Slashdot Mirror

One more thing I almost forgot. Load shedding > Peaker Plants.

You don't want the utility being able to shut your AC compressor down. OK. My utility also has the same plan, where they pay you for the ability to shut my compressor down for 2 hours every so many hours. Why? Peak demand. It's cheaper to perform load shedding (i.e. remotely shut down compressors) than it is to maintain and operate gas turbine peaker plants that sit idle 95% of the year, and than consume costly (comparatively) natural gas when called upon to provide peak power.

Distribution infrastructure is one thing. Peak power needs a quite another. You want better infrastructure, which is fair. It's also fair that utilities should provide time of use power costs, so their power costs are passed on to customers instead of them insulating customers with a flat rate. If you don't allow market pricing to work, poor decisions result.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9803658-7.html

http://www.epa.state.il.us/air/fact-sheets/peaker-power-plant.html

http://www.google.com/search?q=peak+power+cost

http://energypriorities.com/entries/2006/02/pse_tou_amr_case.php

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/connecticut-power-light-proposes-10-1-ratio-for-peak-power/

There are plenty of private companies who have tried to break into nuclear power but there's not a single government in a country with a large enough market to make the investment worthwhile that doesn't micromanage every aspect of the energy industry.

France is not big enough? China isn't either? How about India and Russia? How big does a nation have to be then? In all 4 nations the government decides what gets built not the market. And none of them have the US's regulations either. Hell France has dumped their waste in the ocean and Russia sent prisoners to work the mines.

• France's Nuclear Waste Heads to Russia
• Russian protests against Areva and Urenco's nuclear waste dumping.
• Vive la Nucleair Waste: France Deals with Legacies of its Nuclear Programs.
• Thousands of radioactive waste barrels rusting.

Falcon

"Like the U.S., France does not have a permanent solution for disposal. The cost of temporary waste storage -- hundreds of billions of euros -- is being passed along to French taxpayers and ratepayers by the state and its subsidized plant operators."

"The only other hope for nuclear would be to subsidize it, and subsidies must increase taxes, deepen the budget deficit, or both. That's not new in America: The fossil fuels industry receives more subsidies than all other forms of energy combined."

I'm not debating that nuclear is cheap and will scale... my point is that we're not as close to where we should be (even in Europe) as you state.

Your data is incorrect, not sure where you got it from. There's been a lot of confusion (and politicking) over different ways to calculate percentage of energy consumption by source, there's even confusion over whether we're talking about energy consumption or electricity consumption.

Here's some more info on : the France situation.

One note... it's disingenuous to state that 100% of France's energy exports are nuclear, which you seem to claim. It's also important to note that mild winters (such as 06-07 and 07-08) will increase the nuclear percentage -- nuclear is used for baseload supply in France -- while a harsh winter (like 08-09) will result in a lower percentage from nuclear.

If you get National Geographic, I suggest you read the Feb 09 issue, it explains very well the nuances of calculating where various nation's energy/electricity consumption is coming from.

Also please note that Sweden, as of 2008, didn't even produce 50% of its energy from nuclear, and imports over 35% of its energy (which is not over half nuclear). As for Lithuania, I don;t want to amrginalize them, but their energy consumption is so small as to barely affect European consumption on the whole.

In short, I think the figures you refer to assume that whenever mathematically possible, energy exports/imports are calculated as 100% nuclear. This is simply not the case.

France seems to have a good handle on it.

Not so much. Yes, reprocessing reduces it somewhat - but creates plutonium factories, great terrorist targets and a huge security problem if we want to find a solution that's globally applicable. And reprocessing produces pollution itself, and doesn't eliminate all the waste. France's "solution" has been the same as the U.S.'s: stick your head in the sand.

Some of the wast they ship to Russia. A lot of it lies around in short-term storage, big barrels or holding tanks, and everybody prays for no leaks. They've designated the town of Bure as their main nuclear waste dump, like the U.S. has designated Yucca Mountain, but are getting the same sort of push-back about it.

Uranium or plutonium fission is a highly sub-optimal energy source. Much better to put resources into developing accelerator-based "energy amplifier" reactors that are subcritical, can burn up nuclear waste, and run on thorium, and also of course fusion, including making better use of that big fusion reactor just 93 million miles away.

and you don't see a looming French nuclear waste disposal problem

maybe, if you don't paiy enough attention:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-waste-crisis-france
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2005/03/france_nuke_was.php

additionally, they export some of the waste to other countries (Spain at least).

In summary, they are selling new townhomes with solar panels attached to the top. However, you don't own the solar panels for the default listing price; because there are much better economic incentives to commercial use of solar, you purchase the townhome and then buy back the solar from the commercial entity that was setup to own the panels. It is believed that this is more cost effective, although they do give you the option to purchase the panels on top of your home when you purchase the home.

It's not clear to me who maintains the panels, or the roof under them, however. Presumably the solar commercial entity, although I'd want that detailed. If I develop a hole in my roof, and I need to do some work up there, what happens to the solar panels that are in the way?

IIRC, after some 20 years the home owner then can purchase the solar panels at a much reduced rate.

I call 'em like I see 'em. How is such thinking not "one-dimensional"? You stated those two possibilities as though they were the only two.

Now, quit with the thinly veiled ad-hominems and address the meat of the argument.

How long do you think it's gonna take to get at that extra oil?

Biodiesel? Available within a year (major rampup). Offshore oil around the US? Available within 4 years. Anwar? Available within 3 years. There are similar stocks available around the world, and guess what, with oil apparently permanently over $40 a barrel (almost $60 at this writing) it's now economically viable to drill for it. Let the market work.

How long do you think it's gonna last with our current usage?

PLENTY long enough. For many reasons, the western world is aggressively developing new energy technologies.

The answers are too long and not long enough, respectively.

Wrong! Back up your assertions with some numbers please.

The parent never mentioned that he wanted to do any of that; he pointed out 2 oil sources that hadn't been tapped yet and the tone of the message seemed to be that would fix all our problems since there weren't alternatives provided, hence the reason I asked him the question.

I've looked into the issue a fair amount. If the oil companies become convinced that oil will stay over $40 a barrel, they can easily explore and develop very significant additional resources. At the same time, we have renewable resources to convert into biodiesel and ethanol if prices stay high enough. These can also be ramped up rather rapidly.

There are other disruptive technologies like solar which may come through in a big way. Recent announcements of cheap, efficient, flexible solar fabric may signal a real turning point.

In short the "radical conservation is the only way out" energy policy is an unnecessary disaster that won't have to happen. :-)