Slashdot Mirror
Green Energy Now, And On The Tide
thpr writes "The Electric Power Research Institute and its partners have completed their Offshore Wave Power Feasibility Demonstration Project, which defined potential wave energy projects off the shores of the United States. This is building off of work already done in Scotland (and elsewhere). San Francisco, New York and other areas are considering trial installations of the technology. It is interesting to note (table 1 in the report) that the energy density (kW/m^2) that can be achieved is much higher than wind or solar. In addition, harnessing 24% of available wave energy near the US at 50% efficiency is equal to all of the hydropower currently generated in the US (~7% of total electricity production). On a separate note, in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's $1.2B 2006 budget the Department of Energy is closing out the Hydropower Technologies Program. Maybe that's why this technology is missing from our National Energy Policy?" Until it reaches maturity, though, U.S. readers can pay for other forms of green energy.
Interesting how these wave generators wind up at whisky-distilling islands. Orkney has the wonderful Scapa and better known Highland Park, not to mention the Orkney Brewery. Islay, meanwhile, with its seven working distilleries has much of its electricity generated by a 'Limpet' wave generator. (See http://www.fujitaresearch.com/reports/limpet.html for more.) Environmentally friendly power: it's just one more good thing about Scotch Whisky!
Yes, tidal forces DO cause the earth's rotation to slow down.
The tidal forces created by the earth on the moon have slowed the rotation of the moon down to the point that we only see one side of the moon. That is, the moon rotates about once a month. Similarly, the tidal forces of the moon are slowing the earth's rotation down, and it will eventually reach one about one rotation per month also. Assuming that the sun doesn't become a red giant first. And, speaking of the sun, there is also a tidal force that from the sun that will eventually cause the earth to rotate once per year. I'm not sure who this conflict between the moon's and the sun's tidal forces work out.
Conservation of angular momentum means that the tidal forces are causing the moon to orbit the earth faster, and thus further away.
While all these tidal forces are very small and only add up over very long periods of time, they can be measured. In particular, things like variations of the amount of snow on mountains, the amount of water in man-made lakes, the force of huricanes, and variations in the shape of the earth caused by earthquakes all add up to enough to cause the need for leap seconds.
Leap years keep the seasons from rotating through the calendar. Leap seconds keep the zenith of the sun ("noon") from rotating through the day. I forget the exact value, but there is something like an accumulated 20-30 seconds difference caused by these forces over the last 50 years, and therefore there have been 20-30 leap seconds added since then.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
How viable is solar power? I was asking myself this question and here's the numbers I came up with.
In 2001 the USA used 96275 trillion BTUs of energy that year. This comes to 3.22 trillion watts.
Now there are about 295 million people in the US, so this comes to about 11Kw per person at any given time.
This means each person uses is responsible for 262 Kwh of power per day.
Now lets say that square meter of sunlight provides 1 kw of energy on average and the average area gets 5 good hours of sunlight per day. Looking at this chart, you can see that this assumption isn't too far off.
The typical solar panel is about 30% efficient. This means that for every square meter of solar panel would render 1.5 KwH every day.
This means that each man woman and child would need 174 square meters of panel to be responsible for all the energy made and used in their name!
If every person in the united states of America put up solar panels. We would have over 51 billion square meters of panel, that's close to 20,000 square miles of panel or the equivalent of covering most of over in panels.
Now these numbers account for all energy used both domestic, industrial, and exported. Also these numbers do not account for the added or lost efficiency of converting systems over to pure electrical power as opposed to other energy processes like those used in the internal combustion engine.
I left the links to my math in just incase I botched anything.
Not 24% of coastline, but 24% of total tidal energy. You can't assume that the waves are equal everywhere along the coastlines.
And 7% of total energy demand is nothing to scoff at. Imagine if it was actually realised - a lot of greenhouse gases would be saved. All I hope is that the picture is still rosey after an in-depth environmental assessment.
