Don't Nuke the Climate??? Please be reasonable

This article is a direct response to the organizers of "Don't Nuke the Climate: COP21 Paris"

"Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous and expensive; not carbon-free; and encourages nuclear proliferation."

Please tell me who has used nuclear material from civilian nuclear power plants to create weapons? Also would you please do me the courtesy of looking at this article and then tell me please which energy source is dangerous. And finally may I state that every source of power has "dirty" processes tied to it? More on this later on, but let me state this : even renewable energy is dirty.

"Keep False Solutions out of the climate talks."

I would also urge people to look at substantive arguments, and quantifiable arguments. Let's acknowledge that not a single government is going to flick the switch, put the lights out. You're probably suggesting that Nuclear Energy is a "false solution", I'll state that renewable energy is a "false solution" as well. And I will substantiate this later on.

"A nuclear power station itself does not emit greenhouse gasses like CO2. Yet nuclear power contributes to climate change; with every step in the whole fuel chain, needed to in the end generate electricity, many energy is used."

You mean "much energy is used" and secondly the same applies for all energy sources, even renewables. Yes renewables don't emit any greenhouse gasses during operation, but the bunker fuelled cargo ships, the trains, trucks and heavy machinery do (emissions per fuel) . The mining equipment emits green house gasses, the purification processes emit green house gasses and the manufacturing processes are a source of greenhouse gasses. You're not off the hook here...

"For instance, the extraction of uranium and the enrichment of uranium are extreme energy-intensive processes." 

I can easily bounce this one back : The extraction of copper, iron ore, bauxite, silica and the purification thereof are extreme energy-intensive processes. You do know that the materials for renewables aren't magicked into being, right? And you do know that renewables have low-energy density which means that the amount of materials required to build this vast network of panels and wind turbines is colossal, vastly outstripping the required mining activities required to feed nuclear reactors. I'll substantiate later on.

"Life-cycle analysis of the whole fuel chain clearly shows the contribution of nuclear power to climate change."

Citation needed? I can say that fairies live in my house, as long as I don't open the door, you can't prove they aren't there.

"In a ground-breaking study Sovacool et al screened 103 lifecycle studies of greenhouse gas equivalent emissions for nuclear power plants to identify a subset of the most current, original, and transparent studies. They than calculate that while the range of emissions for nuclear energy over the lifetime of a plant reported from qualified studies examined is from 1.4 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kWh (gCO2e/kWh) to 288 gCO2e/kWh, the mean value is 66 gCO2e/kWh."

Sure I can cite a dozen less biased/more inclusive studies that do a comparative analysis rather than a single sided one.

Source

 

Source

Come on now "LIES, LIES STRAIGHT FROM THE PITS OF HELL!!!!"

What matters is that everything to the right of Natural Gas is significantly better in terms of Greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear is among the best. And you forget to mention that in the current context you need backup energy generation in a renewable context. Which most often means gas or coal. When generation capacity dwindles, something else has to pick up the slack or people are going to experience black- or brown-outs. Grid instability is a bitch... Now dispense with the "smart grid" argument, shall we? I'll quantify the issue later on.

"The Nuclear Monitor has written many times about this issue, we recommend the special issue of the Nuclear Monitor and the factsheet '10 reasons not to nuke the climate'"

Do you have any unbiased literature for me?

There's a million things we can do to address any of the points you've addressed. Now let's turn the table around, shall we?

Lets dissect this page : "The solution: efficiency, savings and renewables"

"The world does not need fossil fuels and nuclear energy. What we need is a big, visionary measure to turn around the global trend towards runaway climate change. This plan needs political will to make it happen."

 

Okay let's get into the nitty gritty of things, right. What do we need to do :

1. Acknowledge the scale of our problem : 840 Quadrillion BTu's worth of energy demand by 2040. We're now in the 600 Quadrillion BTu range.
2. Increase RD&D budgets for high-density energy
3. Do some math.... I'll settle for the 600 Quadrillion BTu figure, it helps get the message across.

"Make sure emissions peak in 2015/16 and decrease as rapidly as possible towards zero after that""Developed countries must make cuts of 40 percent on their 1990 carbon emisisons by 2020"

 

No contention here, I agree... But I accept that this is an incredibly big problem, of the 600 Quadrillion BTu's only 60 Quadrillion BTu is used for electricity generation. That's about 10 percent...

 

"Developing countries must slow the growth of emissions by 15-30 percent by 2020, with support from industrialised nations"

Everyone deserves amenities like running and potable water, good sanitation, electricity, food, jobs and education. In order for the developing countries to obtain and provide these amenities, they need energy and lots of it. No one is going to flick the switch and put out the lights there, it would be highly unethical and immoral to do so. We've usurped the "third world" for far too long. I would hope to see them grow into stable, prosperous and safe societies, they need energy to do it...

