NationStates

If we can one day power ourselves using Hasselhoff's music, I think that will be the day we have advanced as a civilization!

That aside, I personally am going in this order of preference (lowest first): Solar, Hydro, Wind.

Solar power is great and all, and they are making much more efficient panels (I'll ignore the toxic byproducts caused from producing them first; I'll evaluate on mere energy generation)... But the thing is, not everywhere has sunlight, and some parts have weaker sunlight than others. If I'm going to SEA Countries, sure! In places like Finland, or England? That might be difficult.

Wind energy works pretty well if you are in a not-too-populated area. Forget about doing it in Singapore because of the population density. But in somewhat more remote areas, or in places where you are sure that no planes would hit you, you are guaranteed energy generation almost all the time. Almost.

Hydroelectric, now that's a big one! The cost of building a dam is pretty damning, but at least the water flows almost continuously. There's also the limitation of disrupting the ecosystem if you built a big dam. If my limited geographical knowledge serves, waterfalls don't really dry up unless the source of the river dries. But this method's a bit hard because of geographical limitations, much more limited than wind. Though... Hey, if you can build a water wheel to generate power in a smaller one-household scale, I think it's worth it to get energy generated 24/7.

Valentine Z wrote:Hydroelectric, now that's a big one! The cost of building a dam is pretty damning, but at least the water flows almost continuously. There's also the limitation of disrupting the ecosystem if you built a big dam. If my limited geographical knowledge serves, waterfalls don't really dry up unless the source of the river dries.

That happens sometimes though. It's the catchment not so much the source of the river, but it can dry up.

If there's a source like wind or solar nearby, excess electricity can be used to pump water uphill from one dam to another, effectively storing the electricity.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Valentine Z wrote:Hydroelectric, now that's a big one! The cost of building a dam is pretty damning, but at least the water flows almost continuously. There's also the limitation of disrupting the ecosystem if you built a big dam. If my limited geographical knowledge serves, waterfalls don't really dry up unless the source of the river dries.

That happens sometimes though. It's the catchment not so much the source of the river, but it can dry up.

If there's a source like wind or solar nearby, excess electricity can be used to pump water uphill from one dam to another, effectively storing the electricity.

Agree! A combination of systems is always the best thing. I love green energy as much as the next guy, but I probably won't really on just one of them unless I really need to.

Burn garbage.

Every week in the US, we bury enough garbage in our landfills to fill the Golden Gate Bridge 12 times over. This is terribly unsustainable; there’s only so much land. Not to mention the serious environmental damage we’re doing. Landfills are an institutionalized form of dumping.

We ought to process and burn our garbage in plants to generate power. Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.

I once met a man who ran a private landfill where he used this business model. He claimed that the power generated at his facility powered 14,000 local homes.

Krasny-Volny wrote: Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.

You can still get power from landfills via methane gas capture, so landfills aren't entirely useless.

Nuclear power and Natural Gas, including bio gases, are the only realistic options. All else is either of marginal utility (wind, solar to a lesser extent) or an ecological disaster on their own (hydro electric, coal).

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Krasny-Volny wrote: Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.

You can still get power from landfills via methane gas capture, so landfills aren't entirely useless.

You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage

Thermodolia wrote:

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:You can still get power from landfills via methane gas capture, so landfills aren't entirely useless.

You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage

We must lump the island-worth of garbage into a ball and launch it into space!

... That is until it became a problem a thousand years later.

Thermodolia wrote:You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage

We don't burn garbage in landfill. We let it fester in a controlled environment (that is, to prevent leachate from leaking as well as gases), with some landfills having methane capture facilities close-by.

You can also just burn garbage. It's apparently fairly clean, with high temperatures and oxygen enrichment, and produces an energy surplus.

Afaik know those are only pilot programs and they probably sort their garbage quite carefully.

Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J

And it's not regulation that's causing the problems

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a

If you're going to link the article, the least you can do is summarize it.

1 Design

Nuclear contractors in the United States and Europe have tended to begin construction before they have completed the design phase. It's important that the design be complete when construction begins, Petti said, and it matters who's on the design team:

"Making sure that the design is complete, making sure that you have fabricators and constructors on your design team early so that you know that what you design can be built. This was not done for certain projects."

2 Construction Management

Nuclear contractors can better manage projects by "making sure everyone has skin in the game, making sure the process can deal with and adapt quickly to change, because change is inevitable in something as complex as this."

If the construction system doesn't adapt to change it gets delayed, Petti said, "and as construction schedules drag out you’re paying interest and you’ve got a lot of people on the site that are not being productive."

