[vmarks]

It's not that hard, you just use force to compel...

oh wait.

See, I like mfrs that voluntarily act, and will support them, provided the cost to me is not more or significantly more. But I abhor government force where it isn't a primary function of government.

[peeb]

Look, if companies don't take on the cost of disposing of stuff they make, and pass that cost on to the people who use it, then the general taxpayer is subsidizing those costs. I bore that, frankly.
If you make a mess, it's your responsibility to clean it up - doesn't seem that draconian to me, certainly less so than requiring other people to clean it up through their taxes.

[tie]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The cost / benefits of nuclear have been amply analyzed, which is why there are so few nuclear power plants being built except where governments step in to subsidize them.

But most environmentalists support energy subsidies for other forms of energy production, why not nuclear too? (Just about every form of energy production is subsidized by the government. Or, at least the externalities are not being paid for, which is equivalent from a taxpayer's perspective.)

Nuclear is quite green. I think the more persuasive argument is that it just isn't scalable enough, whereas, for example, solar can be scaled more easily.

[Macrobat]

I think this may be a sign of the apocalypse, but I agree with Tie.

[BadKosh]

Climate vs weather. I wonder how much of what is being interpreted as Climate change is really weather.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

But most environmentalists support energy subsidies for other forms of energy production, why not nuclear too?

I can't speak for 'most environmentalists', but for me, the only argument for subsidizing alternative fuels is to compensate for the massive subsidies and un-paid for externalities of carbon fuels. In an entirely level playing field, where full cost accounting was the norm, I would not want any subsidies.

Originally Posted by tie 

(Just about every form of energy production is subsidized by the government. Or, at least the externalities are not being paid for, which is equivalent from a taxpayer's perspective.)

Right - and given that we've chosen to have the government so involved in carbon fuels, any new fuels need government support to break through the subsidies in place for the status quo. I wish it were not so, but it is.

Originally Posted by tie 

Nuclear is quite green.

Ultimately it depends what's important to you. I don't want to derail this into a pro / anti nuclear debate, it has strengths in some areas, but it's drawbacks are a deal breaker for me.

Originally Posted by tie 

I think the more persuasive argument is that it just isn't scalable enough, whereas, for example, solar can be scaled more easily.

And also this scaling works the other way. I think we will ultimately see a grid made up of large power stations (solar, wind, some carbon, some nuclear) with a much large contribution from decentralized production - people's homes, neighbourhood wind farms etc.

[Chongo]

Who is going to fine Chile for all the pollutants their volcano is spewing into the atmosphere? Man are they exceeding their carbon/sulphur emission limit!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Who is going to fine Chile for all the pollutants their volcano is spewing into the atmosphere? Man are they exceeding their carbon/sulphur emission limit!

I realize you're joking, but if you like, you could argue to have that worked into a global cap and trade system. Countries would get credits for preserving rain forests, and loose them for having volcanic eruptions or polluting industries.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Solar? By itself?

Yes.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Are you joking?

No. Current multijunction solar cells reach a conversion efficiency of over 40%. I'll explain below why that is important, as it directly relates to your question about who's going to pay for it.

I'd also like to point out that manufacturing process on carbon nanotubes is also improving. Black materials manufactured from carbon nanotubes absorb 99.9% of light, including infrared. If used with solar cells, that would improve conversion efficiency to around 80% or higher.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Who's gonna pay for it? (lemme guess, government subsidization, right?)

Solar cells have reached an important point that was glossed over in the latter 1990s, even with the less efficient solar cells. A typical solar panel (at only about 15% efficiency) will produce more energy in 20 years than it cost to build the panel in the first place. With your average panel now approaching 30% conversion, the panel would have payed for itself in only 10 years.

The initial cost of installing and implementing is cost prohibitive. However, if you can get past that hurdle, you eventually get all the money back (and then some.)

Using your basic solar panel (not even the super efficient kind), you could power the entire United States using a 92 mile array. Now that's a pretty damn big array. You could stick the whole thing inside Nevada, but that's not practical. However, you could just spread them out throughout the country. Rooftops, buildings, parking structures, billboards, garages, bridges, etc.