There is a suite of technologies that can do that : Sewage recycling, Solar Heat and Nuclear in densely populated areas and PV and Wind in rural off-grid areas.

The truth is that these countries are pushing for coal and gas, since they are the cheapest options. So the serious question would be : what are you going to do about?

"Protect tropical forests with a special funding mechanism - forests for climate"

Is that all you would do? What happened to the "big, visionary measure"? I would suggest you go and look at what Tasso Azevedo does in Brazil. But to be quite honest, we do not have to "just" protect rainforests, we also need to increase forest cover significantly in order to restore the carbon-capture and hydrological cycles.

Massive reforestation efforts are required...

"Replace dirty fossil fuel energy with renewable energy and energy efficiency"

This is where my magic comes out and begins it's enthralling work. Are you ready for some math? Let's get this going shall we?

So the premise is that 10% of all the energy demand is satiated by electricity generation e.g. 60 Quadrillion BTu's. This roughly translates into 20.000 TWh's. I'm rounding everything down...

The Topaz 550MW PV solar plant is one of my favourite go-to arguments. The Topaz PV power plant is one of the largest in the world. It's about 65 square kilometres, has 9 million PV panels and churns out enough energy for 160.000 Californian homes (7000KWh a piece). If you reverse the math you'll learn that the Topaz PV plant generates 1,12 TWh in a year.

Suppose we want to do the all-PV-panel approach. We would have to build roughly 20.000 Topaz PV plants in order to satiate world demand of 20.000 TWh's. (this is from a 2014 context).

That would also mean that we would have to construct 180 billion panels / 1.3 million square km's (less than a percent of the total surface area of the earth < this is what the "renewables" cling on to)

Current production capacity is around 200 million panels annually (50GW). At this rate it'll take them 900 years to get it done or we would have to increase the current production rate by 300 times to get it done in three years... And that's generating 60 quadrillion BTu's worth of energy in a 600 Q BTu world with fossil stocks that are running out. And don't forget the amount of energy required to create these panels (add mining, purification, manufacturing, transportation, installation, decommissioning, limited recycling emissions...)These simple maths give a man perspective. That's why i don't talk about money for instance.

Suppose we accept the "nuclear road", we'll go on developing MSR's and Fusion and rate them at approximately 682MW a piece. Then we would need 3000 of them to replace coal-fired and gas-fired energy generation. This would mean a significant decarbonisation of at least 90%.

Try to imagine 180 Billion PV panels being shipped and moved around.

And if we manage to do this within a reasonable time frame of let's say 20 years. We still have to decarbonize all the other processes, which in term will drive up the electricity demand. For every 10% we decarbonize add another 180 Billion PV panels or 3000 nuclear power plants.

Suppose we can cut energy demand by 30% or let's be extremely optimistic 40% and decarbonize all the rest, transforming half of it into electricity demand and the other half into heat demand. We would be requiring three times 20.000 TWh which would amount to 60.000 TWh and 180 quadrillion BTu's of heat. Assuming we will stay in the 600 Quadrillion BTu range... (that's would be a colossal feat of optimism). How would you, the Anti-Nuclear-Specialist, say we would do it?

Let's look at Wind Turbines, the other holy grail of renewable energies. An average wind turbine is rated at 5MW. I'll grant them a super optimistic 35% capacity and it will generate 0.01534 TWh in a year. Filling up 20K TWh would require 1.3 million Wind Turbines. 1.94 MW per turbine is more accurate but I feel generous today, i'll let you clasp on this thin thread for a moment...

Let's look at what the Wind Pro's have to say about it

They propose a very optimistic 15.000 TWh generation capacity by 2050. This is their "SUPER SCENARIO!!!" With me giving them 10% generation capacity extra. They themselves give it 10.000 TWh...

If they rate their most optimistic figure at 10K TWh, you have to be reasonable about "running the world on renewables".... And these people are the "Wind turbine people"...

What about EOL?

• Nuclear : 50~60 years
• Wind : 20~25 years
• Solar : 20~25 years

 

The limited life cycle of wind and solar force us to double all the numbers in contrast to nuclear over a timespan of 60 years. 

• 3000 nuclear power plants for 20TWh annual generation over 60 years.
• 360 billion solar panels for 20TWh annual generation over 60 years.
• 2.6 million wind turbines for 20TWh annual generation over 60 years.

Add to this the problem of the diminishing of Coal, Gas and Oil and you have to acknowledge that we're in deep trouble. Especially if you are willing to discount the good of nuclear and form a biased opinion based on myths and fairy tales and mathematical improbabilities.

