Slashdot Mirror
The Myth of Renewable Energy
Harperdog writes to this "Excellent piece by Dawn Stover about what renewables can and can't do. The sun and wind may be practically inexhaustible, but 'renewable' energy isn't. Solar, wind, and geothermal power are not fundamentally different from other energy technologies that consume finite natural resources. Good reading for anyone who thinks they know how to combat climate change."
Renewable doesnt mean infinite.
Jose T Oliveira Jr.
After all, why worry when you know that global warming is good for world peace?
Did you know that things like coal and oil came from the capture and processing of Photons, just like wind/PV/hydro does?
Coal/Oil only seems cheap on a photon processed basis because Man didn't spend the effort and time converting biomass into the coal/oil.
Only have one child.
Silicon can (and should) be recycled.
The author, by failing to mention the current oil-based energy strategy at all, while vilifying the alternative energy sources leaves the reader with a sense of, "the alternatives are bad, lets keep using the current infra until we come up with something better." Interestingly, nuclear energy is *not* mentioned either, positive or negative - it's completely omitted.
I'd not be surprised if the author was either a shill for the oil and gas companies or the nuclear energy affiliates.
Several times, she talks of water consumed by steam turbines.
Wouldn't any sane design condense the steam into water, and re-use it? Otherwise you're throwing away water *and* heat.
"In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Interesting read, because of all the factual information in it (I assume, it's actually correct).
Is "renewable energy" a meaningless term? Sure, even sunlight isn't limitless. Everything's finite and we're all gonna die, buhu. The things we call "renewable" are more sustainable in a long run, than current main energy sources (e.g. coal), that's what it is about. You can discuss semantics all you want.
So, while understanding the technology limitations is surely important, the solution is not to do nothing, just because we can't achieve perfect results just yet.
OP seems to be a compendium of old FUD I've read before. Yeah sure, solar panels have a limited lifetime -- about 25 years, by which time the next generation of them will make twice or more as many panels from the same amount of materials harvested by recycling them. Oh dear, solar sites need to wash panels, they'll never figure out how to make dust-resistant coatings, of course. OMG wind turbines use a lot of Nd (using the worst case of a direct drive unit) so naturally it follows that that's the only way to do it and we won't be switching to Separately Excited Syncronous or Switch Variable Reluctance gensets when it becomes cost effective to do so.
I'll be glad when these clowns finally sell their Exxon stock so I don't have to listen to them whine any more in the face of the inevitable.
Someone had to do it.
Do not let anyone tell you this drivel. "Solar, wind, and geothermal power are not fundamentally different from other energy technologies that consume finite natural resources" BS! BS I say! Check out www.thevenusproject.com
In fairness, if the solar power plant is in the desert (where they often seem to be) where water is scarce, water used to clean mirrors is going to evaporate and fall as rain elsewhere, probably where water is less scarce.
However, it doesn't seem insurmountable. If it's really an issue, I'm sure one could design cleaning systems that minimise the amount of water lost - and the cost (both financial and environmental) of transporting water in trucks ought to be minimal compared to the power output of a large plant.
There are 7 billion people on the planet.
Way too many.
At our current energy usage growth rates, the planet is the temperature of boiling water before 2500.
This has nothing to do with global warming. It's just a fact that as you use energy, it flows into the environment. Just like a 100 watt lightbulb also warms up the room, 7 billion people worth of devices releasing energy warm up the planet faster than it can radiate the heat into space.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/08/02/2315207/limits-on-growth-of-energy-use-and-economies
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sure materials which we need to use in order to build e.g. wind turbines are theoretically finite. They are not being used up by building wind turbines, they can be recycled if that's economically interesting. Stuff like "While sunlight is renewable -- for at least another four billion years -- photovoltaic panels are not." is just silly. We are not going to run out of sand in any plausible scenario, so that's just nitpicking.
In any case, renewable energy refers to the energy source. That clearly sets it apart from other energy sources, and is thus a good description. There is nobody who believes the installations required to use renewables can be build without any environmental impact in terms of pollution, area use etc. That doesn't distinguish them from other installations. If people were calling renewable energy plants "impact free", fine the author would have a point. The myth the article is debunking is one which doesn't exist, however.