3 Supply Chain and Workforce

Because reactor construction has stalled in Europe and the U.S., the West no longer has a reliable supply of spare parts and trained workers, Petti said.

"There have been problems, there’s been an atrophy in the West because we haven’t built a plant, whether it be in Europe or the United States, in 30 years. The successful vendors have really strong supply chains, like South Korea."

So, the first one can be changed with legislation. The second one sounds like vague corporatespeak. The third one is exclusively caused by the lack of momentum for nuclear plants.

In other words, a significant factor for why we shouldn't be building nuclear plants is that we're not building nuclear plants. Its a classic feedback loop, of the same mechanism behind the "employers want someone with 15 years of experience, but you can't get that experience without being employed" bullshit.

It is readily solved by building more nuclear plants.

As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.

Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.

The primary reason to use uranium instead of thorium is that you can use uranium plants as an intermediate step in the manufacture of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Krasny-Volny wrote:Burn garbage.

Every week in the US, we bury enough garbage in our landfills to fill the Golden Gate Bridge 12 times over. This is terribly unsustainable; there’s only so much land. Not to mention the serious environmental damage we’re doing. Landfills are an institutionalized form of dumping.

We ought to process and burn our garbage in plants to generate power. Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.

I once met a man who ran a private landfill where he used this business model. He claimed that the power generated at his facility powered 14,000 local homes.

Do you realize how much carbon that produces?

Just go full nuclear and use the excess clean energy to recycle the garbage.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:

Novus America wrote:We never tried it because it is not practical.
You would have to build absurdly huge barges, deal with the fact the ocean moves, that seawater and salt ruins smooth surfaces, etc.

Or you could tie a bunch of floatation devices to the shore and put the mirrors on stands that are on the floatation devices. As long as they're well above the wave height they should be fine.

Novus America wrote:“Unused” space, even if you are not using it for human development still has use. Environmental conservation is a thing, which requires efficient use of resources to avoid excessive footprint from mining, etc.

Uranium mining causes environmental harm too.

Novus America wrote:And you admit you cannot solve the material usage problem.

Not completely. But we can take it one step at a time.

The focus on thermal!solar is primarily for how simple it is to construct and the ability to use unskilled labour displaced by immigration and automation. Small scale hydroelectricity, waterwheels, and wind turbines all have a role to play too.

If they are floating they mirrors would have to be gyroscopically stabilized. Otherwise they would not stay in alignment with the tower. And they would still face the problems of sea spray covering the reflectors with droplets of salt water which would quickly destroy them.
It is not a practical idea.

Yes Uranium mining has an impact but much LESS per the amount of energy produced.
Nuclear produces by far the most energy per materials expended.

Which is why it is by far the most environmentally friendly.

It is reliable and compact. Solar is not.
That is not to say that solar does not have a place. But it we do not have the materials and space to feasibly replace nuclear in a manner that does not cause great environment harm.

Jack Thomas Lang wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You can’t burn the garbage all at once. Do you have it sit in a landfill capture the methane and burn it and the garbage

We don't burn garbage in landfill. We let it fester in a controlled environment (that is, to prevent leachate from leaking as well as gases), with some landfills having methane capture facilities close-by.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I’m not saying we burn garbage in the landfill I’m saying that it has to sit while we wait to burn it. So while we are waiting to burn it we collect the methane

Grenartia wrote:

Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J

And it's not regulation that's causing the problems

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a

If you're going to link the article, the least you can do is summarize it.

1 Design

Nuclear contractors in the United States and Europe have tended to begin construction before they have completed the design phase. It's important that the design be complete when construction begins, Petti said, and it matters who's on the design team:

"Making sure that the design is complete, making sure that you have fabricators and constructors on your design team early so that you know that what you design can be built. This was not done for certain projects."

2 Construction Management

Nuclear contractors can better manage projects by "making sure everyone has skin in the game, making sure the process can deal with and adapt quickly to change, because change is inevitable in something as complex as this."

If the construction system doesn't adapt to change it gets delayed, Petti said, "and as construction schedules drag out you’re paying interest and you’ve got a lot of people on the site that are not being productive."

3 Supply Chain and Workforce

Because reactor construction has stalled in Europe and the U.S., the West no longer has a reliable supply of spare parts and trained workers, Petti said.

"There have been problems, there’s been an atrophy in the West because we haven’t built a plant, whether it be in Europe or the United States, in 30 years. The successful vendors have really strong supply chains, like South Korea."

So, the first one can be changed with legislation. The second one sounds like vague corporatespeak. The third one is exclusively caused by the lack of momentum for nuclear plants.

