RE>C

[Atomic Utopia]

According to this RE<C, a google program to study the possibility of renewable energy at a cost less than coal, has failed to show that, not only that but failed to show renewables as usable.

For those too lazy to read it said that renewable energy cannot meet demand without us going back to pre industrial standards of living. It also stated that what the world needs is a dispatchable, carbon free, as expensive as natural gas, energy source if we intend to tackle climate change.

So what say you, the denizens of NS? Is does this mean that we are all doomed? Is nuclear here to save the day? Or is this report not correct and renewable energy can still succeed?

Well, will you look at that, you say we need a dispatchable energy source, that is cheap and carbon free. Hmm... I wonder what that could be.

You cant possibly be referring to the one that has been around from the late 1950s and that everyone hates, nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is not cheap, but not terribly expensive, it is also extremely safe (compared to fossil fuels) and generates no CO2. Plus with fast reactors and uranium seawater extraction we could be powering ourselves for the next couple of hundred million years or so.

To put it simply this, I think, is merely another nail in the coffin for renewable energy, and more support for nuclear.

[Avenio]

Well, will you look at that, you say we need a dispatchable energy source, that is cheap and carbon free. Hmm... I wonder what that could be.

Orbital mirrors directing sunlight onto giant banks of photovoltaics in the Sahara, obviously.

[Estva]

Once again, nuclear energy proves its merits.

[Sun Wukong]

Problem Solved.

[Atomic Utopia]

Well, will you look at that, you say we need a dispatchable energy source, that is cheap and carbon free. Hmm... I wonder what that could be.

Orbital mirrors directing light onto giant banks of photovoltaics in the Sahara, obviously.

And that would be worse than using solar panels in the sahara. First you have to lift the mirrors into orbit. Then you have to service them occasionally to keep them in orbit due to drag, costing you a lot. Then you must point those mirrors at the solar panels, using RCS propellant that must be refueled occasionally. So no, it would not be practical.
(if this is sarcasm I responded to, please tell me)

[Avenio]

And that would be worse than using solar panels in the sahara. First you have to lift the mirrors into orbit.

Space elevators.

Then you have to service them occasionally to keep them in orbit due to drag, costing you a lot. Then you must point those mirrors at the solar panels, using RCS propellant that must be refueled occasionally.

Ever heard of a statite?

[Scomagia]

Why are you acting like this is new information, OP? We've known for quite some time that renewables can't provide all of our energy on their own. The obvious path to take is a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

[Atomic Utopia]

And that would be worse than using solar panels in the sahara. First you have to lift the mirrors into orbit.

Space elevators.

Then you have to service them occasionally to keep them in orbit due to drag, costing you a lot. Then you must point those mirrors at the solar panels, using RCS propellant that must be refueled occasionally.

Ever heard of a statite?

1) space elevators are not anywhere near our current abilities

2) Yes, and those still need to use RCS propellant to change direction.

The mirrors in space idea is flawed because of three things I will elaborate upon in this post now that I have responded to your main points.

1) Cost of launch assuming space elevator would be $220 (united states) per Kg, to put it simply it would still cost a lot for relatively little material.

2) To turn the mirrors to focus light upon the target you will need monoprop, and this monoprop will need to be shipped up there, increasing costs.

3) What makes solar sails work would work against this, so more fuel is needed.

It would be cheaper and safer to use nuclear instead of this.

[Atomic Utopia]

Why are you acting like this is new information, OP? We've known for quite some time that renewables can't provide all of our energy on their own. The obvious path to take is a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

I do not act like the information is new, however the people saying it is. This program (which was received with high hopes by the pro renewable community) failed to show that it is physically possible to use renewables as a energy source.

So I ask you this, why use wind and solar along with nuclear when they are so terrifically inefficient? Why not use only nuclear energy?

[Avenio]

1) space elevators are not anywhere near our current abilities

Nonsense. It's only 20 years away.

2) Yes, and those still need to use RCS propellant to change direction.

Not at all. Great big orbital mirrors are also great big solar sails.

The mirrors in space idea is flawed because of three things I will elaborate upon in this post now that I have responded to your main points.

1) Cost of launch assuming space elevator would be $220 (united states) per Kg, to put it simply it would still cost a lot for relatively little material.

You don't need a huge amount of material to build a parabolic mirror. Just some good materials science.

2) To turn the mirrors to focus light upon the target you will need monoprop, and this monoprop will need to be shipped up there, increasing costs.

3) What makes solar sails work would work against this, so more fuel is needed.

Networks of orbital mirrors can use each others' radiation pressures to maneuver.

[Scomagia]

Why are you acting like this is new information, OP? We've known for quite some time that renewables can't provide all of our energy on their own. The obvious path to take is a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

I do not act like the information is new, however the people saying it is. This program (which was received with high hopes by the pro renewable community) failed to show that it is physically possible to use renewables as a energy source.

So I ask you this, why use wind and solar along with nuclear when they are so terrifically inefficient? Why not use only nuclear energy?

Solar is inefficient because of current technology, so there's no reason to believe that it will always be inefficient. Wind I'm not so sure about.

[Atomic Utopia]

1) space elevators are not anywhere near our current abilities

Neither is the capability to build enough fission or fusion reactors to meet all of the world's energy needs.

2) Yes, and those still need to use RCS propellant to change direction.

Not at all. Great big orbital mirrors are also great big solar sails.