Interesting that the summary doesn't mention that TFA is published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Which is a quote respectable group; but nevertheless, they have a horse in the energy race, one that burns Uranium. TFA simply counts the cost of various "green" energies, but never compares them to the costs of "conventional", or nuclear, energy generation. You're left with the impression that "green" energy is a shill, that all forms of energy are equally bad, and so you might as well sit back and keep burning oil and coal until someone invents perpetual motion.
It's really time to go metric guys, unless anyone can explain to me what that means?
Or were you actually serious?
Who is Dawn Stover and why should we be taking her opinions seriously?
They're not practical for mobile steam engines, but they certainly are used in most nuclear plants. Those that don't are located near the sea. Not gonna run out of sea water any time soon.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
... all extract wind energy. They interrupt the flow of wind and generate turbulence, and eventually turn wind energy into heat, except that unlike wind turbines they don't make electricity as well. It's a rather silly question when you know the first thing about thermodynamics.
Probably the biggest problem to addressing the 'population issue' is that the areas of the world where environment movements tend to exist tend to also exist alongside groups which love population growth.
Big cities like New York, Toronto, London... tend to have a lot of 'green movements'.
Yet they're also places which keep advocating high immigration rates for both political reasons (diversity...) as well as special economic reasons (prop up the housing industry, cheap immigrant labor...). More often than not the same groups in the green movement are the same who love increasing population.
It's one of the reasons why things like pollution/Capita are tricky. A lot of people seem to think per Capita measures are the ultimate measure. But it doesn't take into account societal and cultural choices.
For example, we compare two societies.
1. A huge population like India where the consumption/capita is very low. (545 kg in oil equivalence)
2. A sparsely population country like Iceland with high consumption/capita (17338 kg)
source: http://www.google.ca/publicdata (energy use per capita).
Now many who just look at the per capita measures like to rant how inefficient and wasteful western people are. Yet don't look at the per capita numbers alone. Look at the society as a whole.
Icelandic society provides a high standard of living for everyone and keeps its population reasonable. That each Icelandic person lives much better than an Indian is not a problem... as the Icelandic society has managed to keep its population small.
Put simply... is the solution to shove everyone in to a city and make everyone live like they're in Tokyo? Only for those who like to measure everything in per capita use and don't want to look at the greater functioning of society.
Published in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Can't see any agenda there...
She doesn't exactly cover herself in glory for facts, either. She doesn't appear to know what neodynium is used for (why, exactly, would you want magnets in a gearbox?). She (quite deliberately, I think) confuses consumable fuels with non-consumable equipment - a turbine may need 800 pounds of neodynium, but after 20 years of operation you've still got 800 pounds of neodynium. In fact the whole magnet is reusable as is. Today's largest wind machines are 10MW (in construction, anyway). 4.5 million of them would (on average, not peak capacity) provide the entire world's energy use - not sure where her need for an additional ~2 billion devices comes from.
Of course it's not infinite - nothing is (probably) but that's not really the claim, is it? The only sensible point made is that renewable sources require materials that are finite, but I think we knew that already.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
The solution to the water energy problem is more energy, because energy can be used to get water. This, however, lowers the Life Cycle Output of the energy system. LCO or LCA is the expected usable energy out, divided by the expected usable energy used to create and run a system. So if a system produces 10 watts for every watt it takes to build, run, and dispose of it, then its LCA is 10. The 20th century got by on a miracle: namely petroleum has a high LCA, and its its own storage mechanism. Gasoline has great power to weight storage capacities with internal combustion. And internal combustion engines can be built of very cheap metals. There are many quandaries in replacing hydro-carbon energy, and the water energy trade off that the piece mentions is one of them, but it is one of scale. Once there is a large enough renewable base, then the low LCA that getting the water to run it has, is not a problem. It is at the beginning, when the return is eaten through by the water problem, because there are competing uses for water that have much higher economic returns in the short run, such as airconditioning and agriculture. None of these uses want to pay much higher rates for water so that people not yet born can have the advantages.