Let's be honest, a decarbonized future isn't going to happen without nuclear. It is a mathematical improbability.
"Reject false solutions like nuclear energy"

I am going to call "unsubstantiated and biased category five bullshit".

What is the main issue at play here? Fear-mongering... Far from WISE if you ask me.

Now let's dispense with the bull shall we

Please be reasonable and include nuclear energy in the COP21 summit

It would be really cool if unicorns existed....... but they don't

 

 

 

An alternative analysis and timeline as requested by John Quiggin

this article grabbed my attention and a very brief twitter conversation between two different people sparked me to run to the closet, grab harness, gear up and charge. It's time for another couple of hours of mental exercise.

It was written by John Quiggin, a Professor no less, and he has challenged people to provide an alternative analysis and timeline regarding a possible implementation of nuclear energy in Australia. I'm going to widen the scope since this issue will be facing us all in the near future. Now who am I to oppose the views presented by John? A nobody!!! zero certifications, no accolades, nothing.

I will kick off by making a few assertions :

• Reality will dictate what we [need to] do, economics and politics have to adapt
• The energy demand will go up
• Stress on water will go up
• We are going to have a mass transition of fossil fuelled transportation to electrified transportation, putting more stress on energy generation and shifting the burden

More importantly reality will be this :

• The absolute necessity of seriously mitigating [carbon] emissions to stave of the Anthropocene Mass Extinction

The basic question is : "What use will economics and politics be if they fail at restoring the biosphere that sustains life on Earth?"

And a nice quote from someone who tried to remind me of something "Reality always bats last". I think this paradigm has to and will change eventually.

John Quiggin is a professor at the university of Queensland and I have to admit that some very good and impressive work is being done at this University and I especially applaud them for an on-going series of videos they make available to the general public : UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial. I absolutely recommend watching these video's, they are put together very well and contain a wealth of knowledge.

Now let's hold the feet of this issue to the fire shall we? Nuclear energy has to be put into the context of worldly energy consumption.

The US Energy Information Administration annually produces International Energy Outlooks. Now these are pretty interesting because they gives u a yardstick on what we could expect in regards to energy consumption in the future. The extrapolations might come true, they might not come true, but in order to secure the future we have to make projections, not to be caught off guard.

"Total world energy use rises from 524 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2010 to 630 quadrillion Btu in 2020 and to 820 quadrillion Btu in 2040 (figure 1)"

 

 

In 2009 the EIA predicted that energy consumption in 2020 would be 596 Quadrillion Btu, this has risen to 630 Quadrillion Btu in 2013. A rise of 34 Quadrillion Btu predicted at the same time in the future over a four year timespan. So far my second assertion is holding up.

 

let's wave a magic wand and suppose that everything we do has been electrified in 2040, we do not burn anything anymore. The EIA predicts that we would need 820 Quadrillion Btu to satiate the demand.

 

Since the EIA is an American administration I suppose that they use the short-scale quadrillion, which is 1.000.000.000.000.000 This gives me the stupefying number of 820.000.000.000.000.000 Btu of energy required by 2040. And it is even possible that it will be far more than that. But i'll settle for 820 Quadrillion Btu. How much TWh would this be?

• 820 Quadrillion Btu = 240.318 TWh (I cheated by using a conversion tool.)

Let's have a look at the average production per unit

• A nuclear power plant @ 862 MW / 90% generates 6.8 TWh in a year
• A coal-fired power plant @ 750 MW / 60% generates 3.94 TWh in a year
• A wind turbine @ 5 MW / 35% generates 0.01534 TWh in a year
• A 550 MW PV plant generates roughly 1.21 TWh in a year (avg. Calif. household electricity consumption)

Now these are three serious contenders and the one force we want to do away with. Let's quantify the number units required to satiate a 240.318 TWh demand.

• Nuclear : 35.000 reactors
• Coal :  61.000 generators (factor 9x of currently existing capacity)
• Wind : 15.600.000 wind turbines
• Solar : 200.000 - 550 MW plants OR 1.787.490.000.000 individual solar panels / 1.8 Trillion.

How about 2/3rds of 240.318 TWh :

• Nuclear : 23.500 reactors
• Coal :  40.000 generators
• Wind : 10.400.000 wind turbines
• Solar : 133.500 - 550 MW plants

How about EOL time?

• Nuclear : 50~60 years
• Wind : 20~25 years
• Solar : 20~25 years

Yes that's right... over a period of fifty years you need to produce at least twice the amount required. 3.6 trillion solar panels or 30 million wind turbines.

 

You'll get the picture, at least I suppose you do.

