The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Wind farms use fossil fuels for construction and operation > Comments

Wind farms use fossil fuels for construction and operation : Comments

By Gary Johns, published 29/7/2015

James Hansen, the former NASA climate scientist, wrote in 2011: 'Suggesting that renewables will let us phase out rapidly fossil fuels is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter bunny.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All
"I am not a big fan of nuclear energy.....because it provides a false hope of cheap energy."

Do you mean as opposed to unknobbled, ridiculously subsidized renewables?

If unreasonable shackles were removed from nuclear energy the process of affordably saving the planet could begin. Instead we place hope in the impossible dream that one day, soon enough to make a difference to AGW, 100% of all energy consumption will be from renewables.
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 7 August 2015 3:53:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
///I am not a big fan of nuclear energy, partly because of the safety issues and the capital costs, but also because it provides a false hope of cheap energy. What we need to do is accept energy will cost money and so use it sparingly.///

What you need to do is accept that any modern economy that tried to go 100% renewable in a low-hydro state would go bankrupt. What we NEED to do is educate smart people to stop saying dumb things like "safety issues" and understand that NUCLEAR POWER HAS SAVED JUST UNDER 2 MILLION LIVES ACROSS AMERICA!

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/nuclear-power-may-have-saved-1-8-million-lives-otherwise-lost-to-fossil-fuels-may-save-up-to-7-million-more/

Do you get this? Do you understand why it has saved so many lives? How can something that SAVES 1.8 million lives be overlooked because of "SAFETY ISSUES!"

Also, when we can mass produce GenIV reactors on a production line (because they *mostly* avoid using overpressure water systems), then I've seen estimates that clean baseload reliable nuclear power will come down to about coal. Maybe even cheaper, if one considers coal's deadly and dangerous legacy!
Posted by Max Green, Friday, 7 August 2015 5:47:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase, I had in mind renewable technologies such as silicon solar cells, which are now down to about 40 cents per Watt (about 4 cents per KWH), without a subsidy.

It is not feasible to replace all fossil fuel with 100% renewable energy in the foreseeable future, but we can replace some fuel use.

Also we can also reduce CO2 emissions by efficiency measures. As a example, I bought a replacement power supply from my laptop which has a power saving feature. When the laptop is fully charged, the power supply shuts down. The old power supply used several Watts when the laptop was fully charged and turned off.

A simple change would be to encourage households to buy smaller fridges. Modern kitchens are designed with a space for a large family fridge, even though the average home has only 2.6 people. Halving the fridge size (from 520l to 280l) would save 30% of the energy used.

With some renewable energy and savings measures it should be possible for Australia to halve its greenhouse gas emissions at minimal cost and with few lifestyle changes.
Posted by tomw, Saturday, 8 August 2015 1:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(sighs) Once more unto the breach...

First, in Germany solar is 3 times more expensive than nuclear: and it doesn't run on a cold German winter night.
"An analysis by the Breakthrough Institute finds that the entire German solar sector produces less than half the power that Fukushima Daiichi – a single nuclear complex – generated before it was hit by the tsunami. To build a Fukushima-sized solar industry in Germany would, it estimates, cost $155bn. To build a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant would cost $53.5bn. And the power would be there on winter evenings."
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/03/doing_the_math_comparing_germa.shtml

Secondly, to back up renewables seasonal fluctuations in northern countries like Germany could bankrupt any nation that tried it. You can *either* buy Tesla Powerpack batteries to back up *one week* of winter in Germany (at a hypothetical 30% penetration of wind and solar, and these wind and solar farms must still be bought), OR you can just buy safe modern nuclear-waste eating nukes that will do the whole job for 60 years. Again, *backup* a third of a renewable grid for just one week, or nuke the whole grid for 60 years! That’s the economics of renewable storage V nuclear.
Point 2 below
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/renewables/the-grid-will-not-be-disrupted

Third, in some places like Germany, Solar PV + STORAGE may not even be much of an energy source!
Nuclear, on the other hand, can have an ERoEI* of about 75 to 100 or more.
(* ERoEI = Energy Return on Energy Invested: or how much energy you actually get after all the energy to build it).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
Posted by Max Green, Saturday, 8 August 2015 2:54:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Max, does you costing of a Fukushima-sized nuclear plant include the cost of insuring against a Fukushima style accident? The last estimate I saw for the cost of the cleanup was $105B.

The cost of PV has halved since the 2011 figures you cite and the rate of cost reduction has been accelerating. It takes at about five years to build a nuclear plant and by then PV will be down to 2 cents per kWH. If integrated into the roof, wall cladding and windows for new buildings the cost will halve again (half the cost of PV is the installation). In sunny climates, such as Australia, it will then be cost effective to install PV just to run a building during daylight hours on sunny days. If included in all new Australian buildings, this would add about half a Fukushima size plant of generating capacity (2,200 MW) per year.
Posted by tomw, Sunday, 9 August 2015 2:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
///Fukushima style accident///
Please explain how we are *ever* going to have one of these if the world fast tracks GenIV reactors, especially LFTR's? They *cannot* melt down: they are *already* a liquid that hardens at 450 degrees centigrade outside the reactor vessel, and would harden, trapping most of the radiation on site, even if the reactor were blown up by terrorists!

Also, please explain why the Japanese government evacuated 20k around the Fukushima plant when a few blocks back would have been enough, and explain how many people died as a result of the Fukushima plant, and how many people would die if they all moved back again?

1. Thyroid Cancer Rates Lower in Fukushima Children Than Other Regions
2. Fukushima Seafood Safe to Eat
3. Fukushima Evacuation Zone Is Mostly Habitable
4. Cancer Rates in USS Reagan Crewmembers Lower Than Control Group
5. Fukushima Death Toll Is Too Small to Measure
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/five-surprising-public-health-facts-about-fukushima

But go ahead and attack nuclear using words like 'Chernobyl' and 'Fukushima'. It's about as sensible as attacking modern aviation using words like 'Hindenberg' and modern shipping with 'Titanic'.

///half the cost of PV is the installation///
False. Buying PV is about 10% of the actual cost. The really expensive part is trying to change EVERYTHING WE DO to dance around PV's "moods". Whereas coal (public enemy number one!) was reliable, PV has cloudy weeks where it just doesn't want to work as hard so only provides 50% power. It has night time where it also doesn't want to work. It's moody. Coal could be relied upon. Nuclear *can* be relied upon
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 9 August 2015 3:21:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. Page 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy