The Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin writes a piece on Sarah Palin's climate skepticism that seems, like so many articles in this genre, to dance around something obvious.
In the piece, upon finding out that Palin doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change, one Alaska enviro is quoted saying "now I know why" Palin fought emission reductions.
That activist is pretending, and us readers are supposed to pretend, that ah ha, the reason Palin has blocked all efforts to list polar bears as endangered, restrain fossil fuel development, or lower emissions is that she has a good-faith disagreement about the causes of climate change. That explains it!
Here's an alternative explanation: Palin did that stuff because she's a Republican governor of Alaska.
Seriously. Does any sentient human being on the planet believe that Palin's decisions in Alaska were driven by her idiosyncratic understanding of climate change? She analyzed the science, came to a different conclusion, and governed accordingly? Really?
As an Alaskan leader, she's under immense pressure to bring Alaskans their petro-pork. And as a Republican, she's under immense pressure from her party to oppose government constraints on corporate activity. Perhaps these facts explain the climate skepticism rather than the other way around?
One a related note: McCain intends to appoint Palin to oversee energy in his administration. You hear people say, uh oh, he's appointing a climate skeptic! Given her skepticism, maybe she won't do all the great stuff he wants to do!
Again, though, let's not be naïve. Palin's thoughts on climate change have exactly nothing to do with why McCain will appoint her or how she'll operate in a McCain administration. She'll do what McCain wants -- McCain will appoint Palin, if he does, because she'll govern along conventional Republican lines, not despite it.
Honestly, what politicians say they believe about the science of climate means very little in the grand scheme of things. Collectively, the political class feels obliged to address the energy/environment area. So the discussion is about policy, and in that discussion what matters is political power, and to a lesser degree principles and ideology -- not science.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Palin’s book spreads falsehoods about clean energy legislation
Comments
View as Flat
Spence Posted 7:48 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:53 am
23 Sep 2008
You think if the way to solve climate change was military build up and low taxes, all those right-wing skeptics wouldn't disappear overnight?
The more interesting question to me: would a big chunk of progressives be skeptics if the shoe were on the other foot? Can you (anyone) think of a parallel area where progressives have denied science because it leads to unwelcome policy?
grist.org
Permalink
mreinbold Posted 8:00 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 8:05 am
23 Sep 2008
The case for breeder reactors is so convincing, and it is a pity that progressives are unable to penetrate through their emotions.
The future of our planet is at stake, let's have some cool blue reason please !
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Corey McKrill Posted 8:13 am
23 Sep 2008
But a lot of that stuff can hardly be called science anyway.
Frequently asked technical questions about Grist's newsletters and website.
Permalink
Spence Posted 8:55 am
23 Sep 2008
That said, post progressives have a deep commitment to science and are much, much more likely to question conventional opinion when science goes against. The most resistant to scientific evidence will always be "traditional" communities who base their ethical worldview on an explicitly untestable creed. Witness Sarah Palin's church.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:56 am
23 Sep 2008
The case for breeder reactors is so convincing,
Thats not science. Thats economics.
Even you admit the economic argument sucks.
and it is a pity that progressives are unable to penetrate through their emotions.
Actually, it turns out, Conservatives are far more emotionally reactive than Progressives.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/fearmongering- ...
Now THAT is science :P
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:00 am
23 Sep 2008
Yeap.
http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/the_real_differ.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jA0OVtvqjk
-David Ahlport
Permalink
greentiger Posted 9:22 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 9:25 am
23 Sep 2008
It would certainly be the case that the more moderates are the ones leaving the party and it's highly likely that they are the ones who accept the data on climate change. Probably the deniers are being left behind and what you see in the (slightly) rising numbers is nothing more than a concentration of deniers. The absolute number of deniers could actually be falling.
IIRC the percentage increase in Republican deniers is fairly small and during the same time self-identified Republicans dropped by 15-20%. (Don't trust my memory - check those numbers if they are important to you.)