 

Stuff like Hydro, Gas-fired, Wave and Geothermal have been left out of the equation. Hydro is already pretty much maxed out. Geothermal has some potential but it doesn't amount to much in terms of deployability and Gas-fired will be one of the bridging technologies. Electricity/Heat to gas conversion systems are a waste of time, batteries won't make a difference and the hydrogen idea neither. These amount to nothing.

 

Now let's be reasonable, shall we? This is the amount of energy capacity that would be required to satiate the sum total demand. This is a complete zero-carbon-burning economy by 2040. How'd you think we get there? Do we want to get rid of fossil fuels before that? Is it even reasonable to expect that we will manage to do it? Do we have enough materials on Earth to do it? Do we have the required feedstock?

Let's take a look at the clock, is time running out? It seems so... This is what reality looks like :

We have to supplant the grey, green and orange. Why? It's very simple :

1. We don't want the average temperature to rise more than two degrees or we will be certain that we will precipitate a mass extinction event.
2. We will run out resources within decades.
• Coal 100 years
• Gas 60 years
• Oil 40 years

Even if we would triple fuel economy by next year and onwards, oil would still  only last for 120 years, gas 180 and coal 300. There are no miracle solutions.

Let's look at it from a different perspective "Topaz" (the 550 MW form) claims to "remove" the emissions [?] created by 73.000 cars. Now there are over a billion cars in the world, I'll settle for a billion. In order to "mitigate" all the emissions from all cars we would need 13698 of them... I don't exactly get what these people try to prove with this, but there's no logic in it, at least there's no way of verifying what they mean with 73.000 cars...

I might be stupid, but I simply don't get the "cars removed" argument. These cars are probably still driving around... So there's no real solution here, it's simply painting a prettier picture than it really is.

This is what a 550 MW solar farm looks like btw, imagine the sheer volume of concrete, steel, aluminium and highly purified silicon required to build it... Let's remember, these solar and wind farms don't get "magicked" into place.

Nuclear has a clear head start over "other renewables". Renewables are being held to a ridiculously low standard, the amount of jobs, the amount of transportation, mining, purification, production that goes on in this sector is stupefying but it doesn't deliver. Now these processes are true for any energy industry, however the scale in which these processes are done is what matters. Installing a trillion eight solar panels is a far more energy intensive process than building 35.000 682 MW nuclear reactors.

What's the nuclear promise? Mind you this is taking it through from a mixed fuel cycle in contrast to a solid fuel cycle. The currently widely championed Molten Salt Reactor approach guarantees 90+% fuel efficiency. This helps us secure at least a couple of thousand years worth of nuclear energy.

Even though there might be some hurdles that need to be overcome, I'm pretty sure that we have no other choice. We can't go all-in, we simply lack the materials and feedstock required. We are in a very tight spot indeed, our resources are literally running out. The only sustainable way to fuel the future is nuclear fusion. Either we find a way to make it happen, or we have to accept the fact that we need extra-terrestrial activities to maintain a human civilisation for the next 500 years or so.

Why would I address this from a worldly standpoint and not simply an Australian one? The world doesn't care about borders. Australia could go 100% renewable, it would only be shifting the burden. If China, India, Europe or America don't drop their coal-fired capacity significantly, we're in big trouble, regardless of what happens in Australia. Australia on the other hand could easily set an example. As a well-stocked, reasonably educated country you could easily transition from a coal-fired economy to a nuclear powered economy. This requires will-power and a well thought out plan. It has been proven in the past that if a country commits its resources, efforts and people to solving a big problem, they can. Simply look at the Manhattan project, the Apollo missions, The way France completely decarbonized their energy industry. A blank cheque could easily be given for a project of a magnitude that would save humanity and the Earth's biosphere. It is a matter of surviving as a society, it is ultimately a matter of existence.

Let's paint a picture, let's magic the lignite and coal away and make Australia [but dare I say it : the world] a nuclear country [disclaimer : these are fables and myths, stories of a kind I cannot possibly substantiate, but there seems to be a lot of that going on nowadays] :

• At some point the message will be clear, we cannot go on, we're on a path that leads nowhere. The basic truth of math rears its head everywhere.
• 2018 The political acknowledgement of the need of nuclear energy.
• 2019 Current global affairs necessitate the implementation of nuclear energy
• 2020 Start of the "new nuclear generation" education
• 2022 Collaborating with other nuclear agencies to set up a framework for quick deployment of nuclear energy. (AP-1000's & MSR's) and provisions in place for future MSR and/or Fusion deployment.
• 2024 Implementation safety framework
• 2024 Start building first AP-1000's = Bridging capacity 1.1GW each
• 2026 Start building the first MSR's
• 2030 Delivery of first AP-1000's in countries that have adopted this approach
• 2031 Deployment of first MSR's in countries that have adopted this approach

I think it would be reasonable to expect that we would have supplanted at least half of all the coal-fired energy generation by 2030 ~ 2035 and let's face it, if we haven't by that time we're in big trouble.

