Comments Spectrumist has made

Powered by Renewable Electricity?

One issue that I would have with easterbunny's analysis is that his home is not actually powered by 100% renewable electricity.  His home is on the grid like everyone else; the $ he pays to Bullfrog go to support green renewable power production which is only 3% of the energy mix on the Ontario grid.  Not that this is a bad thing, we support the development of green renewable power here at my home in the US thru a similar outfit called People's Power and Light.

Consider the either/or case where every household in Ontario either switches to CF's or stays with IC lighting. If all users switch to CF residential lighting, now you are talking about a significant drop in electricity demand during peak lighting hours.  A lot more than 3% for sure.  Under the current economic conditions, this would likely result in natural gas fired generation output reduction, with a commensurate reduction in CO2 emissions.  

In many cases the economic and environmental benefits of new technology are raised above trivial levels only when the technology is widely deployed.  That is why, in my view, a command and control strategy often works better than the invisible hand in practice.  Mandatory efficiency standards will serve to expedite the changeover to  the new technologies.On Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 33 Responses

Questionable Credentials

I know determined environmental advocates who have impeccable credentials, who work in a professional capacity toward improving the environment, and who support the immediate development of distributed, renewable energy on a massive scale.  The fact that these individuals, myself included, think that nuclear energy will need (regretably) to be a part of the energy mix in order to facilitate the widespread development of renewable power does not in any way affect their credentials or imply any unseen agenda.  A reluctant argument for development of additional nuclear power capacity is not necessarily the same as an argument against clean energy; some people who have studied the matter have simply formed the opinion that nuclear power must be a part of the future energy mix, for a number of reasons that can be debated by reasonable people in another forum, another day.

jdhlax says:
...without making horribly toxic compounds like plutonium

I would be more inclined to question the technical credentials of someone who refers to plutonium as a compound when it is, in fact, an element; as opposed to questioning the environmental credentials or motives of everyone who has a differing opinion regarding the hazards versus benefits of nuclear power.  

Environmental advocacy is a broad issue, fraught with contradictions and unfortunate compromises with the "devil" (and those pesky details where the devil resides).  The environmentalists I know who support nuclear power (under limits and conditions...again another forum) make real contributions to the cause on a daily basis; I for one can live with the knowledge that I do not meet the definition of environmentalist espoused by jdhlax.On Learn to identify certain common fallacies. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Nukes buy time for innovation to mature

The innovative model of distributed energy production is certainly the goal; many kudos and thanks to all of those who are working towards this lofty aspiration.  However, for engineering types like myself, the reality of the situation is apparent: We need a reliable energy source that can meet the demands of a growing population to tide our society over until the distributed generation dream and the "slowly emerging innovation economy" (Patrick Doherty's own words, very slowly in my view) can become a widespread reality.

The nukes that are scheduled to be decomissioned over the next 15 years represent a sizable portion of our electricity supply.  The loss of these generating "assets" cannot be offset solely by renewable energy sources even if the renewable energy infrastructure is greatly expanded, largely due to the intermittant nature of solar, wind, and hydro power.  2000 MW (Megawatts) of wind power capacity, for example, cannot be expected to offset 2000 MW of fossil or nuclear; a more realistic evaluation for comparing intermittant renewable generating capacity with fossil or nuclear is MW hours per year as opposed to MW peak capacity.  Power storage has real limits with current technology in terms of efficiency and capacity, so intermittant, distributed renewable energy will need to be supplemented by central station fossil or nuclear generation well into the foreseeable future.

In my view, expansion of fossil fuel generation capacity is not the way to go for all of the readily apparent reasons.  Fossil-based DG may make sense in some regions, but here in the Northeast a tremendous amount of combustion-turbine generating capacity is sitting idle for most of the winter (and an ever-increasing portion of the rest of the year) due to rising fuel costs.  Attempts to bolster the supply of natural gas by increasing the LNG storage and transport capacity may not succeed due to local opposition based on safety concerns.  The way people are opposing LNG storage capacity expansion does not portend well for a future hydrogen-based energy infrastructure; the volatility characteristics of presurized hydrogen are not widely discussed, but this will pose a technological and public relations challenge will to delay widespread deployment of hydrogen-powered autos and fuel cells.

Regarding nuclear power, of course there are major drawbacks.  However, the realistic, short-term options are limited and not at all appealing (more CO2 spewing coal burners?).  I think nuclear power has promise as a 30 year bridge to a better future, but only if some of the major issues are addressed:

1. Waste disposal - A centralized processing and storage depot must be established, and all appropriate technology must be applied to re-cycle, encapsulate, and safely and securely store nuclear waste.  In my view, this must be done in any case even if another nuke is never built to deal with the existing problem, so let's get it done.  

2. Standardized Design - DOE and NRC must solicit bids for standardized design along the lines of the French model and then select a single design for all new nuclear generation projects.  The free-marketers will howl but we must stand firm: no single standard design = no new nukes.

3. Renewable Energy Manufacturing Partnerships -  This is the key element that makes the unpalatable nuclear option tolerable in my view.  There must be a provision that any new nuclear facility shall work in partnership with a consortium of solar, wind, and other renewable energy technology manufacturers.  The nuclear facility will be the center of a renewable energy manufacturing park (REMP) and some percentage of the power generated will be supplied to the consortium at a deep discount (free?).  The REMP infrastructure will be partially subsidized and will be constructed in conjunction with the new nuke.  

I know nukes are a tough pill to swallow, I lived two miles from Three Mile Island in 1989 and have tasted the bitter, metallic taste of a radioactive iodine release (true story!!)  But, as I heard Christie Whitman say just the other day, "we can't just say no to everything".  There are many voices proposing alternatives to coal and nuclear power, but I wonder sometimes how well-grounded the proposed alternatives are in terms of technical, financial, and (recently) political reality.  Our challenge is to make the wise compromises and to promote a sustainable social and energy agenda at every opportunity; the renewed interest in nuclear power may be an opportunity for some bridge building in more ways than one.On A no-nukes argument with no waste posted 4 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses