Are Nukes the Only Viable Green Power Option?

Yep, based on the current technology available to us, nuclear is the only option for green power, and their benefits far out weigh their problems. Indeed if you take the emotion out of the picture, the problems they present are trivial (ie rad waste).

Are you a MORON? Rad Waste is not a trivial problem. Disregarding the really lethal stuff, consider only the LSA type ('low specific activity" ). Each year the existing nuclear plants bury tons of LSA. This is mainly made up of things like used protective clothing, rags, tools, scrap wood and metal products, et al. With landfills all over the country already nearing capacity, what do we do with all this stuff, especially if we build more nuke plants than we already have. No my uninformed friend, Rad waste is a major problem.

If you feel that you need to be believed and understood in what you are saying, you need a proper sign on on CR4.

The opinion of guests is not well regarded here, especially when one of the first words used is Moron!!

You have to be a moron yourself to start in such a childish fashion....

Also when you have more than one guest, each with different opinions, it appears that you are simply arguing with yourself!! Hilarious for us I might add!!

May I suggest that you join and take a name and argue your point "Face 2 Face" so to say, or you will just be regarded as one of the "Trolls" that we put up with from time to time......amusing but little else.....or somewhere to sharpen our own swords so to say......a lot of us do not even read what a guest has written.....guessing probably 50% or more, but I have no exact figures though....

If you look at my bio, (yes I am registered and I have spent a good bit of time establishing my credentials) then you will see that I have spent a good part of my career in nuclear power. The technical issues with LSA are easily overcome, but so far the industry has been too lazy to reduce the volume of LSA. A trivial engineering problem not a major problem at all.

I would expect that NY City produces more landfill use in a day than all the Nuke plants in the US do in a year.

AND the nuke plants pay out the watusie for every pound buried!

Good answer, I rated it so.....

Sadly, here in Germany they are going the opposite way and the result is that the country is in dire need of new power generation RIGHT NOW!! A heavy winter will cause us REAL bad problems....

Contrary to what you believe, the Nuclear industry has a hugely powerful lobby in Washington. The only reason people think Nuclear could ever be economically viable in the US is because the industry has been so heavily subsidized by the government up to now. We've all already been paying for what little of this "cheap" power we do use in America for decades.

It is true that France has had much success. But their situation is far from perfect. They too suffer from the difficulty in dealing with radioactive waste that must be stored and guarded, essentially, for all time. They do employ technology which reuses spent materials, and reduces waste to an absolute minimum. So, for a typical family of four using electricity for 20 years, the ultimate resulting high-level waste amounts to only about 10cc's -- a seemingly trivial amount. But multiply that times millions of families and it becomes significant. Multiply that times the population of the US, or a larger country, like India, and the scope of the problem becomes clearer. Now, project the storage problem a few generations into the future, continually adding ever increasing amounts of permanently toxic waste to whatever facilities we build (which nobody wants to live near) now.

Oh, and by the way, a half-life of 10,000 years means it will take something closer to 500,000 years before it can be considered "safe". But 10,000 or half-a-million makes little difference.

Read Dr. Helen Caldicott's book: "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer" to find out what is really at stake in the Nuclear debate.

As you may know, the funding for Yucca Mountain has ended. The high level waste now stored at our power plants exceeds the designed capacity of the Yucca Mountain project. Waste that the US taxpayer owns. You see, when the fees were placed upon the power plant operators to cover those storage costs, part of the deal was that the American Taxpayer would take effective ownership of the waste. Before this is all said and done we will probably end up paying the utilities for storing our waste.

I don't have a problem with the safety of the technology. I have a problem with the economics where the true end cost can not be accurately predicted and where the security, regulatory, and waste storage costs are not reflected in user pricing. If they were, the other alternatives would be cheap in comparison.

Again, the issue isn't just safety - its economics. The industry can only compete when a significant amount of the total cost is born by the taxpayer.

For the amount of money that was pounded down the Yucca Mountain Rat Hole we could have built terrawatts of hydro-storage facilities for use in conjunction with solar and wind alternatives.

Gavilan

Everyone can make a mistake; but it takes an expert to really screw things up.

In many ways I agree. The Yucca Mountain Project was a monumental screw-up! One of the few times when government *should* have exerted domain and power to get the job done. Instead they walked on eggshells.

When the subject is the nations' lights staying on, does anyone really think the "true" cost matters? It does not. The lights will stay on and the costs will be passed on or hidden to the best ability of the players -- you can't change that!

If anyone complaining about the 'true cost' wants to step forward, I've got a solar power alternative than I can install anywhere there's a rooftop, or available land. It's a low cost solar collector coupled to an ORC genset; $3/Watt capital cost - prompt solar electricity, <$0.09 / kWh based on 20 years.

It's very Green -- uses nuthin' but iron, steel, copper, aluminum, zinc, NH3, lube, plastic, and a computer; none of it is consumable, like your household refrigerator, it's maintenance free. No fuel except sunshine.

The Light is Green!

Solar is wonderful for small, isolated applications, but I do not see the major solar installations being built in Spain and proposed for the Southwest US as being all that green:

1- How much real estate is required to generate the power? A rooftop installation is fine, but not all rooftops are suitable for such installations, and some rooftops cover structures that consume considerably more power than the area can provide (i.e., high rise apartments and office buildings). Ignoring whether the desert tortoise or the pupfish are worth saving from extinction, the land used for a solar facility (or, for that matter, a wind farm) is pretty much useless for anything else, once one starts considering facilities that are actually designed for the demand.

2- Water. Large solar facilities generally require significant water supplies. Typically, where there is a lot of sun, there is limited water suitable for power generation facilities. Using sea water or brackish water is not an option, because such fluids are extremely corrosive and will significantly shorten the life of the generating facility. Making pure water will demand significant energy.

Here in Panama, there is a lot of solar being used, and it is quite effective under certain constraints, but it can not compete, price-wise, with a small diesel powered generator set, even when diesel fuel is in excess of $5 per gallon (which includes shipping to remote locations by boat). For hot water heating, for remote water pumps that don't have a constant demand (i.e., water for livestock), for remote navigation lighting, there is nothing that can compete with solar. For lighting even a small city? NOT green, by most definitions of "green".

What happened? 121 was mine then it went "Guest"

There are a couple of issues regarding nuclear waste that you have not addressed. One issue is that, for some reason, reprocessing has been banned. I do not know all the details of the politics involved, but if the fuel is hot enough to be dangerous, then it still has useful energy available.

A second issue is the way "nuclear waste" is classified. A good deal of what is classified as "nuclear waste" is far less radioactive than what one is exposed to from natural sources. If a worker wears a paper suit into a containment structure, the suit is nuclear waste, whether it is radioactive or not. The volume of "nuclear waste" could be reduced significantly were there some logic to how such waste is classified...

Bingo! Yucca should've been for high-level spent fuel only. The repro issue is a wash because it generates lots of med-level waste. It doesn't take a team of economists and scientists to figure out that often the simple solutions are the best solutions. Instead they failed to realize that no solution is still far from the best solution.

Thank you lawyers!

Jimmy Carter "Bless his soul" signed a presidential decree to not process spent fuel because of untrue fear that weapon grade plutonium would be extracted and stolen by someone and converted into bomb grade, and then into bombs.

The plutonium extracted from commercial reactors is dirty and almost impossible to refine into anything near weapons grade.

The French are repossessing fuel and who knows who might be stealing the plutonium and making bombs in the cellar or Attic!

I have been told that the actual amount of energy derived from uranium fuel bundle represents about 1% of the available energy. Continued reprocessing could change this to 99% with a corresponding reduction in waste. Spent nuclear fuel is not waste.

I prefer not to call it nuclear waste as that implies that there is no further use for it. Spent fuel however can be reprocessed or recycled and the amount of energy derived from a tonne of Uranium can be increased to the point that there will be relatively little true waste.

It is said that using the single pass through the reactor only about 1% of the energy is produced. If the fuel is recycled then the amount of energy produced can approach 90% and the amount of waste will be subject to a corresponding reduction.

Obama is starting to talk about increased nuclear power plants and perhaps reinstating reprocessing/recycling. It seems that the tiger may have changed his stripes.

Then we also have the possibility of Thorium based fuels, the world has more thorium than uranium and the fission products from thorium based fuels are less noxious than those from uranium based fuels. Thorium based fuels can be bred using thermal neutrons not the fast neutrons required in liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors.

