Can we build a baseload renewable grid, or do we have to go nuclear?

[Eclipse Now]

I really don't see the idea of realistic energy efficient cities on a par with the earth ship idea happening in the next 200 years much less the next 50. mainly due to the expense. we are talking about many trillions of dollars to just replace the buildings in one city. 50 years is far to fast to expect the natural replacement of buildings to happen, much less private housing.

 

Did you even read the link I sent you to? 80% of most cities are replaced in about 50 years,

“A normal city is changing all the time – buildings grow old and are replaced. Just look at a picture of your city fifty or a hundred years ago. If the average building life is 60 years, then the city changes at the rate of 1.6% per year. I took as the basis for this scenario the average size of an average Swedish municipality – 36,000 inhabitants. I assumed that instead of building the houses on that same plot as the one demolished you build eco units on the periphery of the city, along the roads preferably. Then you start to ruralise at the same pace as the normal replacement rate. After 50 years, only ten percent of the city is left.”

Folke Günther talks about re-ruralisation with Stephen Hinton | Global Public Media

 

Please read the following points SLOWLY and CAREFULLY before responding. Read one paragraph at a time, stop, and ask "Is this actually true"? Only after doing that get back to me.

 

In other words, there is a direct relationship between the kinds of places we live, the transportation choices we have, and how much we drive. The best car-related innovation we have is not to improve the car, but eliminate the need to drive it everywhere we go.

 

And the amount of density the study's authors call for is extremely modest. They encourage building new projects at a density of 13 homes per acre, raising the average national density from 7.6 units per acre to 9 an acre....

 

VII. Deadlines and Realism

Generally, we think of cars as things which are quickly replaced in our society, and buildings as things which rarely change. But that will not be the case over the next few decades. Because of population growth, the on-going development churn in cities (buildings remodeled or replaced, etc.), infrastructure projects and changing tastes, we'll be rebuilding half our built environment between now and 2030. Done right, that new construction could enable a complete overhaul of the American city.

 

This is especially true since we don't need to change every home to transform a neighborhood. Many inner-ring suburban neighborhoods, for instance, can become terrific places simply by allowing infill and converting strip-mall arterials to walkable mixed-use streets. This transition can happen in a few years.

 

In comparison, I've been told that it takes at least 16 years to replace 90% of our automotive fleet, and since it takes years to move a design from prototype to production, it looks likely that the cars most people in the US have available to them to drive in 2030 will not be all that different from the more efficient cars today -- I'm optimistic that we'll have at least some radically engineered, non-toxic, fully-recyclable electric cars on the road by then, but it's extremely unlikely that (barring massive government intervention) they'll be anything like the norm. We should not sit waiting for automobile design to fix this problem (again, more on this below

 

There’s no need to wait on building bright green cities. Better design solutions for buildings, communities and, in many cases, infrastructure either already exist or are mid-development. If we spend the next 20 years developing compact neighborhoods with green buildings and smart infrastructure, we can reduce the ecological impacts of American prosperity by jumps that are now somewhat hard to imagine.

Worldchanging: Bright Green: My Other Car is a Bright Green City

[Moontanman]

Enow, you've overwhelmed me, I have no answer to your statistics other than it's far out side my personal experiences. The cities I'm familiar with, admittedly a small number, have not replaced hardly any of their buildings in the last 30 years, many new buildings have been built but none of the Earth ship type of efficacy. As a matter of fact the drive is to keep old buildings not replace them. The only thing they tear down is government type housing and they have so far replaced them with the same type of housing. Almost everyone wants traditional buildings, and homes, they are easy to build and the infrastructure to build them is already in place. Possibly cheap energy has spoiled us here but so far there has been no need of the types of changes you talk about. Only the electric cars have much of a chance here and only if the range is increased so you can travel several hundred miles on a charge. The whole battery replacement thing bothers me as much as an engine replacement would. Possibly "mine" is a word we all need to stop using as much. But I have to admit i cannot refute your numbers directly.

[Moontanman]

I would like to say that many of the solutions you've suggested are solutions to problems that are artificially produced by not building power plants. If indeed power plants are built the immediate need if not the total need for most of these things goes away. Electric cars are the only solution to a problem we will have no matter how many power plants we build.

[Zythryn]

Moontanman, you are getting way off topic.

The question isn't 'why are we having power issues' or 'are renewables affordable'. The question was 'Can we build a baseload renewable grid'.

So far none of your arguments indicate we CAN'T.