Photovoltaic cells can be implemented into many different materials. They don't have to be big solar panels. Windows, roof tiles, even paint. So even if we didn't put up panels in different areas, we could still reduce our country's energy by more than half simply by using reactive materials.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Current multijunction solar cells reach a conversion efficiency of over 40%.

Got a link? Wikipedia indicates this stuff is made from such everyday materials as gallium and indium. Wikipedia also says that world supplies of these elements have been estimated to sustain as little as 10 and 16 years more at current usage rates (respectively), which is currently notably for manufacturing LCD displays (demand for which is going nowhere but up). Now those estimates may not be reliable, but if you're talking about covering every major city in the US with this stuff, you're probably going to have a scarcity problem. Carbon nano-tubes? Even worse. I'll remind you that you were responding to the guy who's core argument is that other technologies already exist today that have been in use for decades. That's a pretty big plus in the face of an emerging technology for which the raw materials might exceed the entire earth's supply in just 10 years.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Got a link? Wikipedia indicates this stuff is made from such everyday materials as gallium and indium.

You're correct, interjunction cells do use that. That was just an example of what current technology has to offer. However, as also noted in the wikipedia, current 2nd generation solar cells based on silicon are up to 37% efficiency.

The point being, solar is a perfectly viable solution; and to answer Smacintush's question, yes, it can power the city of New York.

[BadKosh]

They DO make efficient electric motors with lots of torque, and without the problems of thermal runaway. Nuke plants could power locomotives instead of diesel fuel. If the truckers worked from the many rail centers instead of trying to drive across country in a day or so more fuel could be saved. The problems of these carbon schemes is that is really doesn't create any solutions. It's BS. It's a shame the tree huggers and their lawyers spent all that time and money telling us what we couldn't do, but they never had any real solutions, or new, PRACTICAL energy storage, or generation.

[BadKosh]

How much surface area is needed to power New York City?? What is the environmental impact? Is it like having a permanent cloud over some area?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

t? Is it like having a permanent cloud over some area?

No, of course not.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Nuke plants could power locomotives instead of diesel fuel.

What could possibly go wrong...

[Chongo]

It works for France, where nuclear plants provides 79% of it's power.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by tie 

Nuclear is quite green. I think the more persuasive argument is that it just isn't scalable enough, whereas, for example, solar can be scaled more easily.

I agree with this completely. While the hazards involved in servicing a reactor are pretty serious, the techniques are not something that's hard to manage. Operating and maintaining a nuclear power plant is NOT "nuclear science," let alone "rocket science." It's just some particularly detail-oriented plumbing.

The well-publicized flaws discovered in various plants, and dramatized in "The China Syndrome", were not due to anything inherent in how a nuclear power plant works, but rather how greedy contractors work. Cutting corners (as in not bothering to properly inspect welds in pipes that would carry radioactive water) to save a few dollars that go into the pockets of certain executives is something that happens in all areas of construction. Really, it's JUST PLUMBING that needs special attention.

But all that detail, plus the minimum size for an efficient plant (taking into account the trouble and effort needed to get the approvals and all) means that it has to be big, which is NOT scalable.

Really efficient solar power IS scalable-you can make your house solar or at least solar-assisted - or you can go much bigger and set up solar collectors all over the place and make a small town solar.

[Chuckit]

We already have a power system largely built around big production centers — the fact the nuclear plants can't be teeny-tiny is hardly a damning argument, if you ask me.

[peeb]

No, but the fact that they are dangerous, vulnerable to terrorism, expensive and produce toxic waste that we have no idea what to do with are.

[Chuckit]

Terrorist scare arguments are so 2004 Bush campaign.

Nuclear power plants are not hypothetical. They actually exist. Speculating about what might happen is kind of silly when we can just look at what has happened. As far as I recall, no well-maintained nuclear plant has ever posed a real threat.

[Uncle Skeleton]

That list still doesn't differentiate them from the coal plants we use now. As has been stated in this thread already, coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants do, and not only do we not know how to contain it all, we don't even bother to; it just goes into the air.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, of course not.

So, even though you have solar cells/solar collectors, they are transparent? The sun STILL warms the areas under these collectors. The suns energy warms the planet surface AND generates electricity!

Tell us again HOW LARGE the area will need to be to power NYC.