"If the fuel is recycled then the amount of energy produced can approach 90% and the amount of waste will be subject to a corresponding reduction."

Are you inferring that the mass to energy conversion rate would approach 90%??

Wow!!!!

If that is the case then the industry should be able to be self supporting and able to compete with other alternatives.

As an informed tax payer you must know that for the price of one tenth of one cent per kilowatt hour of produced energy the nuclear plant operators made the American Taxpayer the De-facto owner of all high level waste produced in the past and the future. Under the definitions given in the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" and its amendments it appears that high level waste would include the plant infrastructure itself.

I still believe that to level the playing field with other alternative energy that the nuclear power industry should be responsible for its own waste to include plant dismantlement. Passing this cost on to the taxpayer; many of whom are not even customers of the nuclear power plant operators, does not let capitalist economics work the way it was intended.

Right now I am not convinced that the end user is paying for the true end cost of the energy produced.

Let capitalism work.

Gavilan

Gavilan-

When calculating "true costs", one should also take in to account the fact that most wind and solar installations are only marginally economically feasible when supported by large government subsidies, and the tax payer can not even claim ownership when all is said and done!

In Canada the owner of the nuclear facility pays two tolls on each Kwh, one to cover the cost of the deep geologic repository for spent fuel and one to pay for the eventual decommissioning of the plant.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd is a crown corporation that serves as the national physics research organization and it also designed the CANDU reactors. The value of the electricity generated by the CANDU reactors and the income from foreign sales has more than compensated for any public funds that have been spent.

My question and I'm not trying to be a wisea** but what do we do with the nuclear waste? Most of that crap has a half life of ten thousand years and we haven't built anything but stone spear points that have lasted that long, let alone containment vessels.

If you want clean safe energy try HE³ fusion.

See Ya. Blue

The French designed a Slowpoke reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLOWPOKE_reactor that ran on spent reactor fuel rods. With a little reworking I don't see why you couldn't have very long term low output energy sources. Sure the money up front is high but long term they could be very cheap.

Greed in the name of security is the new flavor of politics/lobbying.

Brad

The SLOWPOKE reactor is a Canadian designed reactor and it runs on Uranium that has been enriched to 20%. It is not one of the Fast Breeder Reactors designed by the French. The world could use a good functional FBR design, then the energy crisis would be well and truly circumvented.

Here here! I totally agree that we could use a good breeder reactor here and there. When I was in college (not all that long ago) the estimates were that (in the US) if we were to use only breeder reactors and given our current rate of growth and consumption, we could have energy for about 4500 years!!! That was the most CONSERVATIVE estimate given. That sounds pretty good to me.

Sorry I don't have more info but this was a French ( at least they were advertising it theirs and for sale) design that used spent fuel rods for power. It was in a popular science, scientific american, or popular mechanics some years ago. Small output compared to a FBR.

Being the hype that is normally issued who knows what is fact and what I remember from the hype.

Brad

The SLOWPOKE was invented in Canada, there was some interest in it by the French but they didn't invent it.

Fusion it seems needs another 10 years or so and yes it would appear to answer all the problems.

But do not despair over nuclear energy, even now.

Remember a coal fired power plant emits more radioactivity per day than a nuclear plant in a year or more, not forgetting CO2 and dust etc etc....due to the low level radiation in coal itself.....people forget that.

to my mind, nuclear is the way to go now and when fusion comes along, what is to prevent the usage of the spent nuclear fuel as a fuel source for Fusion....?

I am not a Physicist, but if I understand the theory of Fusion correctly, fuel can be anything at all......sea water is a further possibility I believe.

Some learned comments from people in the know would be appropriate here....

I would also suggest that if we went nuclear, then the achievement of hydrogen fuels would be more practical, since generation of hydrogen via electrolysis (with cheap nuclear energy) might potentially allow it from an economic sense. But the lobbyists probably wouldn't like that idea.

Perhaps if there had not been a near moratorium on research into nuclear energy due to the lobbying of the anti-nuclear movement we would have the solution to this problem by now.

Also, the new generation reactors in France (and other countries) do, I believe, produce next to no waste.

Lastly, HE³ fusion as an energy source is a long long way off. We need solutions now and in the near future, not 100 years from now.

Dear Philo, He³ could be viable in less than ten years, if we could actually get back to the Moon instead of just talking about it.

In one acre of the Moon's regalith down to a depth of approximately nine feet, is enough He³ to power a city the size of Milwaukee for a year. This is not my estimation, but a report from NASA published in Popular Science in 2007 based on the concentration in the Moon rocks brought back from Apollo 15.

HE³ fusion has already been achieved (albeit on a small scale, using microscopic amounts) in a laboratory using He³ from those self same samples.

That form of fusion produces one tenth the radiation, can be contained by electro-static fields, produces an equal amount of energy to the deuterium-tritium fusion, and also according to the report, if an inverter is used, can produce electricity directly.

It is an intriguing concept.

Regards Dragon

100% agree with you, we need to get back to the moon NOW.

I'll bow to your superior knowledge as regards HE³ power generation but would suggest that given the dearth of research in this area a viable energy source based on this may be further off than you may suggest. Of course one of the basic problems with research into this is due to the need to manufacture the raw materials, somehting that cheap lunar access would solve.

Having said that setting up a "fire team" to attack the problem could shorten this somewhat.

Dear Philo, The problem obtaining HE³ is it's slight persistent positive charge. The sun produces several thousand tons per day of it. However the Earth's magnetosphere forces it away from our planet. The Moon on the other hand has no magnetosphere to speak of and the HE³ (arriving on the solar wind) is imbedded in the regalith and captured.

If perhaps we could establish a permanent presence in orbit outside the magnetosphere the perhaps we could begin capturing HE³ off the Solar Wind and shipping it to Earth.

Unlike nuclear material it is non-radioactive, cannot react with it's environment, (Helium is a noble gas), and is inherently safe.

Best regards Dragon

I have read PS's predictions for many years and also have a collection running back almost a hundred years.

The magazine has made so many "statement of fact" that have been only rumor mongering, that I, have a hard time believing what they write!

The magazine has made so many "statement of fact" that have been only rumor mongering, that I, have a hard time believing what they write!

But jmart23, it must be true

All those science books that pander to the public use a great deal of poetic license. I find it appalling when I read the peer review of some science theory or data finding and in the next month it is the gospel according to science everywhere. Many time they will only half understand the implications but will state conjecture as how it will be of use.

Before I found access to peer review material I never could understand why so many good ideas never worked out. Hard to develop hype. Not that the stories are not based on fact or real science just the spin to sell magazines biases the material all out of proportion.

It also seems to me for every Lb of HE³ produced as a byproduct you get quite a bit of HOH as in water.

Brad

I am assuming you are a countryman of mine, so I'm surprised you don't know about the significant work being done here in Australia.

http://www.synrocansto.com/index.html

"synrocANSTO's low-risk tailored waste forms are designed to lock up high-level nuclear waste. They offer overall cost and processing schedule savings worth billions of dollars via higher waste loadings, enhanced chemical durability, increased processing flexibility and lower off-gas emissions.

The waste form is the key component of the immobilization process. It determines the type of nuclear waste that can be immobilized, how well the waste is locked up, and ultimately the number of disposal canisters required (waste loading).

The expertise of the synrocANSTO team lies in tailoring the design of the ceramic or glass-ceramic waste form and the associated process technology to suit the unique characteristics of the waste, which enables these cost savings to be realized."

I'm willing to make the prediction that what we are calling "nuclear waste" will in time, be traded on the commodities market.

The technology exists to start designing and building Molten Salt Reactors based on a Thorium fuel cycle.

In the meantime we could build some Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors to provide energy for the grid and for desalination plant. Or we could keep on burning coal. I'm not particularly worried about the "Greenhouse effect". I am of the opinion that this would be a better planet if it warmed up a few degrees C, and be far worse off if it cooled by the same amount.

If the Global Warming zealots really want to stop burning coal, the nuclear is the only viable alternative. Any serious study in the use of wind farms around the world reveals a disastrous return on investment. Typically only producing 20-25% of rated capacity.

If we can manufacture photovoltaic cells cheaply enough, then solar could become viable as soon as we come up with a method of storage.