------
Daily energy news and discussion: http://www.thewatt.com/
Daily energy news and discussion: theWatt.com
For those who want more, the best links on for intelligent green reading:
WorldChanging.com -- which also has an article about wave power.
TreeHugger, which is already linked in the story.
Dave Pollard, which writes very insightfully about lots of things including environmental philosophy.
Green Car Congress, where you can get the best news about green mobility, cool cars & industrial developments.
IDFuel, which is more about design but covers some of the same ground as TreeHugger.com
FuelCellWorks for all the latest news about fuel cells.
Grist Magazine, for news and a touch of humor, plus lots of interviews.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
The main advantages that nuclear has over solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and tidal:
This is a biggie. We know how to build nuclear power plants. Other countries have been doing so for years. Even in the US, nuclear is a proven energy source: IIRC, the US derives 24% of its electricity from nuclear power.
Look at how much energy the US uses now, and how much the US predicts it will be using. Can solar cells, wind farms, hydroelectric, or tidal replace that? It doesn't seem that wind nor solar can -- it doesn't have the capacity nor the constant power generation. Hydroelectric isn't unlimited either: sooner or later you run out of damnable rivers. Geothermal? It seems location dependent (but I'll admit, I haven't done my homework on this one). Tidal? How much coastline would we need again?
Hydroelectric power creates lakes and turns rivers into streams. It changes aquatic ecosystems. How about tidal? How many shorelines are we going to line with tidal energy power generation? What do you think that will do to the environment? (Wind power is also relatively non-disruptive.)
Nuclear has been competing with traditional electric generation for decades. We know we can generate nuclear power at a relatively low cost. The same can't be said for many other alternative energy sources.
Effective at limiting pollution.
No matter what "green" energy we use, there will be pollution. Check out the byproducts created in the manufacture of solar cells. Yes, nuclear does require some mining, and it requires proper disposal of nuclear waste. Yet, in the end, nuclear is amazingly efficient at eliminating greenhouse gases on a level with other green technologies.
So, lets sum up - Nuclear is:
Perhaps this is why noted scientists such as James Lovelock also advocate nuclear power.
The main problem is the public and the greens. They are convinced that nuclear power is unsafe, that radiation will kill us all, and they are playing a NIMBY game with nuclear waste disposal.
To be honest, nuclear power isn't my first choice for green energy: That would be orbital space platforms harvesting the energy of the sun, or fusion reactors. Perhaps one day, those technologies would be feasible. Right now, they are slightly more of a pipe dream than other green energy. Nuclear exists now, and it works. Conservation goes only so far -- the third world is slowly turning first world, and that will require an enormous consumption of energy.
We need to be realistic about our energy problem and about what solutions will work. Most alternative energy sources won't work right now. Nuclear will.
The problems with nuclear power are pretty well outlined here, I think. Give it a read, it fills some of the holes left in the the recend Wired article that most here have probably seen.
Nuclear has many advantages, but we must not turn a blind eye to its shortcomings.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
Waves are cool, but don't forget ... OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion)
My father was a primary designer on this, so I had the "real scoop" on what was going on there in real time, it was real exciting stuff back then!
Mini-OTEC, 1979
In 1979, the first successful at-sea, closed-cycle OTEC operation in the world was conducted aboard the Mini-OTEC, a converted Navy barge operating in waters off Keahole Point.
This plant operated for three months, from August-October 1979, and generated approximately 50 kilowatts of gross power with net power ranging from 10-17 kilowatts.
Its turbine generator produced a gross output of up to 55 kW. About 40 kW were required to pump up 2,700 gallons/min of 42F water from 2200-ft depth through a 24-in diameter polyethylene pipe and an additional 2,700 gallons/min of 79F surface water, leaving a maximum net power output of 15 kW.
This was a joint effort by the State of Hawaii and a private industrial partner.