[BadKosh]

Again, it's "No, you can't do anything but what WE suggest." Smells of Liberal indoctrination to me.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Again, it's "No, you can't do anything but what WE suggest." Smells of Liberal indoctrination to me.

? Smells of a conservative non-sequitur to me.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So, even though you have solar cells/solar collectors, they are transparent?

No. Obviously not.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The sun STILL warms the areas under these collectors. The suns energy warms the planet surface AND generates electricity!

Here's the great part of it - if you put the collectors on the roofs of buildings, you reduce the AC bills in the summer by reducing the amount the roof tiles cook.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Tell us again HOW LARGE the area will need to be to power NYC.

It depends on a huge number of factors. Luckily you have a huge area of unused roof space to put collectors - I don't think anyone is suggesting tiling Central Park if that's where you're going - existing roofs would give plenty to be getting on with. The unknowns are how much conservation you can wring out of NY - a lot, I would think, but I don't want to speculate. Of course, you don't have to power the city 100% for the exercise to be useful in reducing pollution.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That list still doesn't differentiate them from the coal plants we use now. As has been stated in this thread already, coal plants produce more radioactive waste than nuclear plants do, and not only do we not know how to contain it all, we don't even bother to; it just goes into the air.

As has been said before, coal is bad. Luckily, the choice is not between coal and nuclear. Both have to be phased out gradually.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

As far as I recall, no well-maintained nuclear plant has ever posed a real threat.

That's a little circular, isn't it? No well-maintained and piloted oil tanker has ever leaked either.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's a little circular, isn't it? No well-maintained and piloted oil tanker has ever leaked either.

If you're suggesting that oil tanker standards have not been sufficient to ensure safety, then you're pointing out precisely why it's not comparable. We've established strict standards for how nuclear plants must be run, and while those standards have been in effect, no plants have caused any problems. (Again, this is to the best of my recollection. If you can come up with a case where modern nuclear standards have failed us, I'd be interested to hear.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by peeb 

As has been said before, coal is bad. Luckily, the choice is not between coal and nuclear. Both have to be phased out gradually.

If it weren't for GHGs, coal wouldn't have to be phased out at all. Nuclear has no GHGs. It doesn't have to be phased out at all.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If it weren't for GHGs, coal wouldn't have to be phased out at all.

There are a number of problems with coal.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nuclear has no GHGs.

That's true, but it has some other killer problems.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you're suggesting that oil tanker standards have not been sufficient to ensure safety, then you're pointing out precisely why it's not comparable. We've established strict standards for how nuclear plants must be run, and while those standards have been in effect, no plants have caused any problems. (Again, this is to the best of my recollection. If you can come up with a case where modern nuclear standards have failed us, I'd be interested to hear.)

No, I'm pointing out that, by definition, saying that 'no properly maintained X' is circular. What do you mean by 'modern'? I suspect that in practice your definition of 'modern' is 'has not failed yet'. It's the equivalent of saying 'no nuclear plant that has not failed yet has ever failed'.
Besides, catastrophic failure is only one of the raft of problems with nuclear power. The biggest 'catastrophic failure' is that we still don't have the faintest idea what to do with nuclear waste. Oh, and nuclear power is not cost effective either.

[ebuddy]

AP 2032; Big solar has installed so many panels that reflectivity is causing global cooling.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

NThe biggest 'catastrophic failure' is that we still don't have the faintest idea what to do with nuclear waste.

Within 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor. And it is incorrect to call it waste, because 95 percent of the potential energy is still contained in the used fuel after the first cycle.

It is just ignorant to keep saying "we don't have the faintest idea what to do with nuclear waste" with all of the efforts to recycle the "waste".

Again, the waste is an issue but it is not nearly the issue you make it out to be.

Oh, and nuclear power is not cost effective either.

In 2004, the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric.

It IS cheap, and it IS cost effective.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's true, but it has some other killer problems.

Which ones are killers?

Exactly HOW many people have died from radiation-related accidents in the history of the civilian nuclear reactor program in this country?