The thing about nuclear power plant construction, this is mainly done by civil engineers, building specialists in concrete, welding, construction, iron workers, etc. Nuclear Engineers and Physicists arrive late in the game. There's enough expertise in this world to set up a framework by which we can build this new energy infrastructure.

 

Let's be honest with each other, even though it might be a hard thing to do in the current context, we have a herculean task ahead of us. If we cannot settle this debate, we'll be in great trouble even before the 2030's are over. You and I will probably agree on that.

I hope you can accept my brutal honesty and my lack of etiquette, the time of reverence is behind us. We first have to acknowledge the reality of things and then necessity requires of us to join forces and solve this final conundrum of humanity. I want my children to grow up in a stable, beautiful and prosperous place, here on Earth.

 

Do we hate this planet?

 

Copyright : Spencer Platt, Getty Images

 Source : wiki

 

Or do we love it?

Dishonest wind advocate deserves a nice unrelenting rebuttal on Nuclear v.s. Wind

Today someone pointed me to an article that made some very interesting statements regarding renewable and nuclear energy. Let's take a look!

Nuclear As A Sustainable Stop-Gap?

"Idea #1
The first instance came after Church on Sunday night, when a friend of mine made the mistake of engaging me in conversation about my work — and forging ahead even when he realized what he was getting into. I was gentle on him at first, letting him guide the conversation rather than battering him with almost a decade’s worth of covering clean technology and environmental politics. His basic idea was that nuclear made the most sense in a world where fossil fuels were bad for the planet and renewables weren’t sustainable.
The reality was that my friend had not encountered much in the way of education about renewable energy, which had therefore biased him towards nuclear.
His view was a naive one, based on very little information."

Which means what exactly and what is "IDEA#1" exactly? First of all I find it rather poignant that you talk about a friend, while he doesn't know what your profession is and secondly that you've baited him into making a point without having the guts to tell him where you come from, in order to get an even stage from which to debate on, and finally I think that you sound a little condescending... I wouldn't want to be your friend.

This is a rather challenging way to start an article in which you are going to argue that nuclear could be a "stop-gap" or is this not what you intend to do? You obviously state that you're biased. The picture of the sunset over the wind farm suggests that you find this a beautiful and enthralling picture of said technology?

Now let's delve into the idea of "clean technology", I've learned in the previous years that not a single type of technology is, as you say, "clean". Have you done any research in the total life cycle of all the technologies? From the onset it looks as if you've thoroughly investigated  Gas, Coal, Petroleum, Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Biomass, and several nuclear technologies and have concluded that some of them are "clean" and some of them aren't. Could you be more specific about which ones are clean, and which ones are not? And a semantic question, what constitutes a "clean" form of technology? I mean it sounds as if you're preaching to the choir here...

My ears simply started itching when I read your article, there was something about it that really tickled my spine in a bad way. Now I don't really have an audience, and I have a rather polemic nature, so I will indulge my reflex and blast away, okay?

"Idea #2

The second instance I encountered a position in favor of nuclear was reading an article on Business Green, a guest post written by Energy for Humanity’s co-founder Kirsty Gogan. Energy for Humanity is a pro-nuclear non-profit organization, and in reading this article I was once again confronted with this relatively unpopular idea — unpopular in the circles I run in, at least.
Cogan bases her argument in a new arena — that of conservation, asking the blatantly contentious question, “How many species are we willing to lose?”
Which, once again, is a naive assumption to make — however, unlike my friend, this is willful naivety."

First of all, I'm a pro nuclear environmentalist who is opposed to renewables, you probably know how detested from all sides I am... Does that make my case any less credible? Simply because a lot of people do not believe me or rather don't hear or read my argumentations doesn't necessarily prove that I am wrong. If you think it does - this is called the ad populum fallacy.

Would you be so kind as to share this article with us, or tell us where it was published? Why you ask? Well it sure seems like an ad-hominem attack on Kristy Gogan and I want to see in what context she (?) has made said argument. You are clearly building an anti-nuclear case at this moment. May I call you dishonest?

"Invest in Nuclear or Renewables?

Kirsty Cogan continued to argue for renewables, stating that “it is essential to weigh nuclear risks against the risks posed by continued use of fossil fuels.”
Now to be clear, both Kirsty and I are both more than willing to admit that nuclear has potentially fatal risks — the nuclear issues suffered at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear station in 2011 being the most recently recognisable of these near-catastrophes."