Where the article falls down is pressing an agenda, and making sloppy equivalences. The first is equating capital requirements with expendable requirements: we don't burn the rare earths we use in kinetic energy extraction – that is water, wind, and geothermal – and in fact, rare earths, are not, as a percentage of the earth's crust, all that rare. For example, wikipedia has this chart. It shows that all of the Lanthanide rare earths, plus scandium and yttrium, are more common than either gold or silver, many are more common than tin, and some more common than lead. The problem with them is that they tend to be found near the Actinide rare earths, particularly Thorium. If you have seen a press for "Thorium reactors" it is because exploitation of rare earths leads to Thorium by product, and reactors which burn it would be fantastically profitable, for the people who sell the rare earths. In reality, they have the same problems, only more so, of actively cooled salt reactors. Namely, they work until they blow up. The Chinese dump their Thorium in a holding lack, which, should it break, would contaminate large areas of land and volumes of water.
Side note: how is it that a browser's spell check doesn't know Actinide?
But for all of that, rare earths are not burned, the way for example Lithuium is not burned in a battery and can be recycled. These are recyclable, which is different from consumable. Hence moving from consumption of hydrocarbons, which really are burned, to using rare earths in capital energy, is a positive step, and while the author of the paper implies that there would be rare earth shortages, the reality is that this is not the case, and substitutes in the form of ceramics and active magnets (See Rare Earth Prices Plunge as Manufacturers turn to substitutes
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Earth is not a closed system. It does radiate a lot of energy back into space. If Earth really weren't dissipating heat, but only collecting it from the sun, the planet would have been toast a long time ago.
any electronics manufacturing requires vast quantities of ultra-pure water, as well as large amounts of heavy metals and rare earth metals. pollution levels surrounding electronics factories, thousands of miles away from where you (the 1st World Reader) can actually see what's really going on, are beyond belief.
No way to store surplus electricity? Batteries are one. Flywheel-based storage is another. There are a number of ways to store energy. And distributing electricity is a pretty much solved problem. :) I'm pretty sure the problem with solar energy is almost entirely one of the extreme cost to do it with in any kind of volume.
If we burn coal, we still have carbon and oxygen just in a much lower energy state. We can't get that back without spending at least as much energy as we got out (in reality a lot more), which would defeat the whole point. Same with oil, gas and nuclear. So solar panels have a limited lifespan, but it's not like they disappear when they break down. Recycle them and make new ones, as long as you manage to get a net positive contribution of energy it's sustainable. The reason is of course that solar panels have an external power source while coal does not. Of course we have to design them to be recyclable and actually do it, but that's a matter of will and economics. But there's no way to do the same with fossil fuels, they'll never be sustainable because their energy is consumed.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Coals plants also need to be built, they also need generators that require rare earth elements, they also need plenty of steel and concrete. And not only do they obviously spew shitloads of CO2, you also need to build the roads, railways or ships and ports to carry the coal around, as well as mine the damn thing.
So what is the argument? That since it's just merely much better, and not simply perfect, we should just give up on them?
Lets see. Coal. Expensive to mine from underground and a blight on the load in open mines. Nuclear material? Same issues with mining it and that love waste to get rid off. Oil? That is running out and drilling for it has proved hazardous. Mining it from tar sand is even worse then coal mining and even just transporting it ain't save.
Funny the article doesn't mention any of that. Or for that matter that efficient generators ANYWHERE need rare earth magnets. In the end, almost all power generation needs the same kind of generator, the only difference is what makes them spin and how efficient you want them to be.
And yes, desert water is not infinite... Greenland is a desert now? Funny. I expected them to be warmer. And less wet.
Troll article cherry picks arguments to support its troll and ignores everything else.
How unexpected.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What the article fails to mention, and what most people fail to understand, is that renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar are not suitable to replace the majority of conventional power sources. Your average pro-renewable energy advocate would have you believe you can throw a bunch of turbines and solar panels onto the grid and solve all your problems: unfortunately you need to supply your base load with guaranteed sources.