It's ok peeb. I'm not sure how old you are but chances are that you've been told most or all of your life all of the exaggerated or made-up nonsense about how horrible nuclear power is. So I don't blame you when you can't accept the fact that it's not as bad as you think it is and the fact that it is a perfectly viable, safe and cost effective alternative to crap like coal.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

No, I'm pointing out that, by definition, saying that 'no properly maintained X' is circular. What do you mean by 'modern'? I suspect that in practice your definition of 'modern' is 'has not failed yet'. It's the equivalent of saying 'no nuclear plant that has not failed yet has ever failed'.
Besides, catastrophic failure is only one of the raft of problems with nuclear power. The biggest 'catastrophic failure' is that we still don't have the faintest idea what to do with nuclear waste. Oh, and nuclear power is not cost effective either.

The reason we don't currently have a good way of dealing with waste is because of the environmentalists stifling development of nuclear technology! If research and development had continued apace from the 1950s on we'd probably have breeder reactors and such by now which would allow us to recycle our nuclear waste into fuel.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

it's not as bad as you think it is and the fact that it is a perfectly viable, safe and cost effective alternative to crap like coal.

I'll say it one more time for those who don't read the thread before they post. Both coal and nuclear are bad. Luckily, the choice is not between coal and nuclear.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The reason we don't currently have a good way of dealing with waste is because of the environmentalists stifling development of nuclear technology! If research and development had continued apace from the 1950s on we'd probably have breeder reactors and such by now which would allow us to recycle our nuclear waste into fuel.

Ah yes, it's the spotted owl that has stopped nuclear power from delivering electricity too cheap to meter. Of course, that claim is not substantiated, nor can it be. Nice baseless smear though.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It IS cheap, and it IS cost effective.

Where do you get those figures? It looks to me like you're hiding some of the costs there. If it were so cheap and effective, believe me, we would be using it. The fact is that it doesn't work. It doesn't make cost effective power and leaves incredibly toxic material that we don't know what to do with. The only reason governments (apart from France, who really has few options) use it is that you need a civilian nuclear program to run a military one. Another nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.

[peeb]

The first 100% wind powered town in the US.
KOMU.com - Wind Energy In Rock Port - Coverage You Can Count On

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

If it were so cheap and effective, believe me, we would be using it.

Indeed we would be if it weren't for the constant stream of FUD that you're making yourself a part of. Every time I suggest nuclear power would be a good solution, people are all like, "OMG Chernobyl!!!!!"

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Ah yes, it's the spotted owl that has stopped nuclear power from delivering electricity too cheap to meter. Of course, that claim is not substantiated, nor can it be. Nice baseless smear though.

It is fairly well substantiated. Research into nuclear power dropped off precipitously in the 60s and 70s due to environmental protests and illogical public scares. There is absolutely no doubt that had it not done so we would have more advanced civilian nuclear technologies. Would we necessarily have breeder reactors? No, but I only said probably didn't I. However we're pretty close to having them now, so it's not unreasonable to assume that a couple extra decades of research would have made them a reality.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Indeed we would be if it weren't for the constant stream of FUD that you're making yourself a part of. Every time I suggest nuclear power would be a good solution, people are all like, "OMG Chernobyl!!!!!"

Yeah, it's terrible how a massive reactor fire and clouds of radioactive waste decimating an area for decades can put people off a technology. The be serious though, if that were the only problem, believe me, the energy industry would have fixed it. Its publicity budget is rather more than Earth First's.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Yeah, it's terrible how a massive reactor fire and clouds of radioactive waste decimating an area for decades can put people off a technology. The be serious though, if that were the only problem, believe me, the energy industry would have fixed it. Its publicity budget is rather more than Earth First's.

It's also terrible how one disaster that took place with a soviet designed, poorly maintained reactor that shares little to no technology or design with the reactors used in America in the past, and even less with those that we would be using in the future—reactors, I might add, that have never been the source of any real problem—can completely destroy the reputation of an entire industry.

It's like if you had completely given up flying altogether after the Concord crashed.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It's also terrible how one disaster that took place with a soviet designed, poorly maintained reactor that shares little to no technology or design with the reactors used in America in the past, and even less with those that we would be using in the future—reactors, I might add, that have never been the source of any real problem—can completely destroy the reputation of an entire industry.

It's like if you had completely given up flying altogether after the Concord crashed.

Right, but we haven;t given up. It's what, 60 years? And nuclear still doesn't work cost effectively and still produces waste we don't know how to deal with. There are cheaper, cleaner, safer alternatives that work today. That's why we don't have much nuclear, and why we never will.