More linkage: NREL's OTEC site
Google
It's effect of ocean life (and the planet in general) is microscopic, infinitesimal, compared to the effect of the coal plants and other brown and black energy sources.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
That said, hydroelectric is also *very* well-tested mature technology, wind and solar less so.
Norway, for example, have produced like 98% of the electricity needed (including the humongous amounts needed for large aluminium-plants) by hydroelectric since a century. That should count as well-tested I think.
Different areas have different possibilities for different energies. Where there are large amounts of water (i.e. rain) falling in mountains, there'll be large amounts of hydroelectric power to earn with relatively modest negative consequences.
Some places there's a lot of wind, and some places there's a *lot* of area and a lot of sun. Those places I think we should use it. Basically the only thing stopping us is that currently solar and wind is more expensive than burning fossil fuels. hydroelectric on the other hand is a lot *cheaper* than the alternatives on good locations.
Good article on Wired about a safe way to do Nuclear power. Still need to get rid of the waste, but at least meltdowns wouldn't be a problem.
We've missed out on a lot by not developong nuclear plants over the last 25 years. As other posters have said, its here now, and its the cleanest we have.
Spencer Ogden
"Check out the byproducts created in the manufacture of solar cells"
Here's a link
http://hem.dis.anl.gov/eehem/01/010305.html
I'm still a big fan of Solar and will be adding a grid-tie system
to my home.
It is a technology that is here today that we can take into our own hands and apply without having to wait for big companies to come up something.
p.s.
I do have solar hot water if you are thinking about solar for your home this is a great place to start.
Wow, that entire article is a load of shit.
First, Pebble Bed Reactors aren't "Generation after Next", they're here. Now. Well, not "here" if you live in the US, but "here" if you live in the EU, or (God Forbid) China.
Second, Nuclear never promises to replace oil. Ever. That web page keeps telling you it is, and it's covering a hidden agenda. But no. Nuclear replaces COAL. Oil is still the best we have for transportation, thanks to energy density. Nuclear Reactors are rather... large. They don't fit that well in cars.
Third, it talks about how inefficient these are, because they're big, and service many people. Unforunately, it completely ignores the fact that BIG PLANTS ARE MORE EFFICIENT. It's called economy of scale. Rather than many cheap, small, local natural gas plants which that site advocates (Which DOES emit CO2, gosh golly) which are inefficient because they're small and cheap, you can have huge, expensive and few nuclear plants, step up the voltage to a very big number, and transmit the power over very long distances for very little loss, then when it gets to the destination, step it down, and that's where the real losses happen (After the stepping down, not the stepping down itself... the transformers are quite efficient).
Wait, damnit, I've been trolled, haven't I?
here is the link... http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/
Are you aware of how many solar panels you'd need? The amount of ecological damage that covering all that land would cause is not trivial. Are you aware of how much pollution the creation of a solar panel creates?
But not as much radioactive waste as coal fired stations. And it does not dump its waste into the atmosphere, like coal fired stations. And does not kill as many workers in the extraction of the raw material. etc. etc.
There is one alternative that is fully sustainable and has been working economically for decades. Brazil has been producing ethanol powered cars for 25 years. Every gas station in Brazil sells straight ethanol at a lower price than gasoline. Although the proportion is lower now, in the 1980's about 90% of the cars in Brazil were powered by straight ethanol, and the rest used a 75%/25% mix of gasoline and ethanol. Today several models of cars in Brazil come with "flex power" motors, which can burn any proportion of ethanol/gasoline mix.
The Brazilian alcohol program is the largest renewable energy program for cars in the world. The only reason why it has been pulled back a little is because the oil prices aren't as high now as in 1980, after you take inflation into account. Also, the whole country has a much better economical situation, with a lower debt, internal oil production is higher and world sugar prices are higher (Brazilian ethanol is made from sugar cane). All these factors have contributed to decrease the proportion of ethanol in the total fuel consumption in Brazil, but ethanol is the first and most viable alternative for renewable transportation fuel in the world.
