Slashdot Mirror

Canada uses mostly hydroelectric and a significant amount of nuclear locally (and has local uranium), along with a scattering of renewables. Fossil fuels were about 22% of Canada's energy sources. Despite Canada having very large oil reserves, hence Canada's export economy being driven by oil prices. Citation: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/...

I'm less familiar with Australia's energy mix, but this site suggests it's surprisingly dependent on fossils: https://industry.gov.au/Office...

I'm also not familiar with how much local non-renewables there are in Australia, but I would say based on this that generally Canada seems to have lower dependence on externally-sourced energy resources.

Canada exports a lot more food than it imports, and basically always has. A significant stat is that Canada has about 0.5% the world population and produces about 1.5% of the world's food.

Canada in general is an exporter of raw materials. The US is traditionally an exporter of manufactured materials -- they have resources themselves, but mostly not quite as much as Canada except for arable land (but including potable water); they make up for it in ever-increasing manufacturing capacity despite a lot of boo-hooing about the decline of the manufacturing industry.

The amount of arable land in Canada is not to be underestimated. The high level of freshwater means land can be pretty damn productive even in a shorter growing season.

Oil remained the largest primary energy source in Australia, at 38 percent in 2013–14, followed by coal (32 per cent) and natural gas (24 percent). Renewables accounted for 6 per cent of Australia’s energy mix

- Australian Energy Statistics [PDF]

Interesting to hear your perspective. Do you have any references that show more general examples? I'm going on the various LCoE studies that all show onshore wind to be already competitive with coal and gas, even without any carbon price, which would appear to contradict your experiences. These tables show that while wind maintenance is indeed more than coal or gas, this is more than offset by the savings on fuel and other variable costs.

Solar PV is not far behind, and is already considerably cheaper than solar thermal (and getting cheaper still -"Capital costs have fallen 60% in the past four years and could drop a further 40% reports Deutsche Bank"). Small-scale solar PV is of course less efficient, but still provides attractive payback times to consumers and free power for many years to come - while coal LCoEs are only projected to increase, especially if carbon costs are considered (as they need to be).

Certainly; cost is always a factor, including for nuclear. Almost anything is possible, given enough time & money, but cost effectiveness is still paramount - IF you consider all significant lifetime factors, including capital, ongoing, post-lifetime, and at least best estimates of external societal costs.

I'd love to see more comprehensive levelised cost comparisons of a much wider range of grid options, including solar & wind backed by a range of different storage technologies, nuclear, and even fossil-fueled options too. It'd be fascinating to see how these have been changing over time, and how they change by site, payoff times, residual/decomissioning costs and externalities. Too much discussion is reduced to "it just isn't practical" and "this is better, because reasons", or "that would be too expensive".

This AETA updated report on energy options for NSW, Australia, is an excellent start, and has some great information in graph form towards the end, including . Unfortunately, a change in government since the original report has resulted in carbon prices being excluded, which is unfortunate as that was a reasonable proxy for the many external costs to society, but even without that it can still add some much needed reality to the picture. Got any links to even more comprehensive studies?

I was just quoting the article that claimed zero-electric bills (on balance) for a solar-powered house in Australia (minus heating), go read it and figure..

The UK is in fact one of the countries with the biggest wealth of *wind* resources - we could fairly readily generate 100%+ of our needs with off-shore wind plants - ok that would require a more advanced power regulation and control system, but the potential is there.

The original article was about solar powered vehicles in *australia* (remember?) so I thought it relevant to post information about solar power technology. Even in Europe, solar is a viable power source, and is being used in various projects.

Oh sure, Nuclear is fine. I mean, ok there are odd regions of the world like Chernobyl and the Irish sea that are radioactive & hazardous thanks to nuclear power, but hey, its cheap. Well, ok it cost a lot to develop, and its gonna cost a lot to decommission, so much that the UK government is calling a stop to it, but yes of course if you dont include all that in your calculations, its cheap.

All the money squandered is in fact squandered. They decided to spend vast amounts of money trying to make *non-military* nuclear power pay off - and it didnt.

If its needed for space, and the risks are small, then use it for space. Its a different issue really.

Yes, the link I gave you showed you the maths - indeed to generate *all* the power needed just with solar would require large areas of land. That is why I was suggesting that such scheme should operate in conjunction with other alternatives. You dont need to meet "peak" demand in the way you suggest. Dont forget that there is an area in your home that can be used to generate free power - your roof. You can cover the roof of your home with solar tiles, combined with systems that directly heat water for the house etc.

Zero annual electricity bills for these guys - the tiles make as much electricity as they take from the grid. (ok with gas heating). Check also This link, This link , This link or This link

Do you think that nuclear is a better option? Or cheaper? The UK (and many other countries) has squandered truely huge amounts of money on nuclear, now, it appears, with no positive end result - they are going to be left with a collection of reactor sites that are going to be very expensive to decommission and clean up. If they had invested just a fraction of that money on renewables, we would be burning a heck of a lot less coal/oil/gas now. There are actually parts of the world (ie Chernobyl) that are too radioactive to live, thanks to mistakes/miscalculations made by the nuclear power industry..

And the point is - why bother with nuclear, why take the risk? It is becoming very apparent that alternatives really can deliver cheap electricity, without the same level of pollution and waste. Furthermore, costs of solar cells will drop as volumes increase. Case in point - look at the monitor you are (probably) looking at now - if it is TFT - and think how much the price has decreased in the last few years as manufacturing techniques have improved and volumes increased.. Push the production volumes up, and have every house in the country use solar tiling..

The UK is setting a target of getting 20% of its power from re-newables by 2020, and a lot of that will be wind-power. There are soon to be huge offsiore wind farms in construction.. And they are not noisy, nor do they upset wildlife - thats basically a myth - same site documents the evidence. The USA has a similar wealth on uneploited wind sites too..

