I always love it when coal is used as a comparision. Because:
Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are
Furthermore:
Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy.
Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously believing we could manage that.
It's disingenuous to call "solar and wind" an alternative on the same level as nuclear and coal.
For one thing, it's an incomplete alternative; it needs to be paired with some form of country scale battery for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
This is covered in the excellent book Without Hot Air[1] which breaks down power usage and generation potential (using UK figures), primarily to discuss weaning the country off of fossil fuels.
Reading through estimates of what will be required ignoring cost, the sheer scale of what it would really take to power a country off of renewable energy quickly becomes apparent.
And it's written by a physicist who strongly argues for the need to move off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. He just doesn't have his head in the sand about how difficult that will be.
I tend to agree with that viewpoint but I'm skeptical we'll get there without pairing it with a significant boost in energy efficiency, ala Reinventing Fire[2].
> it needs to be paired with some form of country scale
battery
This isn't true, as distributed power networks are actually preferable. I'd much rather have uninterrupted power supply at the home than try and rely on an entire network to provide it for me.
At least in the United States, if the Grid goes down, then your home solar system (including battery supply) is automatically shut down as well for safety reasons.
Solar and wind are ways off replacing nuclear and fossil fuels.
There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's. There are many technological and economic issues with large scale solar/wind. We need to build better grids, we need storage for when sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow...
Realistically we are at least 20 years from the point where renewables could overcome fossil. And that is assuming optimistic scenario.
If we plowed all this funding into nuclear power research we would get far more out of our investment.
e.g.: You can use (advanced) nuclear power anywhere, while solar and wind are less than suitable for outer space applications, etc.
This is why I feel that people that support "green" agenda are hurting environment and our species.
"There is no way we could switch to solar/wind without moving to the 1800's."
That is false in that the system currently cannot do it because we've promised 100% uptime and all the users have designed around perhaps 99% uptime. Lower uptime on the coasts, much higher in civilized areas (Dang near 100% by the great lakes, for example, where interestingly AC power has been much more reliable than UPS/generator transfer switches)
That is, obviously, a stable and profitable system design.
Multi-generationally, we could move to a system that can insta-shed perhaps 99% of load. Suddenly its not so hard.
I've done stuff with CAD/CAM machines. They don't like power interruptions because ignoring the problem is simpler than dealing with them. There's no technological reason why a next gen system can't have a functionality like "Hey, your power is shutting off in 5 seconds, so go into controlled shutdown mode and prepare to instantly come out of power saving mode momentarily". This isn't someone from the outside speculating but someone from the inside describing.
I would imagine a reasonably intelligent HVAC system talking to a smart enough grid could coordinate such that during worst case intervals they're off.
My phone has 8 or so hours at night to do its 30 minute or so top off charge, so why does it draw full power when the grid is stressed? Yeah that's just a couple watts, but 400 million 10 watt phones and tablets adds up to quite a draw. Laptop draw is even more impressive.
Why isn't every installed UPS legally or contractually required to be a smart grid controllable grid tie inverter on demand?
I sympathize that its harder to design an aluminum refinery to insta drop. Too bad, do it anyway. That limited hydro power is going to be needed by the hospital patients, traffic lights, SOME telecom gear, etc. Interestingly the improved insulation and control and dumping gear has the opportunity to lower overall energy use and possibly increase safety if done right.
(edited to add that only EEs are going to understand what this means, but a law that any plug in device with an effective negative resistance must implement full remotely controllable high speed low latency smart grid tech would go a heck of a long way toward grid stability in a renewables situation)
Why isn't every installed UPS legally or contractually required to be a smart grid controllable grid tie inverter on demand?
Probably because that would be really freaking expensive. Why go to all the expensive failure-prone trouble of making it easier to interrupt people's work and lives, instead of taking the cheaper, easier route of building reliable base load power generation? That's just another case of making the public bear the costs of a centralized benefit, just like fossil fuels' externalized costs.
Coal provides something like 25% of the world's energy production. Solar and wind more like 2%.
The more nuclear plants we build the more coal ones we can shut down.
The more wind and solar we build, the more coal we can shut down too, but it will take a lot longer and a lot more money to replace coal with wind and solar than with nuclear.
Look at germany. Alternative energy doesn't have to be used that little.
On a worldwide scale, it is even a different thing. You can't simply replace coal with nuclear energy worldwide, even if you were absolutely convinced that nuclear energy is safe when properly used and you have a concept for the nuclear waste produced like shooting it into space. Because many countries are just too instable, poor and iniffecient to consider building a nuclear plant. It wouldn't be safe at all. Also, don't overestimate the availability of uranium, which is estimated to only reach till 2080 (depends on who you ask probably).
In Germany, where they are shutting down their nuclear power plants, more than 80% of the shut down nuclear power has been replaced with coal power plants,[26] which release 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage
In 2012, member firms of the Verband der Industriellen Energie- und Kraftwirtschaft (VIK) reported power failures of several seconds duration, combined with a rise in frequency fluctuations. These were reportedly caused by network overloads due to the shutdown of nuclear power plants, and an increase in wind power generation.
See, none of the plants that were shut down so far has been shut down due to the plan to phase out nuclear power. End 2011 all of germanys nuclear plant were switched off - either due to scheduled maintenance or due to (minor) accidents. The plan is so slowly fade out nuclear power over the next decade - so any short term fluke has to be regarded as what it is - a short term and pretty normal fluctuation in local power production, something that the european grid was built to handle.
Quote from the article "The problem may intensify with the approaching winter." and "The coming winter can be critical,". The article dates vom october 2012 and the winter is over, no large-scale blackout in europe so far.
Renewable energies require updates to the network infrastructure - granted - but should that be a reason not to push technology and try to improve?