As for 'The Bell Curve' - I happen to have been quite familiar with the late senior author. Dick did very good research within his area of expertise but we all recognized him as an overt racist. Long before the book appeared. The book was nothing but an attempt to back up his biases and it just didn't pass the smell test.
Dick made the same mistake that often taints "corporate" research. If one has a desired outcome it's easy to lose objectivity.
You are correct that when something appears that seems to support the idea that one race, sex, whatever is superior to another there is a good deal of skepticism. There's a long, long record of poorly done, even bogus, stuff that has been produced to justify prejudices. People are quite sensitized to the possibility that this new thing is yet another attempt.
Permalink
Spence Posted 9:54 am
23 Sep 2008
I thought as well that that was the missing number in the Gallup info, the large numbers leaving the party. I would speculate that some of those defectors are being driven out by the increasingly militant and emotional response the party leadership has to global warming, driven, as so much is these days, by the toxic anti-science culture of talk radio. Thus the Gallup number is a reflection of the ossification of the conservative movement from a broad-based intellectual undertaking to a narrow identity movement. "Every great cause," Eric Hoffer wrote, "begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." Goldwater to Reagan to Bush, there ya go!
As for The Bell Curve much of the criticism was entirely valid. Some of it was knee-jerk and hysterical. The furor itself was evidence that "liberals" can have a lynch mob mentality, even when their cause is just, as it was in debunking the bad science in that book. Your personal insight is fascinating. Objective-driven science is, of course, bad science. And you are right that we must tread gently in areas with a history of bad faith fake science, like race.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 10:06 am
23 Sep 2008
Remember, we're not talking about policy or value differences, but a case where progressives are denying relatively settled science because it does not jibe with their policy preferences.
The closest thing to a candidate would be Spence's "genetic differences" thing, except, from what I've read the science simply doesn't support the casual claims of Summers et al.
So I guess I still await a parallel case ...
grist.org
Permalink
Spence Posted 10:17 am
23 Sep 2008
There are examples of progressives experiencing a bit of pushback on science. But the entire ethic or progressivism is based on evidentiary claims, so you just won't find as many examples. And the examples you find will be examples of failures of the progressive ethos, rather then enactments of it. On the other hand, those with an ethic based on, say, an unquestioned interpretation of a book, will have no such dissonance. They are living up to a lower standard.
Permalink
Spence Posted 10:31 am
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:06 pm
23 Sep 2008
I think extremist fundamental Christianity has run its course. Younger Christians seem to be turning away the rigid social issues of the older TV preachers and looking more at the sort of social issues that Jesus spoke of. Back to caring for the least of our brethren sorts of stuff.
Young people growing up today, today's young adults, many just don't "get" the racial and homophobic stuff. They've grown up in an integrated world and seen plenty of their friends and relatives live "out" lives. They have never experienced the Jim Crow and closet that we "olders" knew. Our tired old prejudices just don't make sense to them.
Look at the current election. McCain is leading only among the over 60 age range. Young people just don't buy into the stuff that the Republican Party has been selling for the last few decades.
Remember that those now approaching 60 are the "Boomers" - the hippie generation. Forty some odd years ago we did some serious realignment of our heads. The old power structure is dying out and being replaced by different people with different mindsets.
Permalink
LGT Posted 2:48 pm
23 Sep 2008
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:38 pm
23 Sep 2008
Thats not science. Thats economics.
Even you admit the economic argument sucks.
I said that 4th generation nuclear reactors are economically inferior (in current US dollars) to the curent 2nd generation nuclear reactors, dirty coal and large hydropower. They are economically superior to all the other alternatives.
In fact, they might be superior to even dirty coal and 2nd generation reactors. I am not sure about this, but several people with a profound knowledge in that subject believe so.
Now I diverge a little and paste one of my own comments on a pro-nuclear website, where I was making a case for increased renewable power. You will see where my I stand.