Here's an idea that has merit. I'd like to see one or two built. If they work, India and Australia could supply green energy to the whole planet. How much room do we have in the Kimberly, Pilbarra or Nullabor? More than enough space for thousands of these things.

http://www.enviromission.com.au/

Mark Addinall.

I know how fascinating huge, intricate, complex machines are, but there are many issues besides passing on the waste for our grandkids to play with. Few pay attention to the mining that leaves mountains of toxic fine dust blowin' in the wind (in addition to radiaoactivity, there's also the usual mercury, sulphur, etc.) that make coal mining seem pristine. One would be wise to ask, if you think this energy production makes sense, why the Fed. Gov. must subsidize the entire operation from beginning to end, and limit liability with special exemption statutes. In addition, high grade uranium is in finite quantities, estimated to last less than the life span of a nuclear plant. Of course the waste could be reprocessed, but then all that weapons-grade plutonium would be at risk of being liberated for terrorist's use. Now, one more time, tell us how wonderful nuclear is next to wind or thermal solar which are competitive right now and don't suck taxpayers' money bags dry. A discriminating engineer would seek a process to provide the end result without all the unwanted problems.

buckyfan

Which current form of energy generation would YOU prefer to see operating on a calm night?

It has already been discussed in this forum that nuclear power plants do not produce weapons grade plutonium. This is a red herring that the anti-nuclear community likes to spread.

No, nuclear isn't the only viable option but it does have a role to play. As engineers we need to look beyond prejudice and opinion to the facts, pure and simple. There are myriad "green" energy sources and only a mixture of these can supply the planets requirements. Personally I'm in favour of geothermal generation and have been looking into some new developments over the last few years. Solar, wind and tidal energy also have their places as does nuclear.

I am with Philo,

There are many other methods of extracting energy besides nuclear technology methods. I have engineering physics training (unfortunately underemployed and not in my pro) and had some courses on nuclear technology....I have been inside small nuclear reactor facility too....and believe me, you dont want to work in here and come home greeting your wife with your 'radiant' smile. But there are many other reason I am not in favour of nukes with one exception.

Not in favour,

1) Most engineering systems are designed with assumptions that people will follow the rules....(do you follow the speed limit on the road?) ex. chernobyl explosion. Therefore nukes in hands of people (even the trained ones) is not a safe way running a facility if you consider side effect of worst case scenario...

2) Let say we are in Yugoslavia, Afganistan, or Iraq...where there is democracy and well being like in U.S or Canada...and then we build nukes because we think we are in safe heaven...then war comes in....those nukes became sitting nuclear dirty bombs waiting to be detonated. Not to mention terrorist's 'nice' tool to use.

3) We cannot damp waste safely and permamently.....look recently some geologist just discovered 500 year old shipwreck with gold coins and ivory near Africa....did he check for radioactivity...the discoverer on the picture looks weird...his smile is so 'radiant'....

4) By the way do you think that the fallout of chernobyl, nevada desert, syberia, herosima, nagasaki is confined or gone....nonsense...their radioactivity will be active for few thousand years.....and dust is not confined...it is scattered all over the world ...we live in a very dynamic system....like a fish in a pod..

5) Concentration of radioactive waste is growing every year (rate of creation is few minutes) ....Concentration of of radioactive wase is shrinking-decaying every thousands of years (rate of decays is few thousand years)

6) There are many more competent and economical solutions that are better than nuclear technology such as geothermal, solar, wind, ocean waves and hydro.

7) The reason some people are in favour of nukes is because its a quick and dirty solution to the problem....

8) and finally, I like to follow principles that has been proven by trial and error for millions of years (if not billions). Yes, nature...from book Biomimicry...ten commandments....1. Use waste as resource....Nuclear technology...does not use waste...it generates waste...

in favour,

1) the most practical use is in deep space exploration where environment itself is radioactive.

The End.

Germans are not stupid...they have a good reason to stay away from nukes..they dont want turn their country into a field of nuke bombs waiting to be detonated and especially when nobody will want to clean up the mess (it cant be cleaned...only time will clean it say few thousand years...).

And we dont have 100 years to think about alternative energy source...I would say 10 years before average global temperature rise by three degrees....and then all goes hell....

Just as I said...there is a lot of safer way of producing electricity...but it cannot be aproached with conventional capitalism thinking ....it needs to be done in collective way....or old traditional way....a King that will give everybody a boot camp experience.

Its very sad that lots of people heading towards nukes....its tells us that we are low level thinking animals...and that we might be replaced by typical evolution process....and humanity might be just another passing branch of the tree. Let see, time will tell.

Fact: by the time electricity, however generated, gets over high power and local lines to the end-user, up to 90% loss occurs.

Fact: the obvious solution is to generate energy locally. This re-vamps (read invalidates) your "density" arguments. Local or on-site generation eliminates the big gulp and pays for itself soon.

Fact: if the "engineering will" (read billions of dollars) were applied to solar, wind, and hydro (not to mention wireless) generation, it would be a done deal in record time.

Fact: your idea of "neat" storage and nuclear bomb survivability differs greatly from those who read ALL the facts about genetic mutation, disease and damaged lives from nuclear radiation.

Fact: you will remember this when you come down with your body's own version of nuclear cell-damage if you are able to receive the information. I'm so sorry, and I'm NOT wishing it upon you.

Fact: much truth about alternative energy (already being emphasized in many parts of the world) will emerge in the next 4 or 5 years.

Fact: Mother's Day 2008 is upon us. Do something nice for your mother. Best would be to get her off the grid.

Love, The Auburn Activist

Fact: by the time electricity, however generated, gets over high power and local lines to the end-user, up to 90% loss occurs.

Well, your first fact is complete fiction. I researched it and everything I have read says that losses are on the order of 7-8% (still a very significant number!). If you have better data please share it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

Fact: the obvious solution is to generate energy locally. This re-vamps (read invalidates) your "density" arguments. Local or on-site generation eliminates the big gulp and pays for itself soon.

There are advantages in generating locally. I like the pebble bed reactor, a small nuke plant to provide electricity on a local basis.

Fact: if the "engineering will" (read billions of dollars) were applied to solar, wind, and hydro (not to mention wireless) generation, it would be a done deal in record time.

Billions of dollars can solve all sorts of engineering problems.

Fact: your idea of "neat" storage and nuclear bomb survivability differs greatly from those who read ALL the facts about genetic mutation, disease and damaged lives from nuclear radiation.

Nuclear radiation in high doses can and does cause disease and genetic mutation. So do many hydrocarbons chemicals. Cyanide in small doses kills instantly. What is your point? Neat storage and control of radioactive material is a simple technical problem. Easily solved with your billions of dollars from above.

Fact: you will remember this when you come down with your body's own version of nuclear cell-damage if you are able to receive the information. I'm so sorry, and I'm NOT wishing it upon you.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Fact, you are getting a bit hysterical, take a chill pill. BTW I have worked in six different nuclear plants, I have actually climbed onto the upper flange of the reactor vessel on a unit loaded with fuel (upper nozzle and head stud inspection) and managed to live...

Fact: much truth about alternative energy (already being emphasized in many parts of the world) will emerge in the next 4 or 5 years.

Huh? I again am not sure what your point is.. Could you share some of this mystic truth with us now?

Fact: Mother's Day 2008 is upon us. Do something nice for your mother. Best would be to get her off the grid.

I already gave my Mom some flowers.

Love, The Auburn Activist

Love, your nuclear nightmare...

You are right, at least as to line losses. That's why we transmit alternating current rather than direct current; resistive losses are far less.

For what it is worth, many years ago, they did away with it fairly recently, the old Edison direct current generating plant still distributed D.C. to some locations in lower Manhattan. I remember using a bank of lamps for resistance and charging car batteries off it.

Now it makes more sense to do away with the crazy patchwork distribution system. Generate power locally and by means best matching resources in any given area. Consider the myriad problems Con Ed has had in Manhattan with ancient, decaying, and overloaded, underground transmission cables. Far cheaper to install small natural gas driven turbines here and there and close out the ancient, massive, generating plants.

Feed the boilers whatever is cheaper at any one moment, oil, gas, or?? As prices changed seasonally, that's what we used to do with the boiler in a Jamaica, Queens, instant coffee plant.