It sounds simple enough when you think about it, but you can't replace a coal, nuclear (or hydro power plant in certain cases) with solar or wind because those plants supply a large amount of power all of the time. If the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, nobody is getting electricity. This relegates these sources of power as contributors, not dominant supplies of electricity.
I checked that atomic website thebulletin, they dont have very many scientists, and are not a scientific
agency. their board of directors is pure PR experience, Corporate directorship experience, banking etc....
one of the more qualified members of the board is an MD..... remember the discussion material
is regarding engineering and biological sciences....
seriously check out the qualifications of the people who run the organization....
propaganda and misdirection.
For a given power generation capacity, there is no intrinsic reason why the energy cost for building windmills / solar cells should not be a fixed ratio of that of building coal plants. Maintenance costs for wind/solar are very low, but even if you don't believe me on this one, ask yourself, again, whether coal plants require no maintenance -- they do.
After that, solar/wind cost nothing in energy, while coal plants need to be fed coal, that also has to be transported.
I have always wondered about what might happen if large quantities of energy were taken out of the wind/climate system and used to generate power. Might this cause some even greater climatic change? Not trolling, just genuinely scared of everything.
Orbital solar is the stupidest idea I have seen get traction in a long time. As far as I'm concerned it's a bid by the DoD to coopt renewable funds for a friggin space laser.
Someone had to do it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
However, this deals with renewable energy as touted by big business. They make big huge systems that consume lots of resources so that they can sell them and make money. A passive solar house isn't going to use all these rare precious resources. Geothermal energy that is designed into the house going down 10 to 20 feet using convection isn't going to require the same massive resources that a huge power plant going hundreds of feet into the ground nor is there any fracking required. A personal wind turbine or hydro isn't going to need rare earth magnetics to squeeze out every drop of possible energy because energy use will already be reduced and you can just take the inefficiency of normal magnets/em into account when designing the system.
Besides the obvious slant of the article what we should realize is that large, centralized, hi tech renewable energy products are unsustainable. The way to go is smaller, decentralized, personal systems. Decentralization reduces the need for large quantities of any resource to be taken from any given area, making it sustainable. Is it a bother to have to wipe down your mirrors 2 or 3 times a year on your passive solar oil collection system, sure, but you won't need 600 acres of water in your back yard, just a damp cloth.
Unfortunately that involves designing tech that can be put together/serviced by your average joe and that simply isn't going to happen without government or industry help to educate the masses which won't happen because there's no money in teaching a man how to fish instead of selling him a fish everyday for the rest of his life.
Which is unfortunate. I'd love to see bamboo sand biofilm water filters with added activated carbon (provided by gov't/business) in homes for cleaning water instead of huge water treatment plants and plastic encased water filters that are non-renewable by the customer.(activated charcoal is renewable, if they let you get at it)
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Silicon is the most common element in the crust of the Earth. There's a LOT of it. That's like saying solar power is non-renewable because the sun will eventually burn out.
Plus we can recycle it.
The problem is not so much with the technologies' themselves as it is people's understanding of the scale of them. For example Tom Murphy explains that dropping the great lakes by 1m would produce 54 billion kWh. Compare that to the 2,000 billion kWh produced every year by coal plants. My napkin math says we would drain the great lakes of their current supply of water in the order of years, not decades just to replace coal.
Since the people on Slashdot are mathematically inclined, try to calculate the physical area needed for solar panels to replace a nuclear power station near you. To replace the Pickering Nuclear Planet (3.1GW) the oldest planet here in Ontario with solar assuming Ontario get the global average amount of sun light (which is pretty generous for Ontario) and gets an average of 20% efficiency you get 250W x 0.2 = 50W/m^2. So, (3.1E9W) / (50W/m^2) = 62E6 m^2 or 62,000 square km, a box 8km by 8km of solid solar panels or a circle with a radius of 4.4km. That is approx 2% the size of the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. We are talking about building something 2% the size of the area we fenced off during the worst nuclear accident in history per nuclear station.
Most renewable source of energy are not very concentrated, so anything dealing with them has to be huge, it's inescapable.
