tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post114609041417445878..comments2024-01-19T02:23:51.665-06:00Comments on Journal Wunelle: Let's start with a Bang!wstachourhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12447198404608861357noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146288593095920592006-04-29T00:29:00.000-05:002006-04-29T00:29:00.000-05:00Joshua - We do currently get quite a lot of hydro ...Joshua - We do currently get quite a lot of hydro power, but we are about tapped out. The numbers I can find show that hydro accounts for about 15% of all the electric power generated worldwide. These same sources also make it sound like we have very few sites remaining where we could build more dams to get more power. Most decent remaining sites are on other continents (not that they don't also need clean energy, but it doesn't do us much good here). Also, hydro projects are not particularily environmentally friendly - they come with huge resevoirs to smooth out supply through the dry seasons, and those giant lakes cover a lot of the ecosystem. One project that is in the works up in Canada will flood an area larger than Switzerland.<BR/><BR/>Wunelle - Solar also sounds great, but there isn't as much power there as it seems. The average solar energy deposited on the US is about 125-375 Watts/square meter (this is an average over a 24 hour day). Now for the bad news - the best solar cells we can make today convert about 15% of that energy into electricity, so we can only get around .5 - 1.5 kWh/day from a square meter of cells. A typical US household would need cells covering an area about the same as the house itself, so that doesn't sound too bad. When you look at putting this on top of every single home and business, though, it amounts to an awful lot of panels (and a LOT of batteries). Places where people live in apartments or other high-density housing wouldn't have the area to meet their needs. If you look at replacing a power plant with a solar plant you are talking really huge areas - the 600MW coal plant by me would require something like 20 Million square meters (about 8 square miles) of cells. Big as this is it is a pretty small patch of land when you compare it to the area served by a 600MW plant, so if we wanted to we could meet all of our needs with solar cells (although I have no idea what the environmental impact of manufacturing that many cells and the correspondingly huge number of batteries would be).<BR/><BR/>The entire US needs (around 800,000MW) would require us to cover about 11,000 square miles with cells (or about the whole state of Maryland). Ideally we'd want to be able to generate not only enough to cover our current electricity needs, but also enough to displace our fossil fuel consumption, so we'd need quite a bit more.<BR/><BR/>In the end, may be possible to meet our needs with solar cells, but it would be tough. Maybe the answer is to use nuclear now while that is easy and work toward this sort of massive solar capacity (although I wonder about the ability of much of the world to be able to afford such a system, especially with so many cheaper options around).<BR/><BR/>esbee - I agree that we need to look at the whole-world consequences of our choices. That is what makes nuclear look so good. The 100 nuclear plants in the US have never harmed anyone, and a well-designed plant should not be able to. Fallout comes from nuclear bombs, not nuclear plants. I think that nuclear power can be good for us and for them.<BR/><BR/>Just compare the two power plants near me. The coal plant is fed an ENTIRE coal train a day. That is a mile-long string of cars that burned diesel all the way here from Montana. That is 10,000 tons of coal ground up and converted to exhaust gas every day at this one plant. The nuclear plant has no stack (because it emits no exhaust of any kind) and is powered by a 30 ton pile of uranium for a whole year. At the end of the year that 30 tons of fuel still has 95% of its energy remaining. From an environmental perspective there is just no comparison. If I could shut down one of the two plants near me I'd pick the coal plant in a second.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13860812772132171202noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146252349341739922006-04-28T14:25:00.000-05:002006-04-28T14:25:00.000-05:00Define "we". Because while I get what you are sayi...Define "we". Because while I get what you are saying, the problem lies in the dangers of those who aren't as safe as "we". It's well and good to dismiss such a concern away by saying <I>Then <B>those</B> people will suffer from any fallout, it really doesn't affect <B>us</B></I>, which I've heard others say, but as a huge advocate of... of... "whole-worldism", for lack of a better term, I can't blithely go with the us/them thing.<BR/><BR/>Or are "we" going to regulate "them"?Lucyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10714611053885993657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146251618938099582006-04-28T14:13:00.000-05:002006-04-28T14:13:00.000-05:00I'll let Jeffy answer his own post, but for my 2 c...I'll let Jeffy answer his own post, but for my 2 cents' worth, I agree w/ Joshua about hydro-electric power.<BR/><BR/>Though my big money would be on solar. We are bathed in untold terrawatts of energy every day, and capturing and storing it should not be so daunting, it seems. Battery technology, I guess. Any thoughts on this, O Jeffy-San?wstachourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12447198404608861357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146244101071398792006-04-28T12:08:00.000-05:002006-04-28T12:08:00.000-05:00Your comments on the adequacy of our other energy ...Your comments on the adequacy of our other energy supplies, and on public perception being a problem appear right on target to me. <BR/><BR/>You might be interested to know that Stewart Brand, the founder of The Whole Earth Catalog mentioned in Dr. Moore's linked article above, has also endorsed a techno-thriller novel of nuclear power by a longtime industry insider (me). This story serves as a lay person's guide to the good and the bad of this power source. (There's plenty of both.) The book is available at no cost to readers at RadDecision.blogspot.com - and they seem to like it, judging from their comments on the homepage.James Aachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762006792617588325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146243937658953462006-04-28T12:05:00.000-05:002006-04-28T12:05:00.000-05:00Well, Bil, it is a simple idea that something bad ...Well, Bil, it is a simple idea that something bad happening to someone else makes us feel more lucky, or better. An optimist might say we can realize our blessings that way, a pessimist might say the same thing (but all snotty like).<BR/><BR/>Great post, but I have one question. Hydroelectric dams, however infrequently used, are a cleaner, and even more natural, power source. What is the problem with producing the landscape neccesary for these? By slightly altering the flow of some of our major waterways, we might be able to support millions more homes, for practically nothing. The displacement on wildlif ewould be minimal, and it might even bring some of those waterways closer to the people, who could then enjoy them.<BR/><BR/>Or, not.<BR/><BR/>I really did like the idea of putting the waste back, though. If we got out of our way long enough, that really would be a stroke of genius.Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01675519557526291088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15935045.post-1146203251565966662006-04-28T00:47:00.000-05:002006-04-28T00:47:00.000-05:00Mmmmmm. Salad. (What the hell am I saying?!)Exce...Mmmmmm. Salad. (What the hell am I saying?!)<BR/><BR/>Excellent summary. I think public perception is that WE are responsible for having MADE the material radioactive, which is a great little thing to clear up. I also think that the risk needs to be looked at with perspective: if the bad things done by the burning of fossil fuels were concentrated into episodes, we'd look at the problem quite differently.<BR/><BR/>Airlines make a good analogy: an airplane crashes and it's big news, but the numbers of people killed this way is miniscule. News coverage of highway deaths would take up several full-time TV channels (which, it must be said, would be much watched and would have no trouble finding advertising dollars, in my opinion), but because it's spread out it gets nothing like the coverage of the concentrated death and drama of a plane crash.<BR/><BR/>There's an ugly aspect to the human psyche in here somewhere, but I'm too tired to figure it out!wstachourhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12447198404608861357noreply@blogger.com