They have pointed out why it would be expensive, or why human nature will make it unlikely, but no reasoning as to why we can't.

As for the earthship houses, that is an extreme case of efficiency. As Enow has pointed out, natural turnover in most cities will take care of that. No need to tear down an entire city and rebuild it.

My house is a standard rambler. A very common style.

It uses 1/3 the energy of many other homes in the area of the same type and sq footage (this is without counting the solar panels).

Now, much of this is simply really good insulation. Part is also the geothermal setup for heating and cooling. These added about 1.5% to the cost of the house.

I use almost no natural gas, and almost all electricity.

Added efficiency can take a lot of looks. You can go with an earthship, or you can simply build more efficient with the classic styles.

Greenburg Kansas may be an interesting look. They built as efficiently as possible after the town was wiped out by a tornado. I don't know much about them, but if you are interested, that may prove to have some interesting information.

[Getting A Life]

New Zealand has never allowed nuclear power here, not even nuclear vessels are allowed in our waters. We are a small country of two main islands and a nuclear mishap could really screw us up. That's not to say we don't have our nuclear advocates. And they have some points. But, we have a baseline grid of mainly renewables, and when solar and storage get more efficient, we could go completely renewable without too much hair pulling.

 

Power companies here make money hand over fist. It is not the power that is unaffordable, it is the power rates. I'm sure this is common worldwide. What should be a public resource gets privatised and all the money flows to the top while service drops and when consumers complain the board use it as an excuse that they need more money for more infrastructure but just look at the quarterly figures on these entities. :rolleyes:

 

The costs of power despite the costs of power production are the most attractive reason for me to go off grid. no more bills.

 

Our power was affordable and then the govt sold it. Since then the bill has steadily increased to the point where it hurts if you are working class, as most are. Most of our power is hydro, some geothermal, some coal plants. Now some wind is going in, and other clean solutions being looked at. The current govt is right wing so I don't expect to see too much in this direction...

 

An interesting development was a new player in the field, Meridian Energy, who went for renewable sources only and started putting in the wind. With competition in the power market they were heavily subscibed to by users. Public demand can set the way things are done as well.

 

It's been outlined here quite clearly how change over time accomplishes much. A paradigm shift was spoken of, I believe the catalysts for this paradigm shift are already in place here and many other places on the planet, our current right wing govt may not give much quarter to the 'greener' ideas, but they are expendable come voting time.

 

I do think we need more economical solutions to the problems adressed in this thread. But these solutions are being sought, and when we set our minds to things, things get done.

 

Can you do it, renewable baseline? Of course you can: it's just all that red tape, and naysayers, and corrupt rich people with power to wade through. When governments call for new buildings cars and appliances with higher efficiency ratings, and throw money at renewables research, you will have a very good chance.

 

The greens aren't so niche as they used to be. Some still are... :phones:

 

I got no problem if you guys have nuclear, not in my back yard.

[HydrogenBond]

I like the idea of using solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, for clean energy generation. Although direct solar to electric energy is more efficient, hydrogen generation makes it possible to interface with the existing fuel generation plants, which are the big dogs in the grid, who might resist being put in the junk yard, by solar to direct. We need the assistance of the current monolith power structure or else it will be harder to be competitive. If solar becomes the basis for raw materials using the existing structure, it makes sense for the existing power structure to invest.

 

Here is the analogy, there is a large store in your neighborhood. You can try to compete by setting up a new store from scratch. But they have been there for years and are so connected within the community, it might be hard to get up to steam and be competitive, especially if they are trying to undermine you, but putting pressure on local suppliers, zoning boards, etc., raising your costs. Even if you are going to be better for the community, they will not shoot themselves in the foot and help you make them obsolete. But if you can help make them consolidate their own position within the community you are welcome.

 

The alternative is to become a supplier. If they can make money off you, instead of losing money or becoming gradually obsolete, your progress is in their best interest. Now they have incentive to invest in solar-hydrogen, since they can make money, while remaining the big dog in the grid with minor retro-fit. This is not about philosophy or even the ideal approach, but the reality of the free market. A flea on the big dog will be scratched constantly making the flea's life more difficult.

[Moontanman]

New Zealand has never allowed nuclear power here, not even nuclear vessels are allowed in our waters. We are a small country of two main islands and a nuclear mishap could really screw us up. That's not to say we don't have our nuclear advocates. And they have some points. But, we have a baseline grid of mainly renewables, and when solar and storage get more efficient, we could go completely renewable without too much hair pulling.