In our industrial society, energy is money. The more energy you have, the more comfortable your life would be. There will always be a hunger for more and more energy, because human wants are, in essence, unlimited. Energy does not satisfy the basic principle of diminishing returns in economics. It is not a consumer good.
What is the basic criterion for any energy technology to be "profitable" ?
It should have an EROEI > 1 (it should return more energy than the energy invested in as input).
Renewable power satisfies this criteria(their EROEI is as high as 12 to 20), and therefore "theoretically" profitable. But in practice, this is not so, because of two reasons.
The direct 1-to-1 relationship between energy and money in our society, is not perfect. There are certain anamolies, because established business practices distort the reality. For example, meat employs 10 times more water and uses a lot more energy and resources (land, sunlight, electric power, plastics for processing) than say milk. But the difference in pricing is not so high, as it should be.
Though human wants are unlimited, it takes time for the society to take notice of the new pools of energy, build corresponding machinery and use them. In other words, the energy demand of the society can be calculated beforehand. Surplus energy produced beyond this will not get sold, and get wasted. In this scenario, different energy technologies have to compete against each other.
Those technologies which have a higher EROEI will obviously win over the others which have a lower EROEI. This is the reason dirty coal is the winner in the current market. This situation will happily persist for another 100 years, because we have coal reserves to last us till that long.
What we are trying to do is to factor in environmental damages into our calculations. When dirty-coal gets penalized for the CO2 emissions, it will suddenly become less economically attractive than nuclear power.
Once-through nuclear power using U235 will be similarly less attractive than breeder reactors using U238, in a similar scenario when longevity of nuclear waste is penalized.
With purely these calculations, breeder reactors using U238/Thorium can supply all the energy that we care for. And their EROEI (for breeder reactors, it is around 3000) will be much higher than any renewable competition.
But now we pose this question : why should we think of alternative energy technologies as competition ? More energy means more good for the society anyways :)
And if we have a chunk of renewable power (even though it has a lower EROEI than nuclear power) in our energy mix, our nuclear fuel will last even longer (and we might never even have to resort to mining the oceans for Uranium).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:19 am
24 Sep 2008
I wonder what Palin was taught in her church.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:20 am
24 Sep 2008
Whats far more important than the size of the return on investment, is the Speed of Return on Investment.
i.e. "Return Rate"
Nuclear sucks when it comes to Return Rates.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5785236/Nuclear-p ...
_
The large reason of course why SPEED is far more important than SIZE is because of the cost of financing.
i.e. The Cost of Money.
_
The quicker you can pay back your loan, the better.
_
This if of course why Nuclear power CAN'T GET LOANS.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:58 pm
24 Sep 2008
But do you want to make short term investments or long term investments ?
Do you want to plan for long term future, or short term future ?
I thought the answer is obvious, and that otherwise, we would not be even talking about environment.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:22 am
25 Sep 2008
If we don't care about "plant lifetime", and solar/geothermal "fuel" isn't going to run out any time in the next couple billion years.
And Renewables are Cheaper, Build Faster, and involve less risky investments.
Why would we choose Nuclear Breeder Reactors over Renewables?
(And please don't bore me with the "OMG THE LAND AREA REQUIREMENT" argument.)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ...
_
Whachagot?
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:30 am
25 Sep 2008
However Solarthermal with Heat Storage, and Geothermal however don't really suffer under that.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:16 am
25 Sep 2008
Land is just an indication of the magnitude of the environmental impact.
Solar CSP would need 40,000 square kilometres of land to power USA. You can dig in the earlier posts (of Michael's renewable electric economy) on grist for this number.
We are talking about mining a lot of steel and copper, particularly if you wish to lay down large transmission cables from CSP desert grids to cities.
If you count the area impacted by mining, the environmental impact will be higher, and spread over a larger area.
The storage requirements for electricity of this magnitude will have another additional impact, particularly if you wish to build pumped storage over dams.