Ah there it is!!! The Fukushima picture, thank you for finally showing your true nature, you're opposed to nuclear but want to bait people into believing that you're simply a skeptic.

To be honest it sounds like Kristy is making a Black and White assertion and I have to concur with the notion that it will be either Coal or Nuclear that will constitute the brunt of energy generation on Earth. It is quite simply a matter of energy density, lifecycle costs, time before EOL, MTBF.

"However, Cogan again makes it a black and white issue when she says that there are only two options — coal or nuclear. According to Cogan, renewables simply do not hold any potential to stave off the immediate issues — there is a necessary stop-gap.

Rather than block nuclear, it is vital to invest efforts in accelerating the development of smarter, cleaner, safer nuclear plants that use long lived radioactive waste as fuel, cannot meltdown, are proliferation resistant, and can be mass produced to drive down cost. These designs do exist but need commercial development.

However, if these “safer nuclear plants” require “commercial development,” then why not invest that same money in non-potentially risky renewable energy — such as wind, for as we have seen, it ranked similarly with nuclear as having the “highest benefit-to-cost ratio.”"

Sure why not invest all that money in Nuclear Fusion development? The question why increase innovation in nuclear energy rather than in wind power is quite easy to address. I've done it already here : Are windmills a smart choice? Let's be reasonable about it...

I am not going to do all the math again, but the premise is clear, renewables i.e. solar and wind do not pack the punch required to KO fossil generated electricity out of the picture. Add to that the immense amount of mining, purification, manufacturing, transportation, construction, maintenance and decommissioning (waste) emissions to the mix, the fact that wind turbines only last for two decades and work just a fifth of the time do the rest.

These millions of wind turbines required to fuel the world's energy needs aren't going to be magicked into place by leprechauns...

"The open letter (presumably written by Brooks and Bradshaw, despite being written in the third-person) supports the idea of nuclear power playing “a substantial role … as part of a range of sustainable energy technologies that also includes appropriate use of renewables, energy storage, and energy efficiency” — which sounds for all the world as if the nuclear industry as a whole is more than willing to offer renewable energy its crusts."

Oh yes and I even go further than that, renewables are a niche product and will remain a niche product in the world of energy generation on Earth. Simply do the math... Once "our" safer, more efficient, waste and megatons eating nuclear reactors prove their commercial viability every nation in the world is going to be standing in line to join the party. There simply is no comparison between the power of the nuclear force (one of the four elemental forces) and the feeble punch packed by wind technologies. Now this might sound arrogant? It is the truth... Denying it is unscientific and makes me question if you really are the "expert" you claim to be as presented in "IDEA#1"

"“Given the historical antagonism towards nuclear energy amongst the environmental community, we accept that this stands as a controversial position,” they write, once more the ill-treated step-child, forced time and again to sweep the kitchen out while its siblings and parents go to the beautiful ball."

You clearly hate our guts... This is the most lame metaphor I've seen so far, sure the renewable energy community has a lot of kudos, they have an excellent promotional campaign going for themselves, but ask yourself this : am I ready to own up to the millions of tons of waste released by the "renewable energy" industry in contrast to the easy manageable (check the impeccable track record of nuclear repositories) amounts of "nuclear waste" and "spent fuel". You seem to forget that this actually IS fuel for new designs of highly efficient nuclear reactors...

Because, until now, renewable energy proponents have simply been dismissing nuclear because of some vague idealistic notions we had about Chernobyl.

Oh yes we're almost done! Chernobyl has come to act as the ghost of the past, did anyone mention that the Chernobyl disaster made us think about how to avoid critical design flaws? And didn't Fukushima remind us of the implications of design flaws in nuclear reactors? Yes thank you, we know... Do I feel guilty for still being a nuclear proponent? No, not even remotely guilty. Why? Because it is the technology that can save the biosphere from being ruined, in contrast to renewables...

"And at this point, I stopped and wondered what information these conservation scientists have been reading lately. Putting aside for the moment the already-addressed issues of infrastructure necessary to transport your ever-so “compact and energy-dense” nuclear energy, the apparent ‘fact’ that renewables are “too risky to rely on” comes as a bit of a surprise."

Which I will casually and loosely paraphrase into this :

"and at this point, I stopped and wondered what information Joshua Hill has been reading lately. Putting aside for the moment the already-addressed issues of infrastructure necessary to transport your  thousands and millions of ever-so "clean" wind turbines and solar panels, the apparent ‘fact’ that nuclear is “too risky to rely on” comes as a bit of a surprise.

