh really?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/07/chernobyl-wolves-radiation-mutation-animals/
and this quote from a popular science blog...
"Even today radiation levels are so high that workers responsible for maintaining the concrete and steel bunker built over the destroyed reactor are only allowed to work for five hours a day for one month before taking 15 days of rest to avoid radiation poisoning. Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years. "
If it were safe, population density would be the same there as anywhere else in the Ukraine with the natural resources of the exclusion zone.
From another NatGeo article on the animals in the exclusion zone..."While Beasley stops short of calling the landscape “ruined” by radioactive contamination, he knows that it will be there for centuries or millennia, in the case of plutonium. "
Animals are doing ok, that doesn't make it safely "habitable"
In Namie, the town worst hit by Fukoshima radiation fallout..."Just 873 people, or under 5 percent, of an original population of 17,613 have returned. Many are scared — with some obvious justification — that their homes and surroundings are still unsafe. Most of the returnees are elderly. Only six children are enrolled at the gleaming new elementary school. This is not a place for young families.
Four-fifths of Namie’s geographical area is mountain and forest, impossible to decontaminate, still deemed unsafe to return. When it rains, the radioactive cesium in the mountains flows into rivers and underground water sources close to the town."
From that perspective, the Chernobyl accident is the best thing to happen to that area ecologically since man arrived. Over 100 people live within the exclusion zone, and are in general outliving the people who stayed away. This is, of course, more a statement on the damage man does to the environment (and to himself) than anything about nuclear power being "good" for either - but claiming it is "uninhabitable" is alarmist nonsense."
Oh really?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/07/chernobyl-wolves-radiation-mutation-animals/
and this quote from a popular science blog...
"Even today radiation levels are so high that workers responsible for maintaining the concrete and steel bunker built over the destroyed reactor are only allowed to work for five hours a day for one month before taking 15 days of rest to avoid radiation poisoning. Ukrainian officials estimate the area will not be safe for human life again for another 20,000 years. "
If it were safe, population density would be the same there as anywhere else in the Ukraine with the natural resources of the exclusion zone.
From another NatGeo article on the animals in the exclusion zone..."While Beasley stops short of calling the landscape “ruined” by radioactive contamination, he knows that it will be there for centuries or millennia, in the case of plutonium. "
Animals are doing ok, that doesn't make it safely "habitable"
In Namie, the town worst hit by Fukoshima radiation fallout..."Just 873 people, or under 5 percent, of an original population of 17,613 have returned. Many are scared — with some obvious justification — that their homes and surroundings are still unsafe. Most of the returnees are elderly. Only six children are enrolled at the gleaming new elementary school. This is not a place for young families.
Four-fifths of Namie’s geographical area is mountain and forest, impossible to decontaminate, still deemed unsafe to return. When it rains, the radioactive cesium in the mountains flows into rivers and underground water sources close to the town."
classicalgas
100 W
- Joined
- May 14, 2016
- Messages
- 138
"So nothing's really green. Does that mean it doesn't matter which source we choose?"
Are you missing the point on purpose? Nuclear energy isn't "green" simply by not releasing co2 during power production, it's a polluting as oil or coal, in that all release long term toxins into the environment, both during the extraction of energy (mining/drilling) and as the result of failures of infrastructure (oil spills, rail disasters, plant melt downs) Solar and wind are both safer(in that failures don't damage large areas) and are less responsible for toxic by products in manufacture and operation.
Once again, fuel(oil, coal, natural gas, plutonium) get's used *once*...to keep making power, you need to mine more. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, once the infrastructure is built, no more toxic fuel needs to be mined to keep making power. Maintenance, replacement, sure. But that's clean compared to mining/drilling/transport of fuel.
Are you missing the point on purpose? Nuclear energy isn't "green" simply by not releasing co2 during power production, it's a polluting as oil or coal, in that all release long term toxins into the environment, both during the extraction of energy (mining/drilling) and as the result of failures of infrastructure (oil spills, rail disasters, plant melt downs) Solar and wind are both safer(in that failures don't damage large areas) and are less responsible for toxic by products in manufacture and operation.