I kindly disagree. Nuclear power has it's peeves, but nowadays it's a well understood technology; we're well past the days of Chernobyl. Very safe nuclear reactors can be made, and what's more important, are being made. The newer, so called "fast" reactors can actually generate more fuel than they consume! (to an usability limit - it's not a perpetual motion machine).
I don't have a link handy, but i recall reading the vast majority of the worlds' power was generated by burning coal. I'd much rather have nuclear plants. Then again, i'd much rather have eolic, tidal and solar powerplants, but if we have nuclear now, why can't we use it?
The big problem I have is the bullshit ornl paper that was refered too about coal being a nuclear material so nuclear is OK too. We don't need that sort of crap now that nuclear looks like it may finally get somewhere on its own merits. What is a "coal is bad so nuclear is OK" post doing on a tidal power article anyway? The real nuclear power industry engineers I have worked with would never believe any crap like the "coal is nuclear waste" ornl paper which has mostly been circulated by an advertising agency.
Indeed, with both solar and wind power the best solution is simply to add the facility to generate power to buildings (new or existing).
www.windsave.com gives you an idea of what can be done with wind power.
Also energy efficiency can reduce energy requirements by 30% in a building for a small expenditure (2% additional spend on new construction).
Combine something like a windsave turbine or two and an energy efficient house and you have halved the energy requirement. Domestic power consumption in the USA accounts for something like 15% of the CO2 production, or approximately 4% of the world's CO2 production. In theory measures like this, if applied to all domestic housing, could go a long way to meeting Kyoto targets. Obviously it would take time to achieve this across the whole of the USA and the work required would produce some CO2 itself, as would the maintenance industry required. However it could still significantly reduce CO2 production without unduly affecting lifestyle, which is an admirable goal.
Solar panel production can be polluting, so an alternative is solar heating in which water is heated by the sun. This is mostly a matter of plumbing. In some parts of the USA this could be used to generate hot water needed by a house on sunny but not especially hot days, and run air conditioning if used in conjunction with a heat exchanger. Efficiency is not nearly as high as solar power, but it's not high tech or polluting. Again there is a slight negative in that it also requires more plumbers, but this could be a job stimulus and jobs that could not be outsourced to India.
..Back under the bridge, troll. "Slows the planet's rotation?" Please cite your source for THAT one,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking or a google search on "tidal locking" will do you.
Don't be so hasty with the troll label, or you'll be labeled a troll yourself. Troll.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
TF(W)A:h tml
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.
I work here. The building is limestone/sandstone and has been cleaned so the stonework is a sort of sandy colour. Everything around it is black. In fact most of 'old' West Yorkshire is black. That's because of all of the soot from British industry in the Georgian and Victorian eras and the early Twentieth Century. In fact, all the way up to the point where the clean air act was introduced which prevented the burning of coal which hadn't been treated. That made it expensive and caused the destruction of many fine Victorian cast iron fire places as gas fires were fitted. Coal is not clean.
Solar power costs are closely tracked on Solar Buzz and the average industrial cost is 20c/kWh. Those plants are commercial enterprises operating at a sustainable profit.
New solar power plant designs from Australia (google for Big Dish ANU) have gotten the costs down as low as 12c/kWh, all inclusive. It's still not as cheap as coal but it's definitely competitive.
In Norway, it's been done by piping up and damming waterfalls.
Not pretty either, but at least it's not flooding large areas.
.sig? No.
Nobody is saying that coal is clean, but when you consider the entire life cycle of the fuel, it is safer and cleaner than nuclear eneregy. Nuclear fuel is environmentally damaging to extract (often more so than coal), and the waste needs to be reprocessed and stored securely for thousands of years.
Today we have technologies which can filter out most of the pollutants which plagued Britain during the Industrial Revolution. I certainly don't like coal, but I'd prefer to use it over being lulled into thinking that nuclear energy is somehow clean.