The mirrors in space idea is flawed because of three things I will elaborate upon in this post now that I have responded to your main points.

1) Cost of launch assuming space elevator would be $220 (united states) per Kg, to put it simply it would still cost a lot for relatively little material.

You don't need a huge amount of material to build a parabolic mirror. Just some good materials science.

2) To turn the mirrors to focus light upon the target you will need monoprop, and this monoprop will need to be shipped up there, increasing costs.

3) What makes solar sails work would work against this, so more fuel is needed.

Networks of orbital mirrors can use each others' radiation pressures to maneuver.

1) Look at France, with their grid supplied primarily with nuclear energy.

2) but you need one hell of a lot of resources to get it up there

3) Source, please.

I do not act like the information is new, however the people saying it is. This program (which was received with high hopes by the pro renewable community) failed to show that it is physically possible to use renewables as a energy source.

So I ask you this, why use wind and solar along with nuclear when they are so terrifically inefficient? Why not use only nuclear energy?

Solar is inefficient because of current technology, so there's no reason to believe that it will always be inefficient. Wind I'm not so sure about.

Solar has an average capacity factor of 18%, no technology (that I know of) is going to change the weather or shorten the night, plus solar peaks inconveniently 2 hours ahead of peak consumption.

[Margno]

Well yeah, we already knew that. We just need to cut back on coal relative to other power sources until we can transition into a nuclear based energy sector.

[Avenio]

1) Look at France, with their grid supplied primarily with nuclear energy.

Yes, France, a first-world nation who built most of their reactors in the 1970's. What's Africa going to do? Do you think the West is going to be eager to pour money into building enough reactors to power a new industrial revolution in that continent?

2) but you need one hell of a lot of resources to get it up there

A heck of a lot less than is needed to build hundreds of new reactors here on Earth.

3) Source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail#Satellites

[Northwest Slobovia]

Why are you acting like this is new information, OP? We've known for quite some time that renewables can't provide all of our energy on their own. The obvious path to take is a combination of wind, solar, and nuclear power.

I do not act like the information is new, however the people saying it is. This program (which was received with high hopes by the pro renewable community) failed to show that it is physically possible to use renewables as a energy source.

They make no such claim. They said that it's not economically possible. World of difference.

[Atomic Utopia]

1) Look at France, with their grid supplied primarily with nuclear energy.

Yes, France, a first-world nation who built most of their reactors in the 1970's. What's Africa going to do? Do you think the West is going to be eager to pour money into building enough reactors to power a new industrial revolution in that continent?

2) but you need one hell of a lot of resources to get it up there

A heck of a lot less than is needed to build hundreds of new reactors here on Earth.

3) Source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail#Satellites

1) Are they going to be willing to pay for your much more expensive solution for that continent?

2) This should be a learning experience for you

3) It stated that it would have to be at the polar terminator, and building solar panels at any one of the poles would be pretty darn near impossible, not to mention the losses through transfer.

[The All-Natural Future]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

[Scomagia]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

Actually, it doesn't. The list is pretty fucking short.

[The All-Natural Future]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

Actually, it doesn't. The list is pretty fucking short.

The effects of nuclear power, which is a fascist tool of central global control, is this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-c ... ncer/20908

[Atomic Utopia]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

The first and second only killed about 3,000 people, nothing compared to what coal does in the united states alone. To put it simply if you include these incidents you still find that nuclear is extremely safe.

That last one had no effect on humans or animals in the vicinity, why do you even count it?

[The All-Natural Future]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

The first and second only killed about 3,000 people, nothing compared to what coal does in the united states alone. To put it simply if you include these incidents you still find that nuclear is extremely safe.

That last one had no effect on humans or animals in the vicinity, why do you even count it?

It seems like you are not aware of the ground breaking work of Helen Caldecott and Alexey Yablokov.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-c ... ncer/20908

http://enenews.com/caldicott-all-of-jap ... of-in-hist

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... oj1qgVNUqQ
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... .html?_r=0

[Utceforp]

Nuclear power is NOT safe... chernobyl... fukushima... three miIe island... the list goes on and on...

Nuclear power is way, way safer than everyone thinks, and its only going to get safer when Thorium power becomes more common, and eventually someday fusion power.

[Scomagia]

Actually, it doesn't. The list is pretty fucking short.

The effects of nuclear power, which is a fascist tool of central global control, is this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-c ... ncer/20908

You really suck at this whole "reliable sources" thing.

[The All-Natural Future]

The effects of nuclear power, which is a fascist tool of central global control, is this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-c ... ncer/20908

You really suck at this whole "reliable sources" thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... .html?_r=0

Lets not have any pretending that someone who supports mainstream sources will have a problem with the new York Times.

[Avenio]

1) Are they going to be willing to pay for your much more expensive solution for that continent?

That's the great part - you get such fantastic returns that there's more than enough energy to go around.

2) This should be a learning experience for you

Generation III reactors cost about 9.9 billion dollars a pop - and costs are still climbing. Multiply that by 59 (the number of France's current nuclear reactors, and a good guesstimate at how much it'd cost to run a Western state off of just nuclear power) and you're up to $683 billion dollars.

3) It stated that it would have to be at the polar terminator, and building solar panels at any one of the poles would be pretty darn near impossible, not to mention the losses through transfer.

That's if you only have one solar satellite. Multiple satellites can use each others' radiation pressure to modify their orbits and inclinations.