Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
John Boitnott
2525 Followers
Hugh Byrne
6442 Followers
smiley Rose
-58 Followers
Away, back when I can
6502 Followers
Ahsan Dilshad
1000 Followers
Michael Pinto
6328 Followers
Zohaib Usman
1617 Followers
langfordApr 24, 2011
The power plant damaged by Japan's quake was very old, there is much better technology available now. Having said that, why keep all our eggs in one basket? Nuclear, wind, and solar, all three FTW.
norman619Apr 24, 2011
There is no debate for people with at least half a brain. solar is a SUPPLEMENTAL power source. Nuclear is a primary power source. Comparing the two is idiotic.
ksadyaApr 24, 2011
Solar can be a primary power source in much of the world. Ultimately, a combination of solar and wind and/or water can provide primary-grade service. The peak electrical usage coincides with peak solar intensity. The baseline/offpeak hours can be met through storage and other alternatives.
sparks333Apr 24, 2011
In much of the world - maybe. I can think of several first-world countries with higher power requirements than solar, wind, and water combined can economically achieve, however. As for providing primary-grade services for the entire world on the three - not with today's technology.
barackalypseApr 24, 2011
It is an expensive proposition to have to have enough solar capacity to meet demand on windless days, enough wind capacity to meet demand on cloudy days, enough storage or on-demand generation capacity to get you through cloudy-windless days. You could go through the trouble of trying to properly size that, or you could just build a few nuclear reactors that will run for months at a time regardless of the weather.
ksadyaApr 24, 2011
I also agree from a practical side of things. This situation will happen maybe 1-5% of the time. That's a big deal! But that's also what coal and natural gas can be used for. We don't *need* nuclear energy, but it it an attractive proposition.
norman619Apr 24, 2011
"Solar can be a primary power source in much of the world."
This pretty much shows us you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Solar and Wind can't generate power 24/7 nor can they generate the amount of power needed by most cities and towns. Wind needs wind and solar needs it to be a clear and sunny day with the added problem of night. Plus the tech needed to store power on those rare occasions when you are generating power and no one is using it doesn't exist.
ksadyaMay 27, 2011
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/technologies/
kasha34Apr 25, 2011
Storage? What storage? We don't have any practical way to store electricity from the sunny times to the dark times.
bcronosApr 24, 2011
Ridiculous comparison... 40 yo nuclear technology compared to modern solar technology and it still isn't even close... Solar is great for preheating water when the weather is warm, but it really sucks at producing stable, cost effective electricity...
carl0skiApr 24, 2011
as far as I'm concerned if every home in Australia had solar installed the demand to generate electricity at a power station would halve.
Meaning hydro and whatever the shortfall coal could be used at a power station level
Australia doesn't need nuclear
ksadyaApr 24, 2011
exactly correct. peak energy usage coincides with peak solar intensity.
barackalypseApr 24, 2011
There is no question which is better for the environment, solar is, because it can't have a nuclear accident and has no radioactive waste to dispose of. The real question is, which is more economical? Earthquakes aside, nuclear power is available 24 hours a day, solar is useless at night which requires storage systems which add to its already high costs.
sparks333Apr 24, 2011
I actually have to question that - solar panels require some pretty toxic stuff when they're made, and come up with nasty byproducts. Once they're made, they don't put out much toxic stuff, but when they need to be replaced it all comes back. It wouldn't be too big an issue, except for the sheer number of them required to make a solar-based electric system work. Nuclear does produce radioactive waste, there are no two ways around that (unless we hit fusion soon - keeping fingers crossed for NIF and ITER) but the number of plants required to power a country is several orders of magnitude fewer than the number of panels required.
kasha34Apr 25, 2011
Storage systems? What storage systems? How do you store electricity from the sunny day to the dark night? How? Note: don't say batteries.
barackalypseApr 25, 2011
Well, solar thermal has used molten salt to continue to power generators at night. You can also used pumped water storage (very terrain dependent because you need a lot of water) and compressed air storage (again, terrain dependant, think large underground cavern) on a large scale in the right places. Essentially the problem with all this alternate energy is it isn't available 24/7 whenever the load needs it, without costly storage systems or redundant stand-by fossil fuel powered generators.
kasha34Apr 25, 2011
Sounds kind of Rube Goldberg, doesn't it? Pumping water uphill into a pond so you can let it down again?
Compressing air into caves so you can release it and turn a turbine?
And what if it's cloudy for several days in a row? Or a week? What if your pond isn't big enough? Or the caves aren't big enough?
barackalypseApr 25, 2011
These questions are precisely why I suggested nuclear was the better choice. As they've added wind and solar generating capacity they have typically been building out natural gas and petroleum powered generating capacity to step in quickly when the weather turns unfavorable.
As for storage systems, there is a large amount of weather and electric demand history that would actually let you do a very good job planning what size these storage facilities need to be to ride out the largest prolonged loss of generating capacity based on historic weather and demand.
kasha34Apr 25, 2011
Oh, I'm sure someone could figure out how much storage was necessary. Problem is, I think actually building in that much storage would make the cost prohibitive.