While I'm taught in RS/RE, science and geography lessons that renewable energy will never run out, obviously it will. Wind power: caused by vacuums caused by sun. Waves: caused by moon movement caused by big bang. solar: caused by sun. Also note, the energy cannot be destroyed, so in theory solar makes the world slightly darker, and turbines slow the wind down slightly. However, it will last so long that it's near finite to the human mind I thought slashdotters knew this!
Solar cells are potentially made from carbon :
graphene - http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/carbon-based-solar-cells/
or carbon nanotubes - http://www.bitsofscience.org/solar-cell-carbon-nano-energy-3418/
http://inhabitat.com/carbon-nanotubes-could-create-better-solar-cells/
The other technologies like wind turbines and those steaming solutions are just alternative green solutions to solar cells that are often cheaper. When the solar cells are going to continue to get cheaper like they are and no new alternative pops out, then they will probably be the prefferable choice of green energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/20/solar-panel-price-drop
Their co-existence with new ways of storing electricity would make them even more practical.
New cheaper ways for making hydrogen:
http://www.gizmag.com/fukai-hydrogen-extraction-process/16674/
or carbon based supercapacitors?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110512150731.htm
My point is, that there are actually new advancements in every horizon, which make this article a bit outdated.
"It has the smallest impact" ???
Fukushima and Tchernobyl come to mind of course. Do you realize that making an area like (40 miles)^2 unusable amounts to not a small cost on the economic point of view, or ruining the lives of 10'000's of displaced people is not a small nuisance?
Presently nuclear energy is the energy method having the largest impact in the far future (~100'000 years), as the nuclear wastes will require to be watched for a long time. Do you realize that such a timespan is comparable to the total time homo sapiens existed on Earth? (The salary of a single engineer over 100'000 yr corresponds already to the total building cost of a nuclear plant).
Can you imagine what will happen when the next global war occurs? And it will occur well before a century for sure. Each nuclear power plant will be an easy target, at the least a serious menace for those countries foolish enough to have forgot how stupid and nasty human beings may be.
The #1 thing we can do to combat energy inefficiency, which is the only thing we really need to do, is switch from an economy that maximizes profit at all costs, to one that minimizes waste. It's THAT simple. Seriously.
The question is, how is this even possible? Well, we need a department of government that analyzes products and their life-cycles and somehow comes up with a waste quotient that takes into account production waste (this is where renewable energy use comes into play, and makes my post not off-topic) as well as product waste (so that companies will be incentivized to make products that last), and somehow work this into a tax scheme that eats into the profits. Boo-yah. Done
You use fresh water in a closed circuit for steam, and you cool _that_ with seawater.
We have so called renewable energy source, which is obviouly limited due to the fact that the sun output does not increase significantly (and that is good) and the earth is not getting warmer inside. And we have limited resources. So no we cannot replace every car with a lithium-battery powered electrical engine. A) we do not have enough copper and b) we do not have enough lithium.
So to switch to a sustainable way of life, we have to rethink transportation of electrity, goods, and humans. I personally find it very interesting that the average time used to get to ones job didn't change over the centuries. The faster we could go the longer the distances become. For a lot of office jobs, travel could be avoided or reduced, if people start working in offices closer to theri homes. If they are in a 20 minute walk or bicycle distance, you can skip the car. And you even could use busses or trams which can be implemented much more resource efficient than cars and even more personal cars.
In short: Sustainability requires renewable energy, but it also needs resource efficieny.
It's a misleading hack piece. First, 600 acre-feet of water per year to run a 1000-MW plant is diddly-shit. For comparison, a unit-home consumes about 1kw (averaged over a month, give or take a factor of two) and one acre-foot/year of water. So a plant supplying enough power for a million homes, which themselves consume a million acre-feet/year of water, will add 600 acre-feet/yr of water to their consumption. Whoopie-shit.
Notice how no numbers were given for the geothermal plants and their consumption. The Geysers were initially run from in-place groundwater, which they did consume (there was no condensation, no recharge). Now they are being recharged, NOT with groundwater, but with treated sewage water. So the article was misleading there, too, since groundwater is no longer the limiting factor.