In the UK we could in fact have 200% power needs just from offshore/onshore wind without too much difficulty. What do you do when you have too much power? Turn it into hydrogen for cars. What do you do when you dont have enough power? Burn some hydrogen.. We already have infrastructure to transport gas.

Yes, the link I gave you showed you the maths - indeed to generate *all* the power needed just with solar would require large areas of land. That is why I was suggesting that such scheme should operate in conjunction with other alternatives. You dont need to meet "peak" demand in the way you suggest. Dont forget that there is an area in your home that can be used to generate free power - your roof. You can cover the roof of your home with solar tiles, combined with systems that directly heat water for the house etc.

Zero annual electricity bills for these guys - the tiles make as much electricity as they take from the grid. (ok with gas heating). Check also This link, This link , This link or This link

Do you think that nuclear is a better option? Or cheaper? The UK (and many other countries) has squandered truely huge amounts of money on nuclear, now, it appears, with no positive end result - they are going to be left with a collection of reactor sites that are going to be very expensive to decommission and clean up. If they had invested just a fraction of that money on renewables, we would be burning a heck of a lot less coal/oil/gas now. There are actually parts of the world (ie Chernobyl) that are too radioactive to live, thanks to mistakes/miscalculations made by the nuclear power industry..

And the point is - why bother with nuclear, why take the risk? It is becoming very apparent that alternatives really can deliver cheap electricity, without the same level of pollution and waste. Furthermore, costs of solar cells will drop as volumes increase. Case in point - look at the monitor you are (probably) looking at now - if it is TFT - and think how much the price has decreased in the last few years as manufacturing techniques have improved and volumes increased.. Push the production volumes up, and have every house in the country use solar tiling..

The UK is setting a target of getting 20% of its power from re-newables by 2020, and a lot of that will be wind-power. There are soon to be huge offsiore wind farms in construction.. And they are not noisy, nor do they upset wildlife - thats basically a myth - same site documents the evidence. The USA has a similar wealth on uneploited wind sites too..

In the UK we could in fact have 200% power needs just from offshore/onshore wind without too much difficulty. What do you do when you have too much power? Turn it into hydrogen for cars. What do you do when you dont have enough power? Burn some hydrogen.. We already have infrastructure to transport gas.

Whose time has come. Put solar windows in all office blocks, and solar tiles (both electric & water heating) in the roofs of all houses, and you go a long way toward solving the energy problems. Even in cooler countries these schemes pay-back after a few years - ie the extra it costs is paid back in electricty savings. In hot contries, a house can (in effect) generate as much electricity as it consumes - in Australia you have Zero annual electricity bills for these guys - the tiles make as much electricity as they take from the grid. (ok with gas heating, but the hot water supply is provided by the sun too). Check also This link, This link , This link or This link.. Want a large scale plant? What about the deserts of the world ?

Combine with Wind power, and other alternatives, and we may get 100% of our energy needs without nuclear, coal, gas.. What do you do when you have excess off-peak power? Turn it into hydrogen for your car!

Read more about it here..

Didn't you read? I just showed you that by covering half my roof with the best solar cells available on the market, I cannot even cover my own electricity needs. What do you suggest, covering the countryside with panels?

I am not saying that solar tiling would always be the *only* source of power - but that if houses did have solar tiling we would save a huge amount of power. Top that up with Wind power, Tidal power, Hydro-electric, then make sure houses use energy saving lightbulbs, are well insulated, etc, and you can have a national energy system wihich needs little or no coal/oil/nuclear.. This is not some sort fantasy - it is already starting to happen. Maybe we shouldnt cover the countryside, but what about the deserts of the world ?

>Such projects are up and running around Europe now, and pay back for themselves in a few years, even comparing to cheap dig it up and burn electricity.

Where, pray tell? Publications to defend your assertions?

Plenty, just Google solar roof tiles estate

Zero annual electricity bills for these guys - the tiles make as much electricity as they take from the grid. (ok with gas heating). Check also This link, This link , This link or This link

I scheme I recall quoted a break-even time of about 5 years - ie, even at todays prices, the houses will pay for the extra cost of solar tiling on the roofs in 5 years in terms of electricity savings - I will have to dig that link out again..

>France is not yet paying fully to *get rid* of the nuclear waste - its shipping the stuff to the UK to reprocess.

Completely wrong. France has a reprocessing plant in La Hague which actually also reprocesses other countries' used fuel. You are mixing it up with the British Sellafield reprocessing plant, which is indeed closing down.

Fair point about la Hague, we have imported reprocessing waste from Europe through the Chunnel, but France does have its own reprocessing plant.

>People are scratching their heads and saying hang on, what do you *do* with plutonium that is going to be radioactive for centuries, and has to be guarded in case some terrorist digs it up to make a dirty bomb..

The solution is well known and widely used: you get your plutonium and you mix it with regular fissible U235 to make a combustible called MOX. Then you feed MOX into nuclear reactors for energy production. The plutonium is degraded into shorter-life elements (mostly Americanium 241) which are less toxic and need to be stored for a few years instead of a few millenia. That's what the French and other Europeans are doing since the 80s. Big bonus: You can also use plutonium coming from disarmed nuclear warheard.

You would not be suprised to learn that Greenpeace do not agree with that. The technique you describe sounds good in theory, but in practice reprocessing still generates unacceptable levels radioactive pollution and waste that is still very difficult to deal in practice. BNFL have had particular problems with liquid waste products that are very expensive to handle and dispose of safely - its the practical details that are the problem. Furthermore

I got through the dumb industry site to get the report. hyshot accident report