As far as nuclear fission, the accidents we have had were human error. I don't know how, over extended periods, to eliminate that. The extreme half lives of the spent fuel and other residuals cannot be overcome either.

Wireless power transmission? What are you smoking?

j.

Fact: by the time electricity, however generated, gets over high power and local lines to the end-user, up to 90% loss occurs.

What nonsense. Where did this figure come from. I would be looking at new network engineers well before that figure.

Here in Australia, on very long haul wire, the worst I have seen has been 28%. And we fixed that.

Fact: the obvious solution is to generate energy locally. This re-vamps (read invalidates) your "density" arguments. Local or on-site generation eliminates the big gulp and pays for itself soon.

That's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. So how are you going to generate power locally? A windmill! Even my country is falling for this expensive eyesore con-job.

Fact: if the "engineering will" (read billions of dollars) were applied to solar, wind, and hydro (not to mention wireless) generation, it would be a done deal in record time.

Solar possibly. Wind is rather out of the hands of Engineers, and falls into the lap of nature. When the wind doesn't want to blow, the power goes off. Inconvenient if you are in the middle of heart surgery or baking a cake. Hydro is the same. You can't increase the head of a water flow as if by magick. Besides, everytime we try building a new dam the greenies get all hot and bothered until our magnificent politicians, as usual, do nothing.

Fact: your idea of "neat" storage and nuclear bomb survivability differs greatly from those who read ALL the facts about genetic mutation, disease and damaged lives from nuclear radiation.

Fact: There are two great heat sources in this Solar system. A great big Fusion reactor right above your head. We like to call it the Sun. And a great big fission reactor right under your bum. We call that the Earth. It uses a huge battery we know as the sea. 'Nuclear' radiation is the same as 'Everyday' radiation. Too much at some frequencies is BAD. In my state, QLD, close to 35% of the population will be treated for skin cancer at some point in thier lives. The multi-billion dollar fix required to combat this horrible problem? Wear a hat. Nuclear waste? Stick it in a big hole.

Fact: you will remember this when you come down with your body's own version of nuclear cell-damage if you are able to receive the information. I'm so sorry, and I'm NOT wishing it upon you.

So what do we do? Ban the Sun? And the Earth?

The green movement are amazing creatures. Not one single, solitary real fact seems to stick around, just a whole bunch of ridiculous memes that have been generated in the last decade or so.

Fact: much truth about alternative energy (already being emphasized in many parts of the world) will emerge in the next 4 or 5 years.

Here ya go. I'll give you a heads up. Wind power doesn't work. Denmark, the Queen of the Greens spends a lot of money buying Hydro power from Sweden, Nuclear power from Sweden, Coal generated power from Germany and Nuclear generated power from Germany. And some Hydro from Norway. Now that Germany has been conned by the Windmill salesmen, increasingly they buy nuclear generated power from the French.

California was just a nightmare, with the wind plants running at a whole 1.8% capacity during the last heat wave.

Here in Australia we burn coal. Why? Most of eastern Australia is made out of the stuff. It's cheap, and with scrubbers, it's quite clean. If idiotic people want to stop using cheap power from coal, then the other option is Nuclear. Australia owns around 30% of the known uranium deposits in the world (and yet curiously have no nuclear industry) and WA is made of Thorium.

But no, like the rest of the world we seem keen on screwing up the country by popping $2million dollar bloody wind turbines up and down hills. An extrordinary waste of time and money.

Fact: Mother's Day 2008 is upon us. Do something nice for your mother. Best would be to get her off the grid.

No point. She's dead. That's about as far off the grid you can get heh?

Mark Addinall.

Love, The Auburn Activist

There are many other methods of extracting energy besides nuclear technology methods.

Sure. Burn oil. Burn coal. Burn gas. All being done.

I have engineering physics training (unfortunately underemployed and not in my pro) and had some courses on nuclear technology....

If you'll forgive me, I find that a little hard to believe.

I have been inside small nuclear reactor facility too....and believe me, you dont want to work in here and come home greeting your wife with your 'radiant' smile.

What was that nonsense? Lessee, I have been in plenty of oil refineries, in underground coal mines, and up to my waist in a Lead/Zinc concentrator's slurry. I felt a lot happier in the nuke facility.

But there are many other reason I am not in favour of nukes with one exception.

Not in favour,

1) Most engineering systems are designed with assumptions that people will follow the rules....(do you follow the speed limit on the road?)

Always. Do you?

ex. chernobyl explosion. Therefore nukes in hands of people (even the trained ones) is not a safe way running a facility if you consider side effect of worst case scenario...

So? Build a ROBOT if you don't like people. Plenty of Statistical Process Control software and SCADA systems already implemented on power supply.

2) Let say we are in Yugoslavia, Afganistan, or Iraq...where there is democracy and well being like in U.S or Canada...and then we build nukes because we think we are in safe heaven...then war comes in....those nukes became sitting nuclear dirty bombs waiting to be detonated. Not to mention terrorist's 'nice' tool to use.

Bizzare. Stick them underground and lock the front door.

3) We cannot damp waste safely and permamently.....

Sure we can. Dig a big hole and chuck it in.

Or, store it synrock and keep it.

look recently some geologist just discovered 500 year old shipwreck with gold coins and ivory near Africa....did he check for radioactivity...the discoverer on the picture looks weird...his smile is so 'radiant'....

4) By the way do you think that the fallout of chernobyl, nevada desert, syberia, herosima, nagasaki is confined or gone....nonsense...their radioactivity will be active for few thousand years.....and dust is not confined...it is scattered all over the world ...we live in a very dynamic system....like a fish in a pod..

Well, a bit more like mammals on the surface.....

5) Concentration of radioactive waste is growing every year (rate of creation is few minutes) ....Concentration of of radioactive wase is shrinking-decaying every thousands of years (rate of decays is few thousand years)

It's actually shrinking at the moment.

6) There are many more competent and economical solutions that are better than nuclear technology such as geothermal,

That's nuclear...

solar,

So's that....

wind, ocean waves

They don't work...

and hydro.

Very finite resource...

7) The reason some people are in favour of nukes is because its a quick and dirty solution to the problem....

8) and finally, I like to follow principles that has been proven by trial and error for millions of years (if not billions). Yes, nature...from book Biomimicry...ten commandments....1. Use waste as resource....Nuclear technology...does not use waste...it generates waste...

Nuclear technology is one of the very few that does use it's own waste. Can't think of too many others off the top of my head. Oil obviously is a good one.

in favour,

1) the most practical use is in deep space exploration where environment itself is radioactive.

Hint. We live in deep space. Safeguarded by THE MAGNETOSPHERE (brought to you courtesy of Nuclear Fission and Convection).

The End.

Germans are not stupid...they have a good reason to stay away from nukes..they dont want turn their country into a field of nuke bombs waiting to be detonated and especially when nobody will want to clean up the mess (it cant be cleaned...only time will clean it say few thousand years...).

I think you will find the German direction changes next year.

And we dont have 100 years to think about alternative energy source...I would say 10 years before average global temperature rise by three degrees....and then all goes hell....

I'll bet you that you are wrong. Besides, 17.5C is the average temperature of this little blue planet. It's exactly 3C too chilly at the moment.

Just as I said...there is a lot of safer way of producing electricity...but it cannot be aproached with conventional capitalism thinking ....it needs to be done in collective way....or old traditional way....a King that will give everybody a boot camp experience.

So you favour engineering done Soviet style? How very odd.

Its very sad that lots of people heading towards nukes....its tells us that we are low level thinking animals...and that we might be replaced by typical evolution process....and humanity might be just another passing branch of the tree. Let see, time will tell.

DOOM! DOOM I TELLS YA!

Mark Addinall.

Well, here's my vote for nukes.

I've been working in many of them from the very beginning of engineering phase to commercial operation and maintenance. I'm at this moment in a refueling outage.

I've been in many occidental plants with different design (PWR, BWR, CANDU...) as well as in several eastern countries ones with Russian design, actual designs (PWR) or Chernobyl design (RMBK).

I was working in the nuclear field when TMI accident and I read the Kemeny Commission Report. This was mainly a problem of "human factors" (Poor training).

The Chernobyl accident which was comparable in grade according to IAEA scale with TMI one, had a component of "human factors", but this type of reactor, as the former VVER - 230 (PWR), would have never been allowed in western countries, because of two main reasons: The lack of a "containment", they have something called "confinement" which doesn't comply with western regulations and the fact that RMBK reactor type are intrinsically unstable at low power.