She gives numbers for windpower resource consumption, but is again misleading. A "4-foot-wide, 7630 mile sidewalk". How do you suppose that compares to a single lane of interstate highway (12 feet wide) capable of carrying truck traffic? 636 miles of 4-lane interstate, NOT accounting for the increased road thickness. She repeats the "rare earth metals are rare" canard.
Neodymium: "Although neodymium is classed as a "rare earth", it is no rarer than cobalt, nickel, and copper ore, and is widely distributed in the Earth's crust". She may be right about Dysprosium, at least with current magnet technology. It's not clear if it's necessary, or merely nice at current prices. Note that the current main consumption appears to be hybrid automobiles, not wind turbines. (Hybrid autos, not a good idea at present size.)
Her treatment of hydropower is similarly deceptive -- first dismiss newer technologies as "experimental", then hammer on the problems of (some) hydropower installations. Wave power looks interesting. There's not too much that can go wrong with a buoy anchored to the bottom; we've got ample experience with them in their non-power-producing form.
All of the article lacks a good "compared to what" -- how much water and concrete are consumed by existing energy production? What resources do they consume?
So, NOT an excellent article.
I gotta see some backup for:
"The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium "
I've worked on a lot of gearboxes and several turbine/generator sets in my career as an ME. The gearbox on a 15MW gas turbine generator might weigh 1/2 a ton total and I assure you that is 90% iron and 10% oil. I think somebody seriously slipped a decimal point or two.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
The CAISO ("The California ISO provides open and non-discriminatory access to the bulk of the state’s wholesale transmission grid") keeps a daily set of graphs on the utility generation demand, and contributions by renewables here:
http://www.caiso.com/Pages/TodaysOutlook.aspx
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
This guy is an idiot. There are NO citations for his calculations in the article. I would like to say that I am employed as a consultant to oil, and gas companies. Geothermal plants do not have to run off of steam produced by the earth. I have to run now as turkey is being served. Life on this planet has been using renewable energy for 4 billion years. The world has a shitload of water on it. We can move it to the desert. Renewable energy is the future of mankind. Our population will continue to increase. His take on everything is anti-humanity. As a humanist, I expect our energy use to increase along with our population while we simultaneously decrease our negative effects on the environment because that's how we roll.
The point is that the whole shameful article is a cesspit of incorrect arguments, and that the author either has no knowledge in the field at all, or is biased - most probably both.
- Photovolatic: the most important component of photovoltaic panels is silicon. It's one of the more abundant elements on earth. One can cover all landmass on earth with photovoltaics and still not run out. There are dopants in there that are less abundant, but only small quantities of them are required. Also, organic (as in carbon-based) photovoltaics are on the rise, which don't need said dopants. Also, at the end of the lifetime of a silicon-based panel, the silicon and dopants get recycled - they are way to valuable to throw away.
- Thermal solar energy and geothermal power: (cooling) water requirement is equivalent to current thermal technologies (nuclear, coal, gas,...). Also, in the case of geothermal, one could make a closed-cycle plant; this would work especially well in colder climates.
- Wind power: all electrical generators (except photovoltaic) contain magnets, so the argument goes agaist conventional energy as well. Also, the term "rare earths" is historical - we now know they are not really rare in the earth's crust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth's_crust
For instance, Neodynium is more abundant than for instance lead and tin. The problem with it is that it's hard to purify from natural deposits, so the annual supply is limited. Luckily, permanent magnets can be made from all kind of other materials, including abundantly available ones. The resulting generators will be somewhat heavier and less efficient, so it's currently cost-effective to use Neodynium, but if the price goes up, the industry will just switch to something else. Finally, these magnets are not consumed, they can be (and are) recycled or even reused in their original form.