 

Yeah , if you can pay the power bills. It's lovely you've allowed the insane fear of nuclear to drive your policies, the fear mongering of the anti nuclear people is so full of lies and deceit is criminal.

 

Power companies here make money hand over fist. It is not the power that is unaffordable, it is the power rates. I'm sure this is common worldwide. What should be a public resource gets privatised and all the money flows to the top while service drops and when consumers complain the board use it as an excuse that they need more money for more infrastructure but just look at the quarterly figures on these entities. :naughty:

 

I live within a few hundred miles of three nuclear power plants, my power is very cheap, and by the way they are safe power plants too, your fear of a nuclear accident is blown so far out of proportion it's not even close to being connected to reality.

 

The costs of power despite the costs of power production are the most attractive reason for me to go off grid. no more bills.

 

Lack of supply is why power is so expensive

 

Our power was affordable and then the govt sold it. Since then the bill has steadily increased to the point where it hurts if you are working class, as most are. Most of our power is hydro, some geothermal, some coal plants. Now some wind is going in, and other clean solutions being looked at. The current govt is right wing so I don't expect to see too much in this direction...

 

Are you aware your coal fired power plants are spewing out more radioactivity than the worst of the nuclear power pants by a factor of hundreds? Yes, radiation from coal fired power plants in huge amounts, not to mention the heavy metals and other poisons. Far more dangerous than nuclear.

 

An interesting development was a new player in the field, Meridian Energy, who went for renewable sources only and started putting in the wind. With competition in the power market they were heavily subscibed to by users. Public demand can set the way things are done as well.

 

It's been outlined here quite clearly how change over time accomplishes much. A paradigm shift was spoken of, I believe the catalysts for this paradigm shift are already in place here and many other places on the planet, our current right wing govt may not give much quarter to the 'greener' ideas, but they are expendable come voting time.

 

These ideas are not as green as you think and are far more expensive than simple clean nuclear power

 

I do think we need more economical solutions to the problems adressed in this thread. But these solutions are being sought, and when we set our minds to things, things get done.

 

Can you do it, renewable baseline? Of course you can: it's just all that red tape, and naysayers, and corrupt rich people with power to wade through. When governments call for new buildings cars and appliances with higher efficiency ratings, and throw money at renewables research, you will have a very good chance.

 

The greens aren't so niche as they used to be. Some still are... :naughty:

 

I got no problem if you guys have nuclear, not in my back yard.

 

It's really sad the lies of the so called Greenies have distorted nuclear power into a demon out of control. If you can do it inexpensively with wind and solar then good for you but to insinuate some sort of victory due to lack of nuclear is simply not based in fact. I'm glad you are ok with the coal power plants, they've released hundreds of tons of radioisotopes into your environment with them but hey , you avoided nuclear!

[Getting A Life]

You are out of line MTM just read what you say

 

"It's lovely you've allowed the insane fear of nuclear to drive your policies, the fear mongering of the anti nuclear people is so full of lies and deceit is criminal"...

 

Who is allowing emotion to get in the way of this discussion?

 

"your fear of a nuclear accident is blown so far out of proportion"

 

So, there's never been a nuclear mishap?

 

Yes, we have coal, do I approve, hell no. I'm not calling the shots.

 

When we store nuclear waste off planet, then I'll talk at your table.

[Moontanman]

You are out of line MTM just read what you say

 

"It's lovely you've allowed the insane fear of nuclear to drive your policies, the fear mongering of the anti nuclear people is so full of lies and deceit is criminal"...

 

Who is allowing emotion to get in the way of this discussion?

 

"your fear of a nuclear accident is blown so far out of proportion"

 

So, there's never been a nuclear mishap?

 

Yes, we have coal, do I approve, hell no. I'm not calling the shots.

 

When we store nuclear waste off planet, then I'll talk at your table.

 

I'm curious, how many people would you say have been killed by nuclear power plants over the last oh say 50 years? A billion? A million? A thousand? How many people have been killed by nuclear power say compared to one chemical accident from the production of a common insecticide almost certainly used in your country? It's not emotion, it's the truth, the danger from nuclear power is exaggerated far beyond any real connection with reality. It's criminal, I make no apologies for having pointed it out.

[Getting A Life]

This is bringing irrelevant information to the arguement. Pesticide... a completely different issue. If you wish to discuss a subject, it helps to try and stay on subject. The fact pesticide manufacture may be dangerous has nothing to do with US renewable power sources. It is also unneccesary, I think, to point out coal is not clean. I'd wager the medical costs of the communities in vicinity of our coal mines to the taxpayer (public health here) outweigh the tax profits of the operations handily.