I'm tired of hearing people which blame on NPP because of Chernobyl accident. Is like blaming against cars in general based on a car model manufactured in Nowhereland because seems unsafe and when inspecting the cars, you realize that they are designed without brakes!!!!

Another question regarding nuclear wastes, which I agree are the main issue to solve.

But, all people that claim because the half life of some radioactive isotopes is measured in centuries, have a real and practical proposal for supply the world with energy thinking on some centuries in the future?

Have they a solution to give the third world a way of life similar to that they have?

Imagine China, India, Africa, etc. people living at US or European Community standards of life, how many GW do we need?

Fusion energy could be the future according to the state of the art, but we have to wait as already said some years, wait for the results of international effort under construction in Cadarache (France) and design a commercial unit.

And in the meantime? Have anybody think what could be the situation with the today crisis if we shutdown all nuclear power plants (more than 400 all over the world)?

Please, before blame anything, be sure you have a better solution.

Best regards

"Bottom line- no matter what we do, it ain't gonna happen." I think this one deserves an answer, last year was the first in which more power was generated by wind turbines than by Nuclear power, the wind industry has maintained a growth of 30%p/a for at least 6 years, and is ramping up. Just if the wind industry continued it's current expansion rate for the next 15 to 20 years it alone would be generating more than the entire worlds current energy requirement, so although I have pointed out that Geothermal hot rocks is a genuine option, as opposed to Nuclear, ( further arguments against which can be found here, http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear ) it is also the case that other technologies are contributing more and more and will continue to so do. Cheers, Geoff Thomas.

"Bottom line- no matter what we do, it ain't gonna happen." I think this one deserves an answer, last year was the first in which more power was generated by wind turbines than by Nuclear power,

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!

I don't suppose you have a citation for this ridiculous statement?

Brain dead hippy.

Mark Addinall. Cairns, Australia.

the wind industry has maintained a growth of 30%p/a for at least 6 years, and is ramping up. Just if the wind industry continued it's current expansion rate for the next 15 to 20 years it alone would be generating more than the entire worlds current energy requirement, so although I have pointed out that Geothermal hot rocks is a genuine option, as opposed to Nuclear, ( further arguments against which can be found here, http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/downloads.html#Nuclear ) it is also the case that other technologies are contributing more and more and will continue to so do. Cheers, Geoff Thomas.

Part of the answer is to use less energy...not make more

Now I must go have a nap.

Del

Waste is still a problem.

No, nukes are probably the best solution for the majority of applications, but they need not squeeze out complementary technologies.

I would heartily endorse swapping out old-coal for new-nukes, for any number of reasons on the national scale.

On the local scale I would strongly encourage the addition of DG-CSP (distributed generation concentrating solar-thermal) to reduce grid congestion.

Rooftop solar has the added benefit of reducing the cooling needs in summer, when the sun-induced demand for cooling stresses the last mile to the breaking point.

Economics are the arbiter, today we can provide DG-CSP for ~$90/MWh in the 50kW to low MW range, ideally suited for strip malls, big-box stores, warehouses, etc...

Good answer and one which I whole-heartedly agree with. A lot of this thread has degenerated into squabbles over which particular "green" solution is best, usually driven by the prejudices of the participants.

There is no single solution people.

If we open our eyes we will see that the consumption of hydrocarbons cannot continue indefinately. I don't state this as part of a global warming rant (of for that matter an anti-global warming rant) but purely from a position of hating waste.

As you so rightly state (or perhaps I'm paraphrasing here) let's use hydrocarbons where we need to, not just where it's convenient. This mean air travel since there can be alternatives on the ground.

We just need to look.

Del is the only one with the right answer. Use less energy.

But..what does that entail.

The situation in fact has a very interesting social model, the economic system. You make a couple bucks building and selling a gidget or gadget...Hey let's make a lot more with no regard for how many can the market, or the underlying planet infrastructure, sustain.

We get a benefit from the use of energy in lots of ways directly related to that economic system.

Take the major user of energy, at least here in the states, the automobile. One of us, that is many ones of us, weighing on average I would guess 160 lbs, ride around from here to there, hither and yon, in a three or four thousand pound machine twenty times our weight, hence burning enormous amounts of fuel, or should I say wasting enormous amounts of fuel.

I could do the same thing for virtually everyone of our activities.

Del is right. Use less energy, but, how is that to be achieved?

One way of course is to drastically cut our population. That is long term.

Another way is to change our way of living. The planet is finite and short of getting off it and polluting some other part of the universe, which is not likely to happen, we need to reduce the load on this planet.

I would suggest you rent a copy of the God's Must Be Crazy because its opening section shows another way of life.

Do I propose we all go back to the standards of life of the Kalahari Bushmen? Yes and no.

I think that it is possible to have the kind of social existence those folks enjoyed, before we wasters came along and destroyed it, and yet retain the various comforts, sufficient food, clothing, shelter, communications, but in a social existence more like theirs.

In another thread for instance, where it received interestingly enough no response, I proposed doing away with the individual resource wasting cars we seem to be wedded too.

Make long distance transport free, rail, air, bus, and at the beginning and ends of the trip, provide free little electric cars that get left when you get back on the long haul transport. Those same little cars can circulate locally. Why do you need to own a gas burner that sits idle most of the day when you can have for use when you need it, a nice little electric.

That is what will make electric cars sensible and useful without Dragon man and some of the other alchemists among us looking for cheap disassociation of water, or other such cheap energy notions.

Nuclear fission? Certainly not! Just consider the whole region poisoned by the use of uranium waste in the interest of further debilitating the planets resources.

Again! Del is right. Use less energy and change our manner of living to accomplish that. It need not be in the least painful providing it does not come about involuntarily as the result of our currently insane manner of living.

j.

"Nuclear fission? Certainly not! Just consider the whole region poisoned by the use of uranium waste in the interest of further debilitating the planets resources."

That need not be the result of utilizing nuclear fission....

I live in Northern Alberta, Nuclear plants are being considered further north and the environmentalists have certainly got their knickers in a knot over it. The emphasize the problems, assume that no progress has been made, and make statements like nuclear weapons follow nuclear power plans as sure as Sunday. The seem to have little respect for the truth, they tell people not to trust anyone currently in the business because they have a vested interest and have therefore sold their integrity.

The biggest problem that we will have in expanding the use of nuclear power will be combating the disinformation campaigns presented by the anti nuclear movement. They are working hard to plant seeds of fear among the public,

One thing that I find really amusing is the fact that countries who are phasing out nuclear power are importing electricity from countries where it is generated via nuclear power.

It is important that those of us who can see the environmental and economic advantages of nuclear power stand up and be counted.

I suggest you buy a house up the street from the Indian Point nuclear plant on the Hudson River just above New York City where they have had numerous problems and a fire if I remember correctly.

j.

I would be happy to do so. It would be a lot more healthy for me and my children that living near refinery row on the Houston ship channel...

I live in a city that has a population approaching a million if you include the greater Edmonton area. Our power comes from coal plants that are upwind of the city. The stuff that goes up the stack at a coal plant contains all manner of vile substances but what most people are not aware of is the uranium and other radioactive elements that are found in coal. I would like nothing more than to see those coal plants decommissioned and replaced with nice clean nuclear plants.

Depending upon how polluting they are the coal could become feedstock for Fischer-Tropsch plants to generate liquid fuels. This process provided fuel for Germany during WWII and South Africa during apartheid when they couldn't buy oil. In fact these synthetic oil plants might eve operate symbiotically with the nuclear plants as the latter could produce hydrogen by electrolysis of water.

After looking at all this there seems to be a group which rejects nuclear, oil, coal and hydro power which produces about 98% of our power, because of CO2 [which has not been proven to be a major problem] and to eliminate any environmental impact.

The plain facts are that all the alternative sources we can build cannot completely replace existing sources. Alternative energy sources can make a small lessening in the amount of standard sources needed. More nuclear will be a necessity and we can only hope that fusion power will come soon. As oil prices rise and supplies run low, more coal will be made into synthetic fuels.

I just got back from fishing for my mercury contaminated fish (had a blast thank you).