OLPC Australia
There are numerous sources of alternate energy that could replace environmentally harmful sources of energy within decades.
The problem is not scarcity of alternatives but that the true cost of harmful sources is not factored into the price paid by consumers (nor charged by suppliers). This is the only reason alternative sources are more expensive. True cost would include the cost to undo the damage caused by using it. What is the cost to reverse global warming? What is the cost to reverse damage caused by coal mining (leached acids and heavy metals into the groundwater + acid rain)?
Intelligence is no guarantee of wisdom
http://www.jc-solarhomes.com/solar_energy_facts.ht m
Assume each square metre can receives 1 KW hr per hr. Assume 20% efficiency for photovoltaics. So 0.2 KW hr per hr per metre.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001729.html says a kw hour is 3412 BTUs, so photo voltaics produce 0.2 * 3412 = 682.4 BTU/hr per square metre.
http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/energy/stats_ctry/Stat1. html
says the 1998 U.S. energy consumption was about 94 quadrillion BTUs
Assumong 8 * 365 hours of decent sunshine in the desert year around.
So that's 100 * 10^15 / (8 * 365 ) = 34 * 10^12 BTUs/sunshine hour.
(34 * 10^12 ) / (682.4 ) = 49 * 10^9 square metres = 49 * 10^9 / 10^6 = 49000 square kilometres = 223 KM by 223 KM or 140 miles by 140 miles.
If you "want" the entire world to consume energy at per-capita rates like the USA, then assuming the US population is 300M, and the world population is 6B, then 6*10^9/(300*10^6) * 49000 = 980000 square km. The Earth's land surface area is claimed to be 148,300,000 sq km, so 980000 / 148300000 = .006608 or less than 1% of the Earth's land surface area.
Mind you, for infrastructure that huge, you have to build roads, support buldings, etc. So even if a factor of 3 off, that's still about 2% of the surface area.
Also, once demand for photovoltaics reached 1% of the above, I imagine the industry would drive efficiency from 20% to higher levels. So 1/3 of the land surface area is way too high.
The real problem with photovoltaics is the cost. http://store.yahoo.com/sancor/50w.html will sell you a 502mm x 939mm panel for $588, or 588 / (502 * 939) * 1000000 = $1247 per sq metre. Let's be hopeful that in quantity, wholesale lots, we could buy this for $1000 per sq metre. 980000 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000 = $980 trillion. Note that the annual GDP for Earth, according to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print /xx.html
is $51.48 trillion. That figure is at purchasing
power parity. I'll leave it others to speculate
whether photovoltaics can be manufactured cheaper
in third world countries or not. If you don't think so, then considering that the U.S. economy
is about $11 trillion, and that it is blamed for consuming about 1/2 the world's resources, the non purchasing power parity world GDP is probably closer to $22 trillion.
There needs to be a 10X reduction in the price/energy ratio of photovoltaics. Do that, i.e. reduce the cost of the solar energy to meet the world's needs to an investment of about $100 trillion, amortize it over 30 years, and I'm sure we can find the money and land to do this.
I was one of the web developers for these two Canadian green energy sites.
canwea.ca
skygeneration.ca
Both of which are hosted by a green web host, appropriately called thegreenwebhost.ca
Meh.
The Bay of Fundy already makes use of tidal power generation. It is in a limited form at the moment but there have been attempts to expand the operation.
This is a myth. Funny how old myths refuse to die. Energy Payback Time is in the order of 1-2 years these days, and then will run efficiently for 10-20 years.
h tm l
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_new.
Solar cells are not just "batteries" and have not been for a very long time.
Surur
Information is the location of things. Computation is moving things around.
The real problem with nuclear energy is not the actual energy production and waste management as most people seem to believe. We can make safe reactors, and we can make safe waste-storage systems. The real proplem, from an ecological perspective is the mining of uranium.