Once again, fuel(oil, coal, natural gas, plutonium) get's used *once*...to keep making power, you need to mine more. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, once the infrastructure is built, no more toxic fuel needs to be mined to keep making power. Maintenance, replacement, sure. But that's clean compared to mining/drilling/transport of fuel.
billvon said:
It depends on what energy source is used to produce them, you're well aware
For example, a nearby town here in Oregon runs a large steel operation (http://www.cascadesteel.com/) powered by electric furnaces. Furthermore, CO2 itself isn't bad, it's the net increase that is bad. A synthesized conventional fuel would be green if its production doesn't result in net CO2 increase.Cool. Then if you build nuclear plants using renewable sources, it's 100% green. Sounds like you've just solved another problem.cricketo said:It depends on what energy source is used to produce them, you're well aware
You can recycle used nuclear fuel almost indefinitely. Google MOX fuel and breeder reactors.
Hillhater
100 TW
No , but i suspect you are missing the focal point of this debate, which is AGW /CO2 and the predicted effect on the climate.classicalgas said:
TheBeastie
1 MW
New large coal power station has got the green light to be built in Germany, as they shut down their old nuclear power-stations which are of course their biggest source of dispatchable 24/7 low co2 electricity.
https://twitter.com/Elstatistik/status/1109472743853051909
https://www.uniper.energy/de/datteln-4
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Datteln_Power_Station
https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-datteln-commission/uniper-defends-datteln-4-plant-in-german-coal-debate-idUSL8N1WS1AY
Looks like it will be a "clean coal" level 1 style coal power-station where it strips practically all particulate matter and emits nothing but pure co2 into the atmosphere, ideally. So no different than what human lungs do when the beath out co2.
This coal power-station won't be in any way trying to stop emitting co2 other than try to run efficiently and not emit other particulate matter that is found in coal.
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fired-power-plant/
Approximately 6,300 people participated in the construction of the project, which is expected to create 500 operational jobs, including 200 direct jobs at the power plant.
Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant details
The Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant will be equipped with an advanced multi-step flue gas purification system, which will eliminate nitrogen oxides, dust and sulphur from the flue gas.
It's still remarkable to see Germany build new coal power-stations when Germany has thrown just about everything including the kitchen sink at renewables.
Germany has well over "100%" renewables of Wind/Solar capacity installed, but it's not even remotely nearly enough, they need much more wind/sun. I believe that you need in general about 1000% wind/solar installed to have a clear shot and running truly on renewables
Once Germany starts shutting down their aging nuclear power-stations the typical sight of Germany emitting 10 times the co2 of France which is exactly what Germany is emitting now will go up significantly, and it will probably be a typical sight on electricitymap to see Germany emitting 20-30 times more co2 than France.
If we were comparing these two countries emissions as like with cars then the "Germany renewables" technology would be considered a complete joke.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DE&remote=true
I thought I would include this video on co2, some might find it interesting.
Its a scientific fact that when you "loose body weight" its practically entirely all via your lungs via co2 emissions.
This is because the human body is carbon-based.
When you exercise causing heavy breathing you are accelerating the chemical exchange of carbon out of your body in the form of co2. All humans merely breathing out co2 out emits any single countries electricity emissions in the world, as far as I remember the data.
This video breaks it all down quite well
https://youtu.be/vuIlsN32WaE
[youtube]vuIlsN32WaE[/youtube]
https://twitter.com/Elstatistik/status/1109472743853051909
https://www.uniper.energy/de/datteln-4
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Datteln_Power_Station
https://www.reuters.com/article/uniper-datteln-commission/uniper-defends-datteln-4-plant-in-german-coal-debate-idUSL8N1WS1AY
Looks like it will be a "clean coal" level 1 style coal power-station where it strips practically all particulate matter and emits nothing but pure co2 into the atmosphere, ideally. So no different than what human lungs do when the beath out co2.
This coal power-station won't be in any way trying to stop emitting co2 other than try to run efficiently and not emit other particulate matter that is found in coal.
https://www.power-technology.com/projects/datteln-4-coal-fired-power-plant/
Approximately 6,300 people participated in the construction of the project, which is expected to create 500 operational jobs, including 200 direct jobs at the power plant.
Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant details
The Datteln 4 coal-fired power plant will be equipped with an advanced multi-step flue gas purification system, which will eliminate nitrogen oxides, dust and sulphur from the flue gas.
It's still remarkable to see Germany build new coal power-stations when Germany has thrown just about everything including the kitchen sink at renewables.
Germany has well over "100%" renewables of Wind/Solar capacity installed, but it's not even remotely nearly enough, they need much more wind/sun. I believe that you need in general about 1000% wind/solar installed to have a clear shot and running truly on renewables
Once Germany starts shutting down their aging nuclear power-stations the typical sight of Germany emitting 10 times the co2 of France which is exactly what Germany is emitting now will go up significantly, and it will probably be a typical sight on electricitymap to see Germany emitting 20-30 times more co2 than France.
If we were comparing these two countries emissions as like with cars then the "Germany renewables" technology would be considered a complete joke.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=DE&remote=true
I thought I would include this video on co2, some might find it interesting.
Its a scientific fact that when you "loose body weight" its practically entirely all via your lungs via co2 emissions.
This is because the human body is carbon-based.
When you exercise causing heavy breathing you are accelerating the chemical exchange of carbon out of your body in the form of co2. All humans merely breathing out co2 out emits any single countries electricity emissions in the world, as far as I remember the data.
This video breaks it all down quite well
https://youtu.be/vuIlsN32WaE
[youtube]vuIlsN32WaE[/youtube]
sendler2112
100 kW
Any countries below 100gm/ kWh were either fortunate to have huge hydro resources or use nuclear or both.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=map&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false
.
jonescg
100 MW
TheBeastie said:
1000%. Really?
As in, building 10 times the nameplate rating of the equipment? Or 10 times the nominal generation rating?
10 times the nameplate is very generous - I would have said 4 times as much, but with the right balance of battery storage in the mix it may only need to be 2x.
Some reading for you courtesy of the brainwashed hippies at CSIRO:
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP178771&dsid=DS2
sendler2112
100 kW
Germany already has nearly 2X wind and solar capacity but it averages about 40% of electricity annually. Which is only 9% of their total primary energy annually.
.
Scale
.
.
Scale
.
billvon said:?? It's still 100% green in that case. It doesn't generate any waste for decades - and even then that waste can be recycled.cricketo said:It can be 100% green until you start delivering fuel
That just goes to show there isn't one good definition. You think Nuclear is green because the dirt can be contained, and I think only energy originating through natural processes is green. You could say "but fission is natural", and then there will be another circle of arguments.
Neither is completely green. Solar panel manufacture is not green, nor is wind turbine manufacture. But solar/wind/nuclear all return far more energy, with far fewer waste products, than coal or natural gas.cricketo said:
I recognize that a lot of people don't like nuclear power. It's dangerous and you have to deal with the waste. But we are facing a much bigger problem than nuclear waste - climate change. If you're really serious about stopping (or even significantly slowing) climate change, nuclear has to be a part of that effort. Period.
If you're not serious about slowing down climate change, then solar/wind/biogas etc are all nice options that will be green. But be clear about that up front, so everyone knows what you are trying to accomplish.
sendler2112
100 kW
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-03-25/resilience-the-global-challenge-and-the-human-predicament/
.
Air you can breathe.
Water you can drink.
Food you can eat.
Clothing you can wear.
Shelter you can count on.
Energy for warmth and cooking.
Safety from internal and external harm.
Transportation of some kind.
Communications of some kind.
Ways to learn what you need to know.
Tools to do what you need to do.
Healthcare of some kind.
Justice of some kind.
Community that holds you and those you love.
.
Air you can breathe.
Water you can drink.
Food you can eat.
Clothing you can wear.
Shelter you can count on.
Energy for warmth and cooking.
Safety from internal and external harm.
Transportation of some kind.
Communications of some kind.
Ways to learn what you need to know.
Tools to do what you need to do.
Healthcare of some kind.
Justice of some kind.
Community that holds you and those you love.
Similar threads