 

You say nuclear is cost effective. I have nothing to contradict that with, and am not trying to contradict it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to move away from something that creates such 'immortal' waste. I am not advocating halting nuclear research, the 500 yr waste sounds much better than we have now, and in future, who knows?

 

I am supportive of the exploration of options.

 

I'm no hysterical hippie. No more are my peers. Every faction has it's extremists to cloud the waters with nonsense and name slinging like I'm reading here.

 

We 'insane fearful fear mongering decietful liar greenies' consider nukes aren't an option in New Zealand... Perhap's we're all backwards too?

 

What can you bring to the table to show that nuclear technology is as safe as you say? :)

[Moontanman]

What I bring is the actual record of the nuclear power industry. Far more people have been killed in other major industries even power plants than nuclear. Chernobyl is not a fair comparison, the plant should never have been built, it should never have been started up or run by the people who ran it. It was an old outdated design that was a clear and present danger and should have been stopped way before the accident began. It was listed as such before the accident happened. Comparing it to the rest of the nuclear power industry is much like comparing a the first airplanes to modern airliners. The reason i compared it the chemical pesticide industry is because they are similar, both use terribly dangerous chemicals but the nuclear industry mitigates the risk much better. You can safely detonate a thermonuclear bomb if you take the correct risk mitigation actions. Nothing is 100% safe, not even renewables, but modern nuclear power plants to do not blow up or melt down and spew out radioactive waste every where like many would have you believe. Yes the waste is problem but it can be handled and eventually what we see as waste will be used as fuel. And yes I think the whole new Zealand deal about no nukes was driven by greenie propaganda. Has any country ever been hurt in any way by nukes being on submarines in their coastal waters? I hope you do indeed manage to get an affordable grid going with out big power plants of any kind and manage to take down the dams, the environment would be better for it, but I don't see it happening. BTW you mentioned sending waste into space....

 

BRUCE BEHRHORST ARTICLE LIST

[maikeru]

I'm curious, how many people would you say have been killed by nuclear power plants over the last oh say 50 years? A billion? A million? A thousand? How many people have been killed by nuclear power say compared to one chemical accident from the production of a common insecticide almost certainly used in your country? It's not emotion, it's the truth, the danger from nuclear power is exaggerated far beyond any real connection with reality. It's criminal, I make no apologies for having pointed it out.

 

Moontanman, Aussies and Kiwis think quite a bit differently than Americans. In their cases, I think they can make the move over to renewables, but I'm not sure about us in America, Europe, Middle East, Asia, etc. I bet we can do a good portion of our energy as renewables, but we'll need both private and government leadership, and more input from the science and tech communities to coordinate our resources and efforts better. So far, there have been so many boondoggles and failures. Basically, we've seen a lot of get-rich-quick schemes and misguided efforts with renewables, such as the corn ethanol or algae biodiesel, which haven't panned out. Our populations and population densities are high, and the land and resources in every place differ. Also, if they weren't trying different ideas, we wouldn't know what is feasible and what isn't. Renewables must be and will be diverse and different. There are very few magic bullets among the options.

 

In Utah Valley, where I am, solar, wind farms, hydroelectric, or biomass from farms or forests all could have been serious options about 5-10 years ago...but I think the rampant development during the housing bubble, rapid population growth, air pollution, wildfires, and now increasing environmental and weather problems makes it difficult. Out here in Utah, maybe nuclear is the future. I'm beginning to think they'll have to build some nuclear reactors to accommodate the increased energy use and to avoid building more coal-fired power plants. As the land fills up and resources become more scarce, some options disappear and other ones need to be considered.

 

If I have children, I want them to live a better life than I have. Unfortunately, it seems the way the world is going makes this a distant dream.

 

New Zealand has a well-developed agricultural base and a lot of open land, significant geothermal resources, water, wind, sea, etc. They have a small population. It may be very feasible for them. There are very few places like New Zealand in this world.

[Moontanman]

I am glad to hear that about the Kiwi's and the Australians, it's great they can get by with out non renewable energy sources. But the insinuation of nuclear as some sort of evil thing that once let out of the bottle will be far more dangerous than can be reasonably assumed is simply wrong. I pointed out nuclear was not the "no sane people would chose" thing as portrayed by the propaganda. I won't apologize for that. Coal fired power plants do far more to endanger people than nuclear and yet they are ok. I see no assertion that this country is coal free, no push to keep coal out of the country. No the idea of being somehow superior due to being smart enough to be nuclear free is there and is wrong. This antinuclear agenda is nothing but propaganda by people who have an axe to grind, no real numbers back it up.