And in reading this thread I had a question. How much funding does the Anti-Nuke groups get from the oil industry and how much Anti-Oil funding comes from the Nuke industry?

Stirring the pot, it could explain a lot of the emotional PR.

If it is any consolation I work for a giganto oil company, and I am defending nuke power in this thread....

As I would expect from an Engineer. What is right is right.

As for PR and Marketing, how many high end car salesmen backed by greedy stock holders have found there niche?

I'm sure the bean counters would back a perceived gain in the market or a possible counter to a shift from their market. Big Business is war in their eyes.

If it is any consolation It warms my heart when and man/person says what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. So it is more than a consolation to me.

Thank You

Brad

Same here. And I'm advocating ''alternative" energy sources.....

Nuclear power is not the only option, Geothermal hot rock energy is far superior to Nuclear and has much greater potential. The technology for geothermal is well advanced, it uses a very similar electricity production to the Nuclear power plant, main difference is that the heat carrying water circulates down a 4 to 5 kilometre hole in the ground instead of a highly dangerous nuclear reactor with untreatable waste disposal problems. The technology for drilling the holes is also well developed in the modern oil industry and also a lot of the skills in the current coal and nuclear industry would be very welcome in the geothermal industry. In Australia the deep stable granite massifs which meet the heat requirement for power generation have enough heat to supply Australia's entire electricity needs for 7000 years, it is very easy to ramp up output so a perfect complement to Wind and Solar, - with the addition of wind, solar, tidal, and wave input those Geothermal resources, which slowly recharge, could last almost indefinitely. In America, according to Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power there is huge Geothermal resource, - claimed enough to power the entire world for thirty thousand years, - this can be contrasted to Nuclear, which on current proved uranium reserves of economical concentration could power the whole world for a measley 6 to 10 years, leaving incredible problems as some sort of warfare against our descendants. Opponents of Geothermal claim they could trigger earthquakes as indeed they have when companies drill into shallow unstable areas near active volcanic vents, but the solid granite massifs do not have this problem, - and indeed the disturbance is much less than say removing oil from underground reservoirs or indeed any deep mining. Cost wise, Geothermal is cheaper than Nuclear, although in the same ballpark, (unless you cost in waste treatment in which case Nuclear is much more expensive) but in conjunction with Solar Thermal, using the same generator - solar in the day, geothermal at night, therefore working the resource harder, there may be significant savings. The whole area, Geothermal, Wind, Solar Thermal, etc, etc, integrating them all into high tech grids etc. is a wonderful opportunity for engineers and associated disciplines, we are lucky to have the possibility to solve the problems caused by coal, nuclear, etc, now we know how negative they are. I certainly know that I feel good when I put in a wind system that reduces say 90% of diesel usage, in a remote area, which is what I do for a living, and I imagine that most engineers will feel much happier installing a Geothermal plant, - no waste, no greenhouse fluorine, no terrorist danger, rather than a Nuclear plant, a deadly gift to our children. So, not only is Nuclear not the only option, neither is it the best option. Cheers, Geoff Thomas. Kuranda, Australia.

I agree that the potential for geothermal is huge, but there are some pretty severe technical problems to overcome there as well. One is the increased rate of earthquake activity that has been correlated to geothermal plants.

The other is dealing with heavy metals and other difficult compounds that may be surfaced from a geothermal well such as carbon dioxide, nitric oxide, and sulfur, although these are engineering problems that can be solved. The good news is that the heat of the earth does have the energy density to meet demand.

The main thing I wonder about are the unintended consequences. Do we really understand the geological consequences of injecting water into the mantel? Will local cooling cause seismic problems?

We jumped into making energy from fossil fuels without considering the consequences.... should we do the same with geothermal.

Hi Steve, as I said in the article yesterday, it is only those already unstable volcanic areas that have reacted to geothermal drilling, areas already under pressure, shifting, with lava near the surface, - Hot rock geothermal does not go anywhere near those areas, although unfortunately some nuclear plants have been built near such areas, particularly in Japan. Perhaps I should have emphasized the term Hot Rock Geothermal, as using a heat pump to extract the earth's heat in winter is also Geothermal. A good site using the latest hot rock technology is http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html However, I don't disagree that a careful eye should be kept open for any deleterious effects, although they would have to be pretty severe to equal the risks associated with long term storage of radioactive waste from nuclear plants. Currently 20 countries around the world are using Geothermal so the build up of knowledge and experience is significant. To my knowledge there has been no loss of life or significant property damage resulting from Geothermal generation of electricity, the same can certainly not be said for Nuclear. If the choice is Coal, Nuclear or Geothermal Hot Rocks, then we know the first two are no good, and so far the evidence suggests no problems with Geothermal sensibly sited. It should be born in mind that the hotter rocks accessed relatively near the surface, (5 kms is pretty shallow in mantle terms,) are only still hot due to insulating layers of sedimentary rock artificially keeping them hot, - that layer is often naturally eroded over time and the hot rocks cool down. Geological events are always happening on the earth, - as we speak, Australia is disappearing into a trench up Timor way as it gradually subducts under the asian plate. However, geological events do not usually affect the whole earth at once, giant volcanic eruptions aside, whereas enough radiation in the earths atmosphere could sufficiently damage the human gene to threaten all human life on this earth. So, I really don't think Nuclear is an option, whereas Geothermal, on the evidence to hand so far, is. Cheers, Geoff.

But who makes the Big Money from geothermal? That could be a clue as to why there is not more of it. Also deep drilling in basalt is not cheap or easy and how far down do you go to get enough heat to make superheated steam? Where are the suitable sites located? Long transmission lines cost and lose a lot of power, so they should be near large cities.

The new scare film "Power Plant Volcano!!!" A geothermal power plant on Long Island erupts into a huge volcano threatening to destroy New York. Of course they pump in water from the Sound and cool the lava into solid rock and save the day.

But who makes the Big Money from geothermal? Hi Taganan, I would think that companies and their share holders who have invested in the recent Uranium boom will be very keen to push Nuclear, and the Coal industry will be stubborn about moving to new technology unless they are forced to pay for their carbon emissions. At the moment they feel that by denying global warming they can keep on making money most cost effectively, so it is only by changing their perception of where the money is to be made that they will change their activities. This could be achieved by Government Cap and Trade schemes, or by court cases where emitters are forced to pay for the damage their emissions have caused. This has been done with great resistance to the asbestos and tobacco industries but more and more people want the legal system to follow this approach. Then no one would want shares in coal or oil or Nuclear. Better if these companies could change their activities away from coal etc, as it is really energy they are about, and they could indeed do so if they wished. Getting them to wish is the problem, and it is only when they perceive that it is cheaper to use Geothermal than persist with coal that they will change. The same could be said for switching to Nuclear, nuclear is not cost effective against coal, - it is only by regulation and enormous government subsidy that nuclear is being forwarded. When enough people realise that Geothermal hot rocks is better and cheaper than Nuclear without the risks, then the conservative elements within Government and industry will reduce their opposition. Once it is realised Geothermal can make good money for whatever reason, Geothermal companies will emerge in their hundreds. The hundreds of oil well drilling rigs around the planet capable of drilling the requisite 4 to 5 kms will then become fully employed in so doing for Geothermal, and unlike Nuclear the time required and lack of trained personnel will not be a brake. To realise that what was OK in the past but is no longer, is a sign of maturity, if enough of the older generation, particularly engineers, can make this move, we can still have a bright future. Cheers, Geoff.

Stop the subsidies for nuclear. Since CO2 is not a real problem except to the Algores and hysterics, forget paying for carbon emissions or they will be making you pay for your CO2 emissions, called breathing. Use incentives, such as no taxes until one year after they are on line.

I do not believe in the use of lawsuits and more government regulations. I despise the trend toward the nanny-state. Companies which never mined asbestos and never made anything using asbestos are being sued simply because they bought up the equipment and buildings, the assets, of those who did. It follows the theory of acquired guilt into the deepest pocket.

If geothermal is really cheaper and safer, then there are better ways to achieve it than by force of law. It always seems that those in government who hold themselves out as being the opposite of conservative are those most interested in using the force of law to make people do what they think is right and which invariably results in less freedom and higher taxes [or fines].

I really hope it is a viable solution and I am a Conservative from the time when Hilary was also a supporter of Goldwater.