In other words, a significant factor for why we shouldn't be building nuclear plants is that we're not building nuclear plants. Its a classic feedback loop, of the same mechanism behind the "employers want someone with 15 years of experience, but you can't get that experience without being employed" bullshit.

It is readily solved by building more nuclear plants.

As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.

Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.

The primary reason to use uranium instead of thorium is that you can use uranium plants as an intermediate step in the manufacture of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Krasny-Volny wrote:Burn garbage.

Every week in the US, we bury enough garbage in our landfills to fill the Golden Gate Bridge 12 times over. This is terribly unsustainable; there’s only so much land. Not to mention the serious environmental damage we’re doing. Landfills are an institutionalized form of dumping.

We ought to process and burn our garbage in plants to generate power. Cheap source of power and we’re getting rid of this stuff, forever, instead of shoving it under a finite amount of topsoil and pretending it isn’t there.

I once met a man who ran a private landfill where he used this business model. He claimed that the power generated at his facility powered 14,000 local homes.

Do you realize how much carbon that produces?

Just go full nuclear and use the excess clean energy to recycle the garbage.

Not all garbage can be recycled. For the waste that can’t be recycled we burn for fuel.

Trump says there's a lot of energy at his rallies. Maybe we can use them as a power source

For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.

Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.

It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.

Nuclear is superior to coal already.

Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.

Nuclear has been able to compete with coal for the last 70+ years.

Coal is deadly, expensive, and honestly not worth it

Novus America wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.

It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.

Nuclear is superior to coal already.

Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost. Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?

Thermodolia wrote:

Antityranicals wrote:For grid power, coal all the way, baby. It's cheap, it's plentiful, and it's easy to store. Petroleum's a close second, but its best use is in plane and car engines. Running a grid on wind and solar is quite simply a joke, and while nuclear's cool, it's just not advanced enough yet to compete with coal.

Nuclear has been able to compete with coal for the last 70+ years.

Coal is deadly, expensive, and honestly not worth it

If that's so, why are people so worried about killing coal? If coal's just that expensive, why not just let it die? There's a reason why people use coal, and it's because coal is king.

Antityranicals wrote:

Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.

Nuclear is superior to coal already.

Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost.

No it’s because natural gas is easy to extract. Way more so than coal. Plus it doesn’t kill the same amount of people.

Either way Nuclear is far superior to both.

Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?

Because they don’t give a fuck about the environment or the health of its people? I don’t really think that using China as an example is a good idea.

Neu California wrote:My main criticism of nuclear is cost and inability to be built on time and on budget, which, per industry reports, is making it too expensive to compete with wind and solar.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ener ... SKBN1W909J

And it's not regulation that's causing the problems

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... 57d3145d1a

As to thorium, I'm skeptical. The claims of how amazing it will be and how much better than uranium it is and how it's the best power source instantly trigger my "sounds too good to be true" sense. Sources are lacking (and older, as in 2014 older, based on a cursory Google search). One specific criticism I have is about how thorium is everywhere. This would be a great plus if (IF) uranium itself was a major cost in nuclear power production.

Thing is, it's not. to my understanding, uranium is cheap, relatively speaking, which is part of why opex (operating expenditure, running it) for nuclear is so low. The problem is, as my sources above, and in the op, say, capex (capital expedinture, building it) which needs to be recouped for economic viability (they're not going to build it unless they can make money off of it) which I'm not convinced thorium would fix.

I recommend watching this video as it's both informative about the prospects of thorium and it's not a complete bore either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjM9E6d42-M

Antityranicals wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Nuclear has been able to compete with coal for the last 70+ years.

Coal is deadly, expensive, and honestly not worth it

If that's so, why are people so worried about killing coal? If coal's just that expensive, why not just let it die? There's a reason why people use coal, and it's because coal is king.

People are worried about losing their jobs. Coal isn’t really king. Hasn’t been for awhile. Nuclear is King

Antityranicals wrote:

Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.

Nuclear is superior to coal already.

Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost. Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?

Because China is run by a dictatorship that doesn't give a damn how much particulate matter people breathe in.

Antityranicals wrote:

Novus America wrote:
It is actually now more expensive than natural gas, but the main downside is it kills tons of people and does the most environment harm.

Nuclear is superior to coal already.

Not really. Coal is practically banned by uber-overregulation, which is why it's so expensive. Without that overregulation, it would be less than a third of its current cost. Otherwise, why would China use so much of it?

It would then kill far more people if completely unregulated. And the PRC uses so much because it has little natural gas, and even less regard for human life.