You have the proportions of fissionable Uranium to inert Uranium backwards. Fissionable Uranium is the much less common isotope, and must be concentrated, through gas-diffusion, or other methods to achieve the concentration necessary to be considered "enriched." Mass quantities of ore must be mined in order to accumulate the requisite amount of Uranium, and the tailings are the real environmental problem, as is abandoned mines. Uranium mine tailings are saturated with radon, and heavy metals in such concentrations as to poison entire watersheds for several thousand years. We have this fear mentality about nuclear power stemming from 3-mile island and chernobyl that focuses all of our concern for the safety of nuclear power on activities pertaining to the reactors, at the expense of the totality of the process, beginning with the mining of the ore and ending with the storage of the waste.
Nuclear reactors can and are made perfectly safe. WAste storage systems can be made perfectly safe. However as long as uranium ore is mined in an unsound manner, the process as a whole will fail to be environmentally sound.
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
I assume you are reffering to the older, high-rpm, turbine farms such as the ones in southern cali. The newer turbines, such as the Horseheaven Hills Wind Farm near Walla Walla, Wa, turn at a sufficiently low rpm that they make almost no noise at all.
In fact, having spent a good deal of time studying them, i'd have to say that the entire wind farm was eerily silent. But I wasnt sleeping underneath one, of course...
Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
Just FYI...
Lithuania gets 86% of electricity from nuclear power. France gets 78%. Belgium gets 57%. Sweden gets 52%. Switzerland and Slovakia get 45%. Ukraine gets 44%. Germany gets 29%. Japan gets 28%. The UK gets 23%.
The US only gets 20% of electricity from nuclear.
That Wave energy is more reliable - and reliable means a lot when you're competing with dispatchable power such as coal - which can be operated and amortized on a 95% utilization schedule. If your wind is only 30% available, and down in the summer when you need it most, you will need back-up generators to make it through the year. That's redundancy - as in twice the cost - twice the pollution etc ...
Backup power can pollute more than baseload power (See single cycle vs. combined cycle) and as a result, unreliable green energy may result in dirtier air - this is no a concern in Denmark, which has the highest percentage of Wind - but the dirtiest power scheme of its peers. (France by contrast is mostly nuclear.)
AIK
I've been working in the wave energy industry for a decade now and it is becoming more viable. One of the biggest problems, sadly, is regulatory uncertainty over permitting requirements and gamesmanship between various agencies. Thus, many US wave developers need to spend precious resources on compliance with regulation rather than refining the technology. To make matters wosre, many of these prototype projects are extremely benign - a couple of small buoys and a tiny footprint. Of course, larger developments might have more impacts, but you can't get to that stage unless you can get a prototype into the water.
Most experts believe that right now, wave is where wind power was 15 years ago. Now, wind is fairly pervasive, though admittedly, it does need to begin to wean itself off the production tax credit and other such subsidies. For more information on recent wave developments and barriers to commercialization, visit www.renewablesoffshore.blogspot.com
Carolyn Elefant www.his.com/israel/loce
Most mines now replace the tailings into the mine once they're done with the mine. So while they do have to do some work to safely store the tailings in the short term, it ends up more or less neutral. Especially in areas where they have multiple shafts, and they put the tailings from the new mine shaft down the old mine shaft. Due to processing, they should be able to stuff a little more into each mine than just the tailings from that mine, given that they are removing material.
Also, the tailings issue comes up with just about every mine, whether it be lead, iron, copper, or the more rare elements.
I don't read AC A human right
There are much better ways of storing the energy than using battery banks, especially when you don't have to carry the storage around (think cars). Many places hydro-electric power and solar cells could be run togehther very efficiently. Shut down turbines and save water in the reservoire when there is much sun, restart them at night.
After it has gone through the reactor, a lot of it is no longer Uranium. There's a lot of radioactive isotopes of elements like Cesium, and Iodine, and some of these elements are, or easily form compounds which are soluble. Also, a lot of these elements are used in life processes, and accumulate up the food chain.