Hey! I'd buy the DVD... especially if the sub-plot involves BNL (Brookhaven) and the heavy ion collider! Maybe even a little "Save The Sound" propaganda, and of course a way for the Broadwater Project to supply energy to power the LNG powered pumps.

Perhaps this should really branch off into its own thread since it threatens to depart too far from the initial discussion. However here goes.

Lookfar, both you and Steve S are correct, there is a huge potential for hard/hot rock geothermal power generation and some significant work has been done in the South of England into exactly this resource.

However there do remain some issues with it.

You are correct to state that there would be little geophysical distortion forseeable in this since by definition, drilling hard rock the rock mechanical strength would preclude seismic events occuring.

Drilling these types of rock can be a long, arduous and expensive business (I know, I drill oil and gas wells for a living and these types of hard target rocks are problematic). The last time this was inversigated (to my certain knowledge) this was the exact reason for failure; bit technology was not advanced far enough to achieve the depths needed for economical recovery. Of course this was some time ago, drill bit technology has moved on and oil was not $120 a barrel.

LSA scale would also be a problem albeit one that can be overcome using existing technology. However, drilling into granites would also lead to a release of radon which would need to be dealt with.

Overall, I'm personally convinced that this is an important piece in the puzzle that will lead to a successful energy solution to the next thirty years and agree that a heck of a lot of work need to be done in this area. I feel that the potential for hard rock geothermal is vast and will help me go on drilling hoes in the ground for another twenty or so years so I can retire in peace. However it's going to take a lot of work to get there and a lot of money to deveolp the tools and equipment too.

Good answer Mark!

Ta :-) I try ;-)

Mark.

Mark Addinall, Cairns. Australia ... You make some good points. While geothermal is a possibly viable alternative energy source, it too has drawbacks and problems. Like other "green" energy sources, it may never replace nuclear, hydro, coal or oil, but it may supplement it. There is a problem in finding a site reasonably close to where the energy is used. Drilling in basalt is expensive, although safer than drilling near Yellowstone, Mt St. Helens or other more easily accessible hot spots. Guess which counts more when it comes to safety, spending more or spending less. The money wins.

"By all means clean up pollution. CO2 is not "pollution"." My sentiments exactly. While radiation itself is not pollution, radioactive material can be, unless it can be secured 100% for a very long time. We need fusion power more than fission power and I would rather double our use of coal than double our fission reactors, but we will actually have to do both to meet energy demands. The CO2 emissions from coal plants can be run through huge algae tanks to remove the C and release the O2, then the algae can be processed into whatever it is possible to make from it, fuel to food. Much cheaper than sequestration, perhaps more profitable, but doing that would remove the politician's thumb from people's necks, so it is not likely to happen.

Mark Addinall, Cairns. Australia ... You make some good points.

Thank you. As do you.

While geothermal is a possibly viable alternative energy source, it too has drawbacks and problems. Like other "green" energy sources, it may never replace nuclear, hydro, coal or oil, but it may supplement it. There is a problem in finding a site reasonably close to where the energy is used. Drilling in basalt is expensive, although safer than drilling near Yellowstone, Mt St. Helens or other more easily accessible hot spots. Guess which counts more when it comes to safety, spending more or spending less. The money wins.

It's pretty sure we have the right type of rock in Australia to generate quite a lot of power. Let's look why...

"The temperature at the top of the granite, at 3700m depth, is approximately 240ºC. The temperature gradient in the granite is expected to increase the rock temperature by ~3ºC for every 100m into the granite. The high temperatures at these depths relate to a number of independent geological conditions coinciding in the area:

(1) the presence of low conductivity sediments overlying the granite,

(2) the optimal thickness of these sediments which allows access to hot rock without needing to resort to the expensive drilling equipment required for drilling beyond 5km depth,

(3) a granite chemistry containing relatively high abundances of radiogenic elements giving high heat productivity (high heat production or HHP granite),

(4) the previous unroofing of the Palaeozoic granite which resulted in brittle unloading

features, and

(5) the existence of high tectonic stresses in the sediments and granite leading to low fluid permeability, conductive heat flow and minimised heat loss by convection"

(c) Geosciences Australia

-----------------------

Back to me. This is one of the points I try to help the Greens with. Hot rocks are hot for a very good reason. They are radioactive. Instead of using a heat exchanger and closed systems like man made Nuke units, this just wants to slosh big heaps of water in and out of the core. Shrug. I'm OK with that if everyone else is. There is no difference between "Natural Green" decay of Uranium and the "Nasty man-made" method.

"By all means clean up pollution. CO2 is not "pollution"." My sentiments exactly. While radiation itself is not pollution, radioactive material can be, unless it can be secured 100% for a very long time.

Chuck it back into the Mantle..... I really can't see where the problem lies. There's only a few thousand tonnes ofthe stuff. Or keep it and burn it in a better reactor.

We need fusion power more than fission power and I would rather double our use of coal than double our fission reactors, but we will actually have to do both to meet energy demands. The CO2 emissions from coal plants can be run through huge algae tanks to remove the C and release the O2, then the algae can be processed into whatever it is possible to make from it, fuel to food. Much cheaper than sequestration, perhaps more profitable, but doing that would remove the politician's thumb from people's necks, so it is not likely to happen.

Agreed. Instead of open air farms, BIG greenhouses fed with 2000ppm CO2 from the coal plant would be just dandy.

However, we have a new breed of brokers ready to get rich on "Carbon Credits". Taxing air, what a joke.....

Mark Addinall.

It is fair enough to consider possible problems, claiming those problems are ubiquitous and cannot be solved is another matter. Geothermal hot rocks has been proposed as a viable green power option, there is a lot of development in Australia, including successful drilling at Innamincka of exactly the deep hard granite well claimed in other posts not to have been done, 'Habanero 3, the first well to be drilled using the 'Lightning Rig', is the first commercially viable well to be drilled and its target depth of 4,221 m (13,850 ft) was reached on January 22, 2008." quoted from the Geodynamics web site, http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/about_progresstodate.html The folk there also claim they are not getting highly radioactive water coming up, so saying that they will, as Mark Addinall does, is simply not true, even if occasionally it might happen, it is not a cogent argument against Geothermal. Likewise expense is held to be a reasonable objection, but must be seen in context, firstly, Nuclear, which some have touted as an option, is more expensive, (even if it is possible, see http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html ) secondly the likely cost to the world of doing nothing as pointed out by the Stern report, (good comment on http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/11/16/galbraith/index.html) is far greater than closing down the coal fired power stations and replacing them with Geothermal, so cost is not really an issue either. The only other argument I see on these pages is "nothing is needed because I don't believe in Global Warming" - while I accept that people are entitled to their beliefs, it was not the question asked for this forum so those comments are off topic and better addressed in other forums. The question here is are Nukes the only viable green power option, I think now the answer is No, Geothermal hot rocks is a viable option and indeed Nuclear may not be at all. Cheers, Geoff Thomas.

It is fair enough to consider possible problems, claiming those problems are ubiquitous and cannot be solved is another matter.

And yet you are unwilling to allow this argument to be put forward for and method of power generation you deem 'non-green' mainly through a belief system. For a friend of the Earth, you don't seem to know much how it works....

Geothermal hot rocks has been proposed as a viable green power option, there is a lot of development in Australia, including successful drilling at Innamincka of exactly the deep hard granite well claimed in other posts not to have been done, 'Habanero 3, the first well to be drilled using the 'Lightning Rig', is the first commercially viable well to be drilled and its target depth of 4,221 m (13,850 ft) was reached on January 22, 2008." quoted from the Geodynamics web site, http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/

And a good use of an old oil well. It's not producing any power 'though.

about_progresstodate.html The folk there also claim they are not getting highly radioactive water coming up, so saying that they will, as Mark Addinall does,

You'll need to find a cite for that assertion or an apology.

is simply not true, even if occasionally it might happen, it is not a cogent argument against Geothermal.

So, let me get this straight; An "occasional" spill of highly radioactive waste, in your opinion, is OK, as long as it is 'green' highly radioactive waste?

Likewise expense is held to be a reasonable objection, but must be seen in context, firstly, Nuclear, which some have touted as an option, is more expensive, (even if it is possible, see http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/index.html ) secondly the likely cost to the world of doing nothing as pointed out by the Stern report, (good comment on http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/11/16/galbraith/index.html) is far greater than closing down the coal fired power stations and replacing them with Geothermal, so cost is not really an issue either.