"Without belaboring the point, Scotland seems to be doing all right, with its renewable energy capacity repeatedly generating more than enough in a month to power all households in the country. Across the world, 2014 was a significant year for wind development, installing over 51 GW of new wind energy in 2014, up 44% and acting as a “solid sign of the recovery of the industry after a rough patch in the past few years.”"

And what happens if the wind doesn't blow in Scotland? Do the English have to ramp up their fossil fuel generation to compensate? What a shame! Darn it!!! And yes Scotland has a shitload of wind turbines, this is like one of the less densely populated countries in the world.

Let's see, there are about 5.3 million Scots living in Scotland, hardly the dream scenario for any renewable advocate. They don't pull it off without any backup.

And then there is the 51 GW added wind energy capacity that's a nice figure but lets be reasonable about it. Wind energy accounts for less than 1% of the total energy generation on Earth, 44% of 1% isn't a lot. A total of 370 GW's worth of wind capacity is quite feeble in a worldly context. And guess what, they don't even say how much it is contrasted to the entire electricity generation of the Earth, why not? Because it looks silly... http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/graphs/

Source

“Wind power is the most competitive way of adding new power generation capacity to the grid in a rapidly increasing number of markets around the world, even when competing against heavily subsidized incumbents,” said Steve Sawyer, GWEC Secretary General.

If you take away the political uncertainty surrounding wind energy in country’s like the United States, Australia, and several countries in the EU, the investment dollars needed to make “safer nuclear power plants” can be used to develop cleaner, more economically viable, and publicly acceptable energy."

That is not taking into consideration the lifespan of roughly 2 decades, the need for backup generation, energy storage and lifecycle emissions. whilst nuclear energy plants can easily run for five or six decades. And what the public accepts isn't necessarily good, as long as you keep brushing over the waste streams tied to wind and solar, we're not going to agree on anything.

The average carbon footprint of wind turbines per GW is about three to four times higher than a contemporary Generation III AP-1000 Nuclear Reactor. If we take it up a notch and go for a Generation IV LFTR or WAMSR reactor proposed by Flibe Energy and Transatomic Power, the figures will even worse for wind. A part of the calculation can be found here.


Let's take a different, more rational view shall we?
Capacity average wind turbine : 5MW
Capacity average Nuclear Power Plant : 862MW 

There is about 369.597 MW of installed wind power in the world. Ill be generous, let's call it 370.000 MW or 370GW. That would account for roughly 74.000 5 MW wind turbines (there are actually 300.000+ wind turbines in the world... so i am giving them a lot of leeway)

Now i'm going to cite a pro-renewable site : Total Surface Area Required to Fuel the World With Solar

"A 5 MW turbine can be expected to produce 17 GWh per year (they are 40% effective from their peak rated capacity – 5 MW x 365 x 24 = 43.8 GWh). Therefore, it would require 11,748,294 of the 5 MW capacity turbines to create the same yearly output. There are 500 million cars in the world so it’s not like that’s an unattainable goal from a manufacturing standpoint. And each 5 MW turbine is a 30 year lifespan money making machine for whoever buys it. The same can not be said for my car. But if we can build 90,000 Cape Wind size installations, we would be there on wind alone. Based on that installation, each turbine requires 1/2 square mile of area for offshore sites. This would require 5.85 million square kilometers for 2030 world energy needs."

So they extrapolate that 11,75 million wind turbines are required to satiate a demand of 678 quadrillion Btu's. And let's be honest, the lifespan of wind turbines is about two decades. If we want to continue on this course we're going to need two and half times the amount of windmills i.e. 29.38 million to achieve the same energy production as nuclear does in a five decade timespan... And that is granting the 40% effeciency, which is more than likely to be 20 or 25%...

There are 438 nuclear power reactors operable at a capacity of 379 GW now the strange thing is that these 379 GW's actually get used 90% of the time whilst the 370 GW's of wind power only get used a fraction of the time. This translates into 862MW per unit.

Let's say that a nuclear powerplant runs for 90% of the time : 862MW x 365 x 24 = 7551 GWh @ 90% makes 6795 GWh's wortth of energy.

"Converting this to KW•h [1 Btu = .0002931 kW•h (kilowatt hours)] makes 198,721,800,000,000 kW•h (199,721 TW•h)."

But i'm counting my beans in GWh... 199.721.000 GWh / 6795 = 29.000 - 862MW nuclear powerplants rated @ 862MW. Still an extremely stupefying number but we have to note that this also includes a completely electrified transportation... Instead of burning diesel, gasoline, kerosine and other combustibles we would have zero emission transportation.
More interestingly look at this article 

Let's do "just" getting Coal out of the picture? There are about 7000 coal units in the world, let's settle for 7000 nuclear power plants (i.e. LFTR's WAMSR's MSR's, Fusion) shall we and look at solving the rest from there?