I've seen that when pricing solar for the home, they steer you away from actually replacing anything close to your actual usage with the solar panels and/or battery storage. Why? Cause that makes the price so high that the impracticality of the whole venture becomes too obvious.
3the3dude3Apr 24, 2011
"Proponents on both sides of the fence will argue feverishly about how the benefits of their chosen energy preference are better for the environment and the economy. "
Really? I argue that scalable energy commodities are more efficient and cost-effective than the greener alternatives. Nuclear offers the compromise of superior efficiency and containable waste (that is incredibly toxic). More energy with less waste is a myth.
That is not to say that a nuclear meltdown is cleaner than a solar-farm or the volatility of the petroleum market is good for the economy. The dirtier sources of energy are just more economical.
In context, presenting the Fukushima meltdown as a reason to go solar is as logical as pointing to a multi-car collision during a blizzard to advocate walking from Miami to Dallas in July.
rudegarApr 24, 2011
sun tech is more helpful to give us exp for harvesting power when we travel in space and move to other planets
agmlauncherApr 24, 2011
Nuclear is still a source of energy based on limited availability of fuel. It's far better than fossil fuels, but it's still not sustainable in the long run.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
carl0skiApr 24, 2011
agreed there was once a time people believed tungsten and oil was unlimited
illinestApr 24, 2011
Lithium is also a limited source - assuming you want to store excess electricity for use at night.
It shouldn't be an 'either-or' proposition anyways. Solar and Wind have their place but they're not really suitable for base power. The real choice is between fossil and nuclear.
barackalypseApr 24, 2011
You don't have to use chemical batteries, you can use molten salt or even graphite in a thermal storage system.
illinestApr 24, 2011
yes I'm familiar with alternate storage possibilities but you're not providing any context. Is the technology ready for mass implementation? How ready is it? Could it be ready? When?
I know just enough about heat transfer to wonder if the efficiency will be good enough to make this work but I don't remember enough to explain why I'm skeptical.
I thought I'd hear about compressed air first anyways. It's a lower tech solution with it's own set of problems.
Lithium batteries are still the only storage solution that is already being mass produced.
barackalypseApr 24, 2011
Spain has at least 2 commercial facilities producing over 300 megawatts utilizing molten salt storage that have been running for over two years. The problem with compressed air is that you need a very large amount of storage (think an underground cave system like they use for natural gas storage).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extresol_Solar_Power_Station
menellomApr 24, 2011
Well that's fantastic... except that nuclear energy produces terawatts of power... we'd need over 3000 of the 300 MW facilities you describe to replace all existing nuclear plants... and that would STILL leave the 85% of global power consumption attributed to oil, coal, and natural gas.
Despite what the hysterics would have us believe, nuclear power is relatively safe compared to most methods of generating power, and each new generation of plants is safer, cleaner, and more efficient.
If funding for nuclear research and development continues, within this decade we could start building thorium fission plants, which have would have a negligible possibility of meltdown and would produce substantially less waste. And further down the line we could take the next technological leap and move from sustainable fission to fusion power.
sparks333Apr 24, 2011
Well, yes, but if we really want to go there all solar consists of is the capture of energy from nuclear fusion, which, as you point out, isn't sustainable in the long run (geologically speaking). If you want a more sustainable nuclear, check out breeder reactors - due to the Nuclear Arms Proliferation Treaties, most countries have abandoned work on them, but they had working reactors.
pezeldaApr 24, 2011
I heard many times that other Chernobyl was impossible with today's standards. They won't mislead me again.
entangledphysxApr 24, 2011
Good thing there wasn't another Chernobyl. New nuclear plant designs are much safer then the old, old old old design used in Fukushima.
illinestApr 24, 2011
This still isn't a Chernobyl.
Yes I'm familiar with the accident rating system. I was familiar with it 9 years ago when I qualified Reactor Operator too.
I don't trust enough of the information to give an analysis but even if you combine all of the worst of the half-way credible reports it still doesn't compare to Chernobyl in scope.
3the3dude3Apr 24, 2011
Fukushima's meltdown is just a portion of 100% green hydro-power's waste.
darkshroudApr 24, 2011
Maybe assh**es like you should do some research. So we don't have ignorant dumbasses blocking the updating of current Nuclear power plants and the building of new power plants. Or would you rather stick with coal?
pezeldaApr 25, 2011
So a level 7 is no longer the worst case scenario?
"The events at units 1, 2 and 3 have been rated at Level 7 (major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects rÂequiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures) on the International Nuclear Event Scale, and those at unit 4 as Level 3 (Serious Incident) events." Wikipedia.com
@darkshroud So why coal? Coal also produces dirty energy.
What about solar, wind, hydroelectric (this one alone is enough), hydrothermal and many other?