"Cost is not an issue". Let's generate power using pixie dust and warm feelings. For the gentle reader elsewhere, Kuranda is a wonderful part of the world. Just up the road from me, the Kuranda railway goes right past my house. Our power is Hydro. We have one stupid windfarm that produces nothing as usual. This part of the world is tropical. We locals think it is quite cold today at a chilly 25C. Really cold means wearing something more than shorts and a t-shirt. However, for those in colder climes, who do not have the pleasure of 'round year warmth, affordable power is important. And you have three choices to acheive that lofty goal, Coal, Gas and nuclear. Those of us up here in Cairns who do not use air-conditioning like myself, use hardly any power at all. Enough to drive a few computer systems. No heating required, hot water heater hardly ever gets used, cook with gas. It's pretty easy being 'green' when you live in a tropical paradise. It's not so easy if you are poor and live in a climate that DOES require heating, hot water and such for survival.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/494582_2

Causes of Cold-Related and Heat-Related Deaths

Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics, and almost all of them are due to common illnesses that are increased by cold. Coronary and cerebral thrombosis account for about half of the cold-related deaths and respiratory disease for about half the rest.^[6]

[...]

Energy is required. How do we generate it? In Australia it's rather obvious. The east side of the country is made of coal and the rest of it Thorium. We don't have anymore Hydro options, we don't have that much water. Wind power is just a dismal failure. If you want to stop burning coal (and I don't see that as a very good option) then we are going to have to light up some nukes.

THE most significant reason for this is transmission. Even if geothermal turns out to be the fairy princess of power generation, you have to go to it and get the power back to where it is needed. With a little nuke, just build it where you need the power.

Mark Addinall.

The only other argument I see on these pages is "nothing is needed because I don't believe in Global Warming" - while I accept that people are entitled to their beliefs, it was not the question asked for this forum so those comments are off topic and better addressed in other forums. The question here is are Nukes the only viable green power option, I think now the answer is No, Geothermal hot rocks is a viable option and indeed Nuclear may not be at all. Cheers, Geoff Thomas.

"The CO2 emissions from coal plants can be run through huge algae tanks to remove the C and release the O2, then the algae can be processed into whatever it is possible to make from it, fuel to food." Nice idea - the problem is the quantity needed. Algae is a way of using solar energy with a fraction of a percent efficiency, converting CO2, water and sunlight into cellulose (etc.) and oxygen. So you are suggesting having a solar energy plant, running at a fraction of a percent efficiency, with the same power output as each coal-fired power station. Unfortunately when you do the sums, you find that this involves stupendous areas of land. If you are going to use large areas of land for solar power, it is clearly best to use a method that is more than a fraction of a percent efficient and use it directly rather than as a way of capturing CO2.

Hi Mark, Hot rocks are radioactive? That is just another myth put about by big coal and big nuclear, - if you read my first post, I mentioned that hot rocks are hot from the heat coming up from the molten centre of the earth, and the reason it is so hot so close to the surface is because there is an insulating layer of sedimentary rock on top, - no insulating layer, and the rocks are colder. Common sense will tell you it is just a vicious lie, how radioactive are volcanic eruptions? what is there in granite to establish a nuclear reaction? - if volcanic eruptions were radioactive we would all glow in the dark and if granite could be used for nuclear reactors we wouldn't need uranium. There are theories that maintain some of the heat deep in the earth originated from deposits of uranium, but logic would say that some would have proceeded to explosion, and there is no evidence of that. Not to deny there may be some slight radiation or even occasionally a deposit of uranium, - that would be ascertained in the early drilling, and that site unsuitable. Of course the original heat in the centre of the earth may have had a component from the fissioning Sun, but current Geoscience has it that the heat in the earth is from it's contraction, not from uranium deposits, - which are generally observed today not to be hot! One should also be aware that Hot rock Geothermal is only 4 to 5 km deep in the crust, while continental lithosphere has a range in thickness from about 40 km to perhaps 200 km; the upper ~30 to ~50 km of typical continental lithosphere is crust. What we have then with Hot Rock Geothermal, even had the heat been generated deep under the crust by some nuclear process in the past, is just heat, no poisonous waste the treatment of which, despite 50 years of Nuclear power stations has no solution, and hence is not a problem that has been solved, perhaps never can be. It would seem to me then that Nukes are not a viable green power option, Geothermal is a green power option, set and match. Cheers, Geoff Thomas.

Well, actually they are mildly radioactive. It's not a lie, nor is it vicious. Simple truth is that if you've got granite, you get radon. The ratios are fantastically small, but the volumes of hot rocks are enormous! Since even a little dose of some radioisotopes can ruin your day, it needs to be kept in perspective.

Generally I'm all for dry hot rock geothermal, but like so many other Green 'solutions' you have to be in the right place to take advantage of them. Hydro needs rivers & elevation changes. Wind needs the atmospheric isobars to maintain a gradient. Geothermal need thin crust to be economical, and the stuff that comes up can be quite noxious.

Solar energy is available just about everywhere on the planet ;^)

Hi Tick-tock, I take your point, there is a tiny amount of associated radiation, - so we are told is also from burning coal, and indeed quite a number of industrial processes, certain weapons, medical treatments etc etc. All the more reason to severely limit gross radiation events such as used fuel rods from Nuclear power stations, - still sitting in their cooling ponds all over the earth, over 200 one article I read claimed. We can arguably live with small amounts of radiation, let's hope the current generation of Nukes last until they close down without too many more leaks, but it seems to me irresponsible to build any more. Why I called it a vicious lie is not because it is 100% false, but because other interest groups advance the claim that Geothermal is no good because too much radiation, - yes technically there may be a tiny bit, but the intent of the claim is to knock Geothermal off the agenda so their status quo coal plants can keep polluting or their Nuclear plants can get built, I am not saying that anyone on this list is the originator of these "half truth" spins, but I do suspect the intent behind the originators is to dismiss everything except their own agenda. Perhaps I am getting paranoid in my old age but can you blame me when every time I mention Geothermal someone jumps up and despite no knowledge on the subject at all, - often not even any knowledge as to what it is, holds forth that it won't work because of earth quakes and radiation. I personally have no shares in Geothermal, I run a wind generation company, but had I heaps of money, Geothermal would get my investment money because it a real baseload alternative available right now. Concerning the closeness, ie a geothermal resource may not be near the target population, latest advances in high voltage DC electricity transmission (million volts and over) many installations done or being done by ABB, Siemens and such, makes it much more economical to connect the Geothermal output to the national grid, - and coupled with the "virtual power station" concept, allows integration of renewables such as wind and solar to be used as they are available in tandem with the easily increased Geothermal baseload. Also new developments in electricity storage such as redox batteries, supercaps, flywheels, etc allow short term grid support whilst other generators are brought on line and also, interestingly have the potential to isolate major outages such as the New York blackout of a few years back. Hope that helps clarify. Cheers, Geoff Thomas. Kuranda, Australia

Geoff, I find it interesting that you criticize others for jumping "up and despite no knowledge on the subject at all, - often not even any knowledge as to what it is, holds forth that it won't work because of earth quakes and radiation." and then you do the same thing in regards to nuclear power.

The people who have commented here have commented in good faith and with at least a little bit of knowledge, some of it outdated perhaps. I have been following the geothermal work being done at Los Alamos New Mexico since the 70's when my Dad was doing work with them. I have nuclear experience, and I work in the energy business, so I think your accusation of no knowledge at all is, well a bit insulting...

I watched a documentary on geothermal on the science channel just a few nights ago and the primary issue they dealt with was the increase in seismic activity associated with geothermal sites, so I am inclined to think that earthquakes are an issue. That information is just as good as whatever article you read about nukes isn't it?

Hi Steve, possibly I could have phrased that better, - my comment was directed to the Government officials and some partygoers that evinced those views, I had not meant to include members of this discussion, - assuming, from several supportive posts, that many on this list understood what I was presenting. I agree I had not made that clear, - so many consideration elements, but I think it will come out in the wash, as this discussion proceeds, - so take it as given, I do not include you in that "ignorant" group, - however I do hope you may follow up some of the references I include, as I will endeavour to follow up any of yours. Cheers, Geoff Thomas Kuranda, Australia