So just putting the waste back in the ground would be a nightmare. You'd be putting a huge amount of soluble radioactive material into the environment, where it would gradually accumulate in your body. That is pretty dangerous.
That's not to say there aren't solutions. I remember that the CSIRO a number of years back invented a ceramic called SynRock which basically trapped the radioactive material in a hard non-porous ceramic disc. Stored in a safe place something like that might be an option. And, material science has come a long way since SynRock was invented.
I even wondered if we could drill a deep well at the edge of a continental plate that was going to be sub-ducted(?) in a few hundred years, and put the waste in there. In the mantle there wouldn't be anything to worry about.
I'm sorry that your country is unable to build nuclear power plants, as they are very expensive. However, you have some of your facts wrong.
Aren't we threatening Iran because they are are planning to build on?...The US doesn't want Iran to have nuclear materials because they might build bombs with the material.
Read some history - that isn't why plants haven't been constructed in the USA for yearsThe main reason nuclear power plants have not been built is because of mass hysteria from the accident at the poorly designed Three Mile Island plant. PBS did a wonderful one-hour special on this accident. You can see info at their website. Also, the accident at the poorly operated Chernobyl plant didn't help things. Nuclear power plants take much care to operate correctly, but are much more enviromentally friendly than coal, oil, and gas.
Construction was stopped during the days of Jimmy Carter...The last constrution of a nuclear power plant in the US was completed in 1996. See US Dept. of Energy
It's funny how wind, waves and solar have to be cheaper than anything to be consideredWind, waves, and solar are very expensive. Solar and wind power is more than $80/MWh compared with the average coal cost of $16/MWh (in US); this is not a good deal. A quick search on google for wind and solar costs will show you. Here is an example.
cheap by some unknown force of magic that defies reality...I know because of experience in the energy business that nuclear power is usually cheaper than power generated from other fuels, but this article has some good facts about that.
There was a big reason for there being a lot of nuclear power in Europe - it was known as the USSRYes, the USSR has many nuclear reactors (probably poorly maintained), but even without the USSR, there would be plenty more nuclear power plants in Europe than in the US. See this Dept. of Energy article.
Believe me, or don't... it doesn't matter. However, you may be interested in the following web pages, which will tell you a little bit more about the materials used in nuclear reactors. By and large, fairly common steels and concretes are used. The "exotic" materials are generally found in fuel (uranium, gadolinium, erbium), control rods (boron carbide, silver, indium, cadmium, hafnium), and detectors (too many to list here).
Anything else?
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
Um, I've mentioned the waste any number of times.
What WILL we do with all that delicious fresh radioactive waste? Pile it up out back?
Basically, yes. that's the best thing to do with fresh nuclear waste. You leave it on site until the radioactivity levels drop a bit. It's not like arsenic, it'll become less dangerous with time.
Nuclear Proponent's waste management:
1. Reduction: Newer plant designs are simpler, safer, and more fuel efficient.
2. Reuse: There are plant designs that can use current nuclear waste as fuel with minimal #3
3. Reprocess: Something like only 5% of the potential fuel is used in convential US reactors. After the waste has cooled down a bit, it's possible to reprocess the waste into more fuel. Waiting 40 or so years makes it substantially easier on the equipment.
4. Disposal: If you follow the first 3 steps, the remaining waste (reduced by a factor of 20-100!)is much more highly radioactive than what is currently being held in pools at power stations. This is actually a good thing, because the average halflife is months-years, not centuries. This means that if you keep 20 years of fuel (1 railcar is the average per year per power station right now, so it'd be 1 railcar's worth per 20 years) onsite, by the time you're looking to bury it in a yucca mountain it's down to something like 1% or less of it's original radioactivity. Also, it degrades much faster, so you only need a shelter that'll last centuries rather than eons.
Sure the waste needs to be addressed. But we can handle it now. We just need to work through some of the politics, as only for nuclear power is reprocessing, recycling, and reuse BAD.
I don't read AC A human right