[maikeru]

I am glad to hear that about the Kiwi's and the Australians, it's great they can get by with out non renewable energy sources. But the insinuation of nuclear as some sort of evil thing that once let out of the bottle will be far more dangerous than can be reasonably assumed is simply wrong. I pointed out nuclear was not the "no sane people would chose" thing as portrayed by the propaganda. I won't apologize for that. Coal fired power plants do far more to endanger people than nuclear and yet they are ok. I see no assertion that this country is coal free, no push to keep coal out of the country. No the idea of being somehow superior due to being smart enough to be nuclear free is there and is wrong. This antinuclear agenda is nothing but propaganda by people who have an axe to grind, no real numbers back it up.

 

Coal-fired power plants are pretty damn evil, IMO. There's no such thing as clean coal. It contaminates the land, air, and water, and coal ash is just nasty.

 

For the record, I'm not pro-coal or pro-nuclear. Nuclear has its strengths and weaknesses, IMO, but if the country wants to go nuclear, I think the next-gen power plants are a better bet. We can't afford any nuclear accidents. I would like to see more activity on the renewables front to include farmers, regular people, etc. but I don't think it's going to happen.

 

I don't think this current administration will do it. It was just a few days ago that Steven Chu gave the nod to a plan to spend $3 billion dollars on CO2 capture and sequestration, which, IMO, is wasted money. CO2 can be captured by plants and put into biochar or soil carbon rather than being entombed for eternity underground, where it is useless or possibly dangerous. (What if the CO2 forms carbonic acids and starts to eat away at rock or soil or it eventually leaks? Not sure how long it can remain sequestered or how well.)

 

But I do think people have a point when they bring up the question of nuclear waste. When you take into account nuclear waste processing and storage, I don't believe it is as cheap as it's touted. Look, we have one nuclear waste dump here in my state run by Energy Solutions, and there was another one proposed Skull Valley as I mentioned earlier. Not long ago, Energy Solutions tried to bring in 20 tons of foreign nuclear waste to their dump. I was against it, but I knew a lot of people who were for it. There's also radioactive mine tailings in Moab which are contaminating Colorado River water.

 

Moab Tailings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The estimated clean-up costs may be as high as $720 million dollars.

 

One more thing that I think hasn't been brought up in this discussion is that building new nuclear power plants requires massive taxpayer subsidies. Under the current market and regulation, they aren't economically competitive with other fossil-fuel based options:

 

NRDC: The Future Role of Nuclear Power in the United States

Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback - washingtonpost.com

 

I admit up front I know very little about the nuclear industry and nuclear power plants. I've studied and trained as a microbiologist, not a nuclear engineer or technician.

[Moontanman]

I grew up in WV, I've seen what mining coal does to the environment, mine tailings, strip mines , polluted rivers and streams. The environmental destruction is beyond what most would believe. If they tried to build another coal fired plant here I would be all about raising as much hell as possible to prevent it. Even when they recover the ash the ash is full of heavy metals and radioactive isotopes. What are going to do with such material? The volume is far more than can be stored, it's a nightmare. If coal and hydro were the only alternatives I would be all about the wind and solar, Geothermal is too isolated for use in most areas, but in the areas where it is useful it is a great idea. Nuclear can allow us to avoid the expense, environmental problems and ugliness created by renewables, New generation power plants can and will solve the waste issues. It will take a mix of power sources to solve the energy needs of the future, nuclear will be a big part of it but not all of it.

[Getting A Life]

"the idea of being somehow superior due to being smart enough to be nuclear free is there and is wrong"...

 

As well as being fearful fearmongering deceitful etc I am now also 'somehow superior' ....

 

Please desist from personal attacks and insinuations against myself and the mindset of my nation.

 

I present an alternative viewpoint and you have gotten personal about it.

 

Again I would request you desist from personal attacks, implied or otherwise, and stick to facts.

 

I thought I was in a science forum, not a bar.

[Moontanman]

Nothing personal in my posts, I never go personal with honest people. But it's the way it feels when such a policy is claimed as better than other ideas. No way to see it any other way. It's always a choice and it should be a choice but the insinuation of it being a superior choice is there none the less.