I am choosing breeder reactors precisely because their environmental impact is smaller (their power density is 1000 times higher than any solar/renewable competition).
Environmental impacts of these scales are a definite problem even in a large sparsely populated nation like USA, Canada or Australia. But these will be completely outrageous over densely populated nations such as in Europe, Japan , China, India or Indonesia. Particularly in the tropics, the sensitive ecosystems and biodiversity will be significantly affected by such environmental impact.
I am not too concerned about dollar costs, but breeder reactors also tend to be economically cheaper than renewable power. If done in the right manner (that is a standardized design + modularized factory production), breeder reactors will cost as much as 1 billion dollars per Giga Watt. Before you jump into saying this is not true, please educate yourself on 3rd and 4th generation reactors. They are a lot more simpler (and use lot fewer parts) than the bulky 2nd generation reactors that are in vogue.
Quite fortunately, anti-nuclear websites are not yet up-to-date with their propaganda poison against 3rd generation reactors. So you have no choice but directly consult the people who developed them. For a start, try reading about the ESBWR. For a detailed description of a 4th generation reactor, try reading the book of Tom Blees or any of the links I cited above.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:01 am
25 Sep 2008
Conventional Nuclear is more expensive than Industrial Scale Renewables
You admit, Breeder reactors would be more expensive than conventional nuclear reactors.
So how do you come to that conclusion?
(Especially when we don't even have ANY commercial breeder reactors)
And in the context that "Plant Lifetime" is effectively meaningless.
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5785236/Nuclear-p ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:03 am
25 Sep 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#com ...
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 10:09 am
25 Sep 2008
No. Conventional nuclear, done with (a) no standardized design (b) plant construction delays due to repetitive re-legislations is more expensive than, maybe dirty coal. It is cheaper than natural gas. (and natural gas prices are rising). By no means is it more expensive than renewables.
If you wish to disprove me, you already had an opportunity when we were discussing on Michael's renewable electric economy thread. I asked you to give the corresponding break up costs of your favorite renewable technology and prove to me that it costs less than nuclear. You didn't respond. Since I just issued a similar challenge to Bob Wallace, I will redirect you there.
But in the end, as I told you, I am not concerned about dollar costs. I just care about environmental costs. We need to debate more rigorously on those aspects.
And it looks like I am wrong about breeder reactors when I said that they could be more expensive than conventional nuclear. The more I read about them, the more I get convinced they can be done for cheaper.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:28 pm
25 Sep 2008
g) Add The decomissioning costs divided over the plant life time
Thats just silly. It's not contaminated with radiation. You would instead recycle it at a profit.
And if it's out in the middle of the desert, you'd probably just leave it as is asside from scavenging the valuable materials.
a) Land lease costs for the construction of wind turbines ?
It's a hot desert. How cheap could you ask for?
Whats more, it doesn't need a 24/7 military grade security guards, and coast guards.
*h) Add the operational costs for manpower + cleaning + maintenance
Heh, add the cost of the same, plus fuel for nuclear.
c) The amount of transmission cable that needs to be laid.
No real difference here.
If anything, modular solar thermal would allow it to be less centralized, and closer to it's load.
f) The amortization costs for this construction
As mentioned. Quick citing, build, and modular installation makes for far quicker Return Rates.
1-5 Return Rates are far more important than 40-60 year amortization rates.
b) The amount of steel and concrete needed, and their corresponding costs.
Thats included in the cost of the plant. Whats more, it doesn't require a strict level of machining, and building.
Far less technical labor for construction.
e) Similar construction costs for the storage.
Not really, thats built into the cost of the plant, and onsite
d) Multiply your estimates by the inverse of the capacity factor (If your capacity factor is 1/3, you need 3 times as many wind turbines)
Bit more complex than that.
Ausra figures triple redundancy would give you a 90-93% capacity factor.
And at today's costs, that would be $9000/kW.
Catch being if you account financing, citing, and build speeds.
Which basically boils down to an 5-10 year headstart.
Even at today's costs, Solar Thermal could certainly give Nuclear power a run for it's money.
Although I will now admit it might be slightly in Nuclear's favor.
Ausra however figures they can cut that price in half in a few years. ($4500/kW)
Or at very least, far ahead of when a new Nuclear power plant would even start generating a single watt/hour of power.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/files/MillsMorganUSGri ...
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail ...
_____
As for standardization.
The real benefit isn't that. It's "economies of scale". And economies of scale are far more beneficial to processes with higher numbers of repetitions.
-David Ahlport
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:41 pm
25 Sep 2008
g) Add The decomissioning costs divided over the plant life time
Thats just silly. It's not contaminated with radiation. You would instead recycle it at a profit.
And if it's out in the middle of the desert, you'd probably just leave it as is asside from scavenging the valuable materials.
No you don't just leave it in the middle of the desert. You dismantle it, and build a new solar-plant in its place, because future world needs power as well.
And the plant life-times for solar power are smaller than nuclear power. So this picking up of scraps + rebuilding needs to be done more frequently.
And if you are not aware, several fission byproducts can actually be sold at a profit. They have several industrial uses.
c) The amount of transmission cable that needs to be laid.
No real difference here.
If anything, modular solar thermal would allow it to be less centralized, and closer to it's load.
No. Solar insolation varies widely. The best places to construct a solar plant (or a wind power plant) is not next to your home. So you would need to lay down transmission cables to ship all the electric power to the cities. If you want to make a "smart"-grid to handle intermittent variations in energy supply and demand, it will cost higher.
Nuclear power can be constructed wherever you please. And the 4th generation nuclear power plants (a) are modularized (b) have excellent load-following characteristics (c) come in different sizes and shapes to suit your needs.
So the transmission costs for renewable power are bound to be higher than nuclear power. If you don't think so, just show me the numbers.
e) Similar construction costs for the storage.
Not really, thats built into the cost of the plant, and onsite
I would be glad to know the capacity for storage planned and the individual break up of storage cost against the total construction cost.
Bit more complex than that.
Ausra figures triple redundancy would give you a 90-93% capacity factor.
You cannot ever get 90% capacity factor with solar power. Sunlight is available only 50% of the time. If somebody shows you a 90% capacity factor, it means that he is not using average power, but peak power. If you average out the power production and include that into the capacity factor, your number will be around 30% (with best hopes).. and definitely not over 50%.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 8:04 pm
25 Sep 2008
Nor are there any plants that I know of where commercial quantities of nuclear waste are being consumed leaving smaller volumes of less radioactive waste.
Can you please direct us to a working plant of this type?
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:29 pm
25 Sep 2008
You would have been building 4th generation nuclear plants in USA right now, if not for a bone-headed decision taken by the Clinton administration in 1994.
So, yes. We don't have any working 4th generation plants. But we have designs and blueprints, even commercial designs. GE is planning to build one in USA as early as possible, if only the government agrees. These reactor designs (called Fast Reactors) is the culmination of several decades of scientific work in USA.
Molten Salt Reactors are another promising design, which have been unfortunately discontinued in the USA. These are also extremely promising, but these reactors are slightly behind schedule. For example, there are not yet any commercial designs on this concept. But these will appear within no time.
Both the LFTR and the IFR share several common aspects in their designs : they are both very resistant to proliferation, they are both passively safe, and they both have very high burnup ratio of fuel (this means that they obtain 100 times more energy from the same amount of fuel as current nuclear reactors).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 10:37 pm
25 Sep 2008
I don't want to get into a long debate right now, but I will refute a few of your points and present an alternative.
