Yes, But Will My Car Still Fly?

[Winstonm]

If this is as apolitical as advertised, it looks like nuclear power is the best - if not only - choice.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/ma...e_uk/print.html

[Al_U_Card]

It will, if you have it transported by cargo plane.

[Gerben42]

One source of power is never the solution. We need ALL kinds of power: Nuclear is a must but so are wind, water and solar.

 

The standpoint of some governments which is to not use nuclear energy is extremely harmful for the citizens, even if it might win votes in the short term, but so would be focussing only on nuclear energy and forgetting all the other sources of energy.

[jtfanclub]

Satellite lasers (satellites with solar collectors a mile on each side used to power a gigawatt x-ray laser) would also be very effective, if you don't mind having satellites in space beaming down enough energy to vaporize a city block. For some reason, it makes people nervous when you could punch in a few keystrokes and turn, say Red Square into smoke and ash.

[helene_t]

Sounds like a book worth downloading.

 

The tone on the website is a little over-enthusiastic. It basically says "he is a phycisist so he must be right". But to have a qualified opinion about nuclear power vs. renewable energy one has to know something about economics and engineering. I am not saying that the author hasn't got sufficient knowledge, just that his creditials as a physicist, while relevant, do not by themselves make him an authority on the issue.

 

BTW while solar power is probably not the solution to Britain's energy needs it mat be so in more sunny countries.

[y66]

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

 

Amen brother Mac.

 

Don't want nuclear energy in your plan? Fine. Let's see some numbers please.

[onoway]

I personally think, not being a gambling sort of person, that the costs of losing the bet are unacceptably high if we actually are mistaken about the safety of the containment plans for the virulent waste produced by nuclear power. All along we have been told that nuclear power was safe, which was not true (according to studies of such things as the incidences of cancers and birth defects within a diminishing range of miles of a nuclear power plant) so am a bit reluctant to believe that there is now nothing left to solve in terms of the problems.

 

Perhaps if the money being spent on PR and campaign blitzes for nuclear energy were spent instead developing more ideas outside the box we would be in a much better situation.

 

I am very far from being able to intelligently assess the claims made in the following link, but they seem intriguing. Might this be one possible solution to vehicle pollution? http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

 

There is another one as well, with an entirely different approach but with similar claims (NOT run your car on water, btw) but I seem to have lost the link. :)

[Winstonm]

Yes, but is any form of energy truly and completely "safe"?

[Winstonm]

“I don’t really mind too much what your plan is,” MacKay told The Reg this week. “But it’s got to add up.”

 

Amen brother Mac.

 

Don't want nuclear energy in your plan? Fine. Let's see some numbers please.

Exactly why I found the provided link somewhat compelling - it didn't seem a political spin job and it dealt with what appeared to be realistic numbers.

[gwnn]

Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months.

 

I wonder if this is true.

[JanTucson]

I lived in Saudi Arabia for two years, and solar power didn't work THERE.

[y66]

These guys are making solar work. Saw their house on the mall last summer. Cool stuff.

 

So is Jim Rogers.

 

Any many others.

 

Before the solar water heating industry collapsed in the 1950s due to the low price and increased availability of natural gas, approx. 80% of new homes built in the Miami Florida area came with solar water heaters installed. We're going backwards (temporarily)!

[jtfanclub]

Except that Jim Rogers isn't making it work.

 

Jim Rogers is proposing that we tax the bejeesus out of power companies that don't mix in solar or the like to make it work. Which is great and all, but I don't think that qualifies as making it work.

[han]

Interesting material, unfortunately this article is clearly written by someone with an agenda.

[helene_t]

Skipping one bath saves a much energy as leaving your TV off standby for over six months.

 

I wonder if this is true.

Just a rough calculation:

 

A quick google search finds stand-by power consumptions ranging from 0.24 W to 15 W. 1W over half a year is 15.5 MJ which is enough to heat 170 liter of water by 20 C. Something like that.

 

So depending on you TV set, switching it off for half a year could get a bath of between 40 and 2500 liter.

[han]

That ignores cleaning the water, pumping it to your house and disposing of it afterwards.

[helene_t]

Minor detail, I thought a mathematician would be able to abstract from that ;)

 

OTOH a joule of energy for heating water is cheaper than a joule of electricity.

[onoway]

another alternative being looked at;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25374237/

[Winstonm]

In solar power, this looks interesting: http://raw-solar.com/index.html

[effervesce]

I personally think, not being a gambling sort of person, that the costs of losing the bet are unacceptably high if we actually are mistaken about the safety of the containment plans for the virulent waste produced by nuclear power. All along we have been told that nuclear power was safe, which was not true (according to studies of such things as the incidences of cancers and birth defects within a diminishing range of miles of a nuclear power plant) so am a bit reluctant to believe that there is now nothing left to solve in terms of the problems.

 

Perhaps if the money being spent on PR and campaign blitzes for nuclear energy were spent instead developing more ideas outside the box we would be in a much better situation.

 

I am very far from being able to intelligently assess the claims made in the following link, but they seem intriguing. Might this be one possible solution to vehicle pollution? http://www.flixxy.com/zero-pollution-automobile.htm

 

There is another one as well, with an entirely different approach but with similar claims (NOT run your car on water, btw) but I seem to have lost the link. ;)

Contrary to popular opinion, coal power plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear power plants. In all, effective dose equivalent of the radioactive waste released into the atmosphere from one coal power plant is equivalent to the radioactive waste produced by 100 nuclear power plants.

 

See http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-...xt/colmain.html

[Gerben42]

Contrary to popular opinion, coal power plants release more radioactive waste into the environment than nuclear power plants. In all, effective dose equivalent of the radioactive waste released into the atmosphere from one coal power plant is equivalent to the radioactive waste produced by 100 nuclear power plants.

 

I'd think it would be more than 100, considering how much barriers exist between the nuclear fuel and the environment. Unfortunately for coal plants, the radioactivity is the least of your problems. They pollute, coal in the form of fine dust is spread into the environment. Then the mining of the coal is extremely unhealthy. There are regions where there is no single healthy tree left due to coal mining.

 

Of course at this point we cannot do without coal power yet. But we will have to in the future. What I find interesting is that people are talking about "clean coal", in which the produced CO2 is stored underground. This is considered a great solution, unlike the storage of nuclear waste underground, which is considered evil. The only difference is that in 10.000 years, the nuclear waste will have mostly decayed, whereas the CO2 will have mostly escaped to the surface again. Or it is still there it is, but it will not have decayed.

[Wackojack]

The professor's figures are very useful and informative. A few things to add:

 

An alternative to DC power lines from solar generated electricity in North Africa direct to the UK is to put in much shorter DC links to feed into the European electricity system (say Spain). We (UK) already have a DC link across the channel connecting to France which is integral to the Euopean system. Of course as the power generated in North Africa increases, the grid infrastructure and the UK to France DC link will have to be uprated. This European solution looks like it would be much more economic (and politically better) than the professors solution. Figures please professor?

 

Iceland has abundant geothermal power. I would like to see some figures for Iceland supplying Europe with geothemally generated electricity via DC cables to Scotland and possibly Norway.

 

We must free ourselves from oil based internal combustion engines to power our transport. The problem with using electricity to power transport is that storage of electricity except possibly via the ecologically heavy pumped storage method is very expensive. Hydrogen power looks to be the best bet. We can use excess wind power to manufacture hydrogen directly through electrolysis of water. That way wind power becomes much cheaper.

 

Nuclear power. Yes of course.