You're reading something I'm not saying. Germany is investing billions in its own networks to handle those issues, for example into 6 new large scale distribution lines from north to south. So yes, we want to change what energy we're using but we're paying the cost. And then, it's not like germany isn't the largest net-payer in the European Union. Certainly a small part of those subsidies could be invested in energy networks in need of technological updates - currently we're already paying to bring old east-block nuclear plants to more modern safety levels, so a couple of cables shouldn't be too much of a big deal.
You'll get a lot of comments regarding the grid's immaturity to handle a variable load of renewable sources, but the the path of building new nuclear power plant designs as well as forecasts of the ability to store waste for their planned cost has even less maturity.
Living in Southern California, I've been watching the botched upgrade of the San Onofre plant power generation system. There was a well understood, existing design being upgraded with modern engineering under a regulatory watch of the NRC. Nobody in any quarter of that case wanted the upgrade to fail, but despite best efforts and intentions, there was a critical failure in the equipment.
The cost of storing nuclear waste falls under similar uncertainty, efforts to build long term storage facilities in the US and UK have huge cost growth, pointing at the immaturity of the ability to plan, cost-estimate, and technically achieve the goal.
Sure. When calculating the CO2 output, it happens too often that not the real numbers are used. Nuclear energy shines in that regard when focussing only on the power generation itself. But if you count it all together: Mining uranium, building the power plant, transporting to the uranium to the plant, operating the powerplant (from workers who drive to that plant) and in the end, shipping the nuclear waste to an endlager which needs to be build as well (which germany doesn't have, so that one is open ended), the costs as well as the CO2-output of nuclear energy are very high.
Add the CO2 used for disaster prevention and management and from decomissioning the power plants.
The energy costs you are talking about are laughably small compared to nuclear plant's power capacity.
You need quote some good sources to convince me that a nuclear plant wouldn't be able to power uranium mines, transportation trains and all its supporting infrastructure by itself and still have over 99% of its capacity left for other purposes.
And BTW, wikipedia claims [1] that California has plans to use up to 180 square miles to generate 7.3GW of energy. This is slightly less power than capacity planned for Fukushima after building two new reactors in 2016 and slightly more area than has been permanently closed after Fukushima plant failure.
So you can take area intended for a solar plant, build a nuclear plant instead, cover the rest with forest and have:
1. Higher power output.
2. Probably negative CO₂ balance, thanks to big forest.
3. No evacuation even in case of Fukushima-size disaster.
4. You can even allow tourists to use this forest for recreation as long as the plant hasn't failed, and most plants have never faled in their history. Try letting tourist into a solar plant.
That is not what we were talking about. We talked about the CO2-output of nuclear energy, and I added small remarks to costs. Power capacity wasn't mentioned at all. I don't see your point?
Power capacity matters because it means that the "CO₂ cost" of nuclear power is epsilon and if you are looking for CO₂ reduction your efforts would be better spent elsewhere, like finding ways to run cars on nuclear power (because cars have too small area to power themselves from the Sun).
Becuase you need to look at the CO2/MW not the CO2/Plant, If a given plant type produces half the CO2 and half the MW of another plant type you will need two of the former to replace one of the latter, therefore the CO2 output remains them same.
As noted in another comment, right now solar and wind are not a viable alternative. Hopefully in time, though I'm not sure it will ever be possible to completely do away with location-agnostic power generation (coal, nuclear).
> We can't manage nuclear waste.
But it is tightly regulated and under close scrutiny, unlike coal ash contamination.
I work in the smart grid industry, and have watched and studied several years of the Stanford Energy Seminars [1]. I totally agree that Solar/Wind are the future - but we know how to supply our electrical needs with Coal (and Natural gas in part of the United States) and Nuclear power today. It's going to take 20+ years to transition to a Wind/Solar future, so the real question is not whether we should transition to wind/solar (we should) - but what do we invest our resources in while we transition to that future? Do we build (A) More coal plants or (B) More nuclear plants. (Throw in the curveball (C) start fracking more and exporting natural gas - which comes with it's own environmental costs)
I've just spent the last two weeks in the UK working on various Low Carbon smart grid projects, and the challenges of Distributed Generation (mostly wind right now in the UK) are significant - the large one being building the Transmission/Distribution network to handle this somewhat erratic source of power.
So - the future is clear, but the journey is still in question. I vote nuclear power - The impact to future generations of carefully buried waste will be much, much less than the impact of global warming.
Solar and wind might be the alternative for powering your TV and AC. They will not power the advanced scientific and engineering projects of the future. For instance the Large Hadron Collider uses twice as much electricity in a year as the entire city of Geneva. It's possible to conceive of a physics experiment that uses orders of magnitude more. What if we discover that "warp drive" is possible, but takes enormous amounts of energy? Wouldn't you want to try to do it?
If we want a Star Trek future--spaceships, advanced materials, anti-gravity, incredible new technologies, etc.--we are going to need to iteratively develop denser and more powerful energy sources. These will also have denser and more powerful failure modes. So our engineering also needs to get iteratively better.
Remember the episode on DS9 when the Ferengi travelled through time into the 1950s? They were even disgusted by those primitive humans destroying their own planet with radiation (their gadgets didn't work anymore because of this).
Coal isn't the alternative, solar and wind are
Furthermore:
Nuclear energy has a fairly high CO2 output, if you count it all together. So this argument against coal is itself an argument against nuclear energy.
Most importantly: We can't manage nuclear waste. There is just no feasible scenario which makes sure for future generations that the nuclear waste we produce now won't be the mulch of the society after us. This point is what seems to seperate the people pro and against the sharpest, some seriously believing we could manage that.