You continually say that there is no current fuel source that is as cheap as nuclear, except coal. This is incorrect and you should stop saying it. Biomass is as cheap or cheaper than current nuclear and has been for some time. For example, here in Vermont, the biomass generating plant has competed with Vermont's only nuclear plant since the last 70's.
But beyond that, biomass has many critical advantages over nuclear... whether 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation.
The technology is completely known and proven.
Creates far more jobs (especially rural jobs) than nuclear. I'd guess 10 times as many or more.
Biomass can be carbon negative. Nuclear is not and cannot reverse the GHG problem. This factor is huge and cannot be overstated.
Biomass, if done sustainably, can increase soil health, water quality and biodiversity. Nuclear cannot.
The potential is vast. I recently heard (from sources I consider trustworthy) that there is something like 1 billion acres of degraded / unused farmland available around the world. Using today's technology, that land could be converted to forest and produce the equivalent power of 1,000 new 1 GW nuclear facilities. Yes... 1,000. As better technology is employed over time (higher yields from the forests and better combustion technology) that number could be doubled.
New technology (already being employed) makes it very feasible to cost-efficiently ship biomass fuel anywhere in the world. It's already being done today, but will get much better over the next five years.
New technology (already being used) allows biomass fuel to DIRECTLY displace coal... any coal, any place. Dozens of coal-fired facilities in the US and abroad are moving towards doing this. No substantial change in the coal plant need be made.
The list goes on and on.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't develop advanced nuclear technology and see if it works, because there are places in the world where it might make sense (especially near cities). I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or another. And I'm certainly not making any statement about the value of employing solar technologies. I'm simply setting the record straight regarding certain statements you've been making, and presenting a technology which is known, has many important advantages over nuclear, and has tremendous potential to generate large volumes of clean, renewable power.
Richard
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 11:06 pm
25 Sep 2008
'Vakibs', hasn't Gen II nuclear power been entirely resistant to proliferation? In oil-equivalent terms, haven't uranium prices briefly exceeding three dollars a barrel driven a rate of prospecting exceeding 100 million barrels per day?
Progressives' concern about nuclear energy is that it will cut into the oil and gas tax component of their public funding. If they could be assured that that tax revenue is gone anyway, they would have no further objections to future nuclear energy, nor to present-day nuclear energy. They don't mind personally riding nuclear boats, and the majorities of those who live near nuclear power stations who favour their enlargement must include many progressives.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink
vakibs Posted 11:33 pm
25 Sep 2008
Because of our huge population densities.
Biomass has one of the least power densities amongst the solar alternatives.
I think we should use a big chunk of biomass in our energy plan, particularly because of its potential to reduce CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. If done right, it is not detrimental to the biodiversity of our planet (even beneficial to it).
However, it is not a complete solution by itself. I trust the numbers worked out by Dr David Mackay (Chapter 6 of his book : page 44).
@GRL Cowan
Nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. And particularly, nuclear power in countries which already have nuclear bombs has nothing to do with proliferation.
But there is one example where a country has built a nuclear bomb under the guise of a nuclear power plant. I come from that country, India. In 1974, we have used the CANDU research reactor to produe Plutonium and make a bomb out of it.
Currently Indian technology is at an advanced state with respect to Fast Breeder Reactors. We already have a thermal breeder reactor (AHWR) and the fast reactors should be built very soon. We are using enrichment technology and the isolated Plutonium in the fast reactors can be used to increase our nuclear weapon armory.
Now, I hate nuclear weapons. I wish India didn't build them. It has only become possible because of the utter stupidity of the global non-proliferation order (They just banned all sale of nuclear fuel and technologies to India, what a joke :) As if, we Indians don't have brains and can't build by ourselves).
The reprocessing technologies of IFR or LFTR actually prevent high enrichment of Plutonium. The pyroprocessing technology of IFR, if leased out to India, will prevent India from building PUREX type Plutonium enrichment plants. Simply put, India will have no excuse to continue with its current reprocessing technology which can redirect Plutonium for nuclear bombs.