- Biomass: this is not my personal favorite, but even so, the article is overly gloomy about it. The surface used for biomass is not lost forever - it can readily be re-purposed for agriculture once it's needed (or better energy-producing technologies become available). Also, a lot of agricultural land is being used for growing animal fodder, which is quite a wasteful business; if we would just stop eating those excessive amounts of meat that are a contributing factor to the current heart disease epidemic and eat a bit more vegetable protein sources, we could easily feed ourselves from half as much farmland (and still get more than enough meat to eat for a healthy and enjoyable diet). Also, at some point, technology might become available to grow excellent animal-free meat in bioreactors, which would make meat production way more efficient.
- Hydropower: just like silicon, the supply of concrete and steel is nearly inexhaustible. Yes, CO2 is emitted during the production thereof, but it's a tiny fraction of the CO2 that would be emitted when matching the lifetime energy production of the dam using fossil fuels. Also, building nuclear power plants also requires large quantities of concrete and steel (and given the current safety debate, they're still not using enough).
I'm sure there's more fallacies to be found in the article, but again, the point is that the author is either a nitwit or terribly biased (presumably both).
In that case, which is true, our economic models are the problem. Relying on continuing growth instead of stabilization will always fail in the long run.
Gone!
There's a lot of cherry picking here with a valid point in the end that the ridiculously wasteful way we use energy right now can't continue. However, the points made do not serve as the hit piece on renewable energy that someone along the chain seems to want. I would expect this of the Atomic Scientists: they're by definition interested in yet another fuel that is only created by supernovae, and is not renewable. They're on the wrong end of this debate, muddying the issue.
Renewables are renewable but within a specific timeframe. You have to tailor your way of life to resources that can renew at least at the rate you're consuming them, or else you're creating an energy deficit. If you're liquidating other resources like the environment doing it, you're screwing humanity's future, and you have to adjust to that. There is no other option for the long term.
They're cherry picking a couple of really badly done attempts to characterize the entire concept of cleaner, greener electricity. A bunch of solar panels out in the desert is not a good example of renewable energy done right. It's not cost-effective, whereas concentrated solar thermal is in that setting. Solar panels, however, can go places that other power generators can't, and this means you can generate power onsite, eliminating waste due to resistance of the grid. They aren't the full answer.
You could do solar thermal - or you could build with heavily insulated windows and thermal mass to let the sun heat your home and water to where your requirements from electricity sources should be minimal. You can also use thermal mass and basic convection for cooling. I know firsthand: I've stood outside a strawbale home on a 90 degree day and had goosebumps from air cooled by a huge northern wall that was kept out of the sun flowing down into an enclosed garden with a solid fence around it and plants respirating, all of which combined to cool part of the outdoors more than adequately. That only cost what it took to build: straw, plaster, and rebar. The investment is good for at least the owner's lifetime.
The other thing is excessively part things out. If you have a woodstove that's your home's backup heat, your cooking, your hot water, that's your answer when solar and wind aren't there for you for a lot of things. If you burn at the right temperatures to create pyrolysis and generating biochar, you're getting more from that biomass and creating your fertilizer for plants you'll presumably be replenishing and fertilizing so that not a drop of sun goes to waste. The maximum uptake of energy through living, renewing systems is key, and we have to respect how good nature has gotten at that and play along.
Digging up hydrocarbons from hundreds of millions ago to burn wastefully, that's what these authors should be targeting. We all know it on some level. I'm tired of the denial and false logic keeping it going just so the oil companies can have their business model, consequences be damned.
The water in the reactor loop just keeps on going around the loop without getting released, barring a rare leak, and isn't a huge volume of water anyway. It's expensive water because it's been treated with a lot of chemicals to remove anything that is going to corrode the pipework. The same holds for the water in the turbine loop - that doesn't get thrown away either. For the same heat output it really doesn't matter if it's BWR, PWR, molten salt or even non-nuclear as far as water consumption goes.
The huge amounts of water required is a consequence of the advantage that nuclear power has over other forms of thermal power generation and you can't really use less without giving up that advantage. That advantage is the high temperatures and the large temperature difference that give you. That means a lot of cooling so you need a LOT of water available. That's really just a siting problem and only limits where you can put the reactors because the water isn't actually lost - just heated up. With a large river, lake or on the seashore the used cooling water can be released in such a way that it makes little difference.