Thus, IFR has potential to reduce nuclear weapons. But anyways, this is all for people who understand the details.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:06 am
26 Sep 2008
Quite wrong. The research reactor in question was not part of any kind of power plant.
Permalink
RDMiller Posted 12:17 am
26 Sep 2008
I downloaded MacKay's book, but found nothing pertaining to your reference. What was his summary on biomass? I've found that many so-called energy experts are often most lacking in knowledge about biomass.
As far as population densities, last I checked, uranium isn't available near population dense areas either. There's no problem growing biomass wherever one can and shipping it to population-dense areas. The room required for the actual energy production facility is not so large as to be prohibitive. But you are right in saying that, for numerous smaller countries (geographically), there isn't going to be land available to produce large amounts of biomass within that country.
It terms of it being a least power-dense alternative, I don't see the relevance of that argument. In fact, it's actually a positive if one is concerned about creating rural jobs. Unlike with solar and wind, biomass doesn't involve installing large numbers of "manufactured energy collecting devices"... trees or grasses do all the work.
But you are absolutely right... biomass can only be part of the solution. Many other technologies are needed. Still, given the potential to produce the energy equivalent of 1,000 - 2,000 nuclear facilities while reversing GHG problems, it needs to be taken mighty seriously.
Richard
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:42 am
26 Sep 2008
1 billion acres = 4 046 856.42 sq-km which can produce a total of 1214 GW. Yes, I take this number seriously :)
But this is much lesser than our total power requirements. We should judiciously use all forms of energy production - each technology has its niche areas. I am not against any technology.
My whole point is that we should treat nuclear power as one of the good guys. We should say "nuclear, wind, solar and biomass" as against fossil-fuel alternatives.
The transport of Uranium fuel is a non-issue. A tiny pellet of Uranium produces as much power as several tons of biomass.
We should stop saying "oil, coal and nuclear". It is as stupid as saying "oil, coal and wind power". We should particularly avoid weasel words such as micropower (coined by Mr Amory Lovins) which actually puts natural gas amongst the good guys.
GRL Cowan
You are right. It was not CANDU, it was CIRUS. But the research reactor was donated to India because we said we will be using it for exploring power plants. The Canadians were had.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 11:30 pm
27 Sep 2008
The advances people are looking for are:
1)Inherent safety. Walk away and the plant powers down safely.
2) Nuclear waste consumption and reduction. The plant should produce the absolute minimum amount of waste ideally consuming all plutonium produced on site. In addition secondary wastes such as radioactive polluted iron from fuel rods should be minimized. Post use reprocessing of fuel rods and wastes should be minimal or unnecessary.
3)Fuel efficiency- Limiting the fuel that has to be mined and purified in the first place should be a priority as uranium mine tailings are rather toxic. .
Despite all the bragging about the wonders of nuclear power I'm not aware of a single reactor that manages these three goals.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
vakibs Posted 12:48 am
28 Sep 2008
The point (3) is addressed a little, but not completely. The fuel efficiency of generation-3 reactors is higher than 2nd generation reactors.
But the point (2) is still unaddressed. It can be addressed only in the 4th generation reactors. These reactors are 20 years behind schedule due to the stupid maneouvres of the Clinton administration which discontinued the IFR project. If USA restarts this project (through the GNEP framework), a demonstration reactor can be built within a couple of years. And we will be building commercial 4th generation reactors (and shutting down coal plants) by 2015.
Unlike USA which experienced political hurdles, India is going full-speed towards realizing breeder reactors. There is already a working reactor which uses Thorium. Based on experience gained on this, India is constructing a new fast reactor with better fuel efficiency. India is focussing on Thorium instead of U-238 (depleted Uranium or nuclear waste) because it has vast mineral reserves of Thorium. But the technology is similar.
Do you want USA to lose the race to India :) ?
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:43 am
28 Sep 2008
--- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed
Permalink