Reverting back to Joshua Hill


"I am more than willing to respect the notion that nuclear energy may need to play a part in the future energy mix — especially if we are to quickly divest ourselves of fossil fuel generation. I respect the opinions of Kirsty Cogan, Barry W. Brook and Corey J. A. Bradshaw, and the 75 academics who signed the open letter, and all those who are willing to acknowledge the need for a change in our energy generating techniques."

But...

"However, as always, I am not willing to respect those who push incorrect, incomplete, or incendiary opinions as facts."

Did any of the people you were trying to rebut do this? I.e. Kirsty Cogan, Barry W. Brook and Corey J. A. Bradshaw, and the 75 academics who signed the open letter.

"Nuclear can and maybe should play a part in the future, but to so easily and childishly dismiss renewable energy in favor of one of the most potentially dangerous and fatal energy generation methods — one that comes with absolutely no feasible waste-disposal method and has no immediate or even short-term impact on global energy poverty or wealth balance — based solely on lazy assumptions and assertions that “it’s simply better” is the height of arrogance and intellectual bias."

It is not "Maybe" it is a "Fact" that nuclear has to and will play a part in the future. The dismissal of renewable energy in a wider context has to be done, why? Because we cannot make people believe that we can run the energy needs of humanity through windmills and solar panels and expect zero negative ramifications from it. Secondly they simply don't pack the punch required to kick fossil fuels out of the picture. Simple math will prove it...

As for your "lazy assumptions and assertions" let's call the kettle black shall we? You didn't cite credible sources to back up your claims. You've done nothing other than pointing your finger at fukushima and Chernobyl, have not acknowledged any of the current innovations and progress made in the nuclear industry and have used nothing but "quotation marks" to make clear that you don't believe that the proposed technologies actually are safer and more efficient. The only thing you've done is pleaded to revert possible funds from nuclear innovation to wind energy innovation which is like trading a Tesla Model S for a Model T Ford... 

From my short and basic math i will conclude that we are need of a really big punch in energy generation. Especially if we all want to be driving around in teslas... Let's remain reasonable, shall we?


And with that I will leave you, have a nice day.

P.S. A nice prospect you make for migratory birds, bats and people who want to sleep...

I have no copyright on this picture it comes from here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_9067000/9067721.stm

Are windmills a smart choice? Let's be reasonable about it...

Right after publishing the "Caldicott Rebuttal" I came across this article and since I was already in the right state of mind so I decided to address it. Wind turbine polemic mode on.

http://grist.org/climate-energy/2-cool-maps-that-show-how-wind-power-is-poised-to-go-big-really-big/

"The first is part of a report released this spring showing how wind power could grow enough to generate 35 percent of U.S. electricity by 2050 — up from 10 percent in 2020 and 20 percent in 2030.

The map, called “Wind Vision,” shows how much wind power generating capacity each state had in 2000, 2010, and 2013, and Department of Energy estimates for each state’s wind capacity in 2020, 2030, and 2050.

The estimated growth is dramatic: The map shows total U.S. wind power capacity growing from about 40 gigawatts — enough power for about 10 million homes — in 2010 to more than 400 gigawatts in 2050. That would be enough to power nearly 100 million homes."

Lets break this down, because it sounds impressive, but it really isn't. Addendum : We will walk through these issues from a world view.

in 2014 177 GW (source : wiki) of solar panel capacity was enough to fuel the energy needs of 1% of the world's electricity needs. This doesn't mean that 99% or 17523 GW of generation capacity had to come from different sources, but it gives you an idea of the scale of things. The thing with capacity is that it shows the maximum output in ideal circumstances AND output is regulated in order to keep the grid stable and to make sure that the demand is met, which means that in days of less energy usage, some of the energy generation will be trimmed down.

I'll settle for the 17500 GW figure, it helps me build the case. I'm going to investigate further, the figures could easily be adjusted but the ratios would remain the same.

Now the figures on the electricity generation per type are somewhat flaky so I'm going to round them down, again figures stolen from wiki, I question if they are true, but they serve as a good general guideline.

• Coal 40% = 7000 GW
• Natural Gas 27% = 4725 GW
• Nuclear 19% = 3325 GW
• Hydro 11% = 1925 GW
• Renewables 3% = 525 GW

Putting these figures into perspective, the 405 GW stated in the Grist.org article isn't that much. It sound really big and it is being presented as really big, but in my 17500 GW picture it still is only a meagre 2,3%.

Now what does 405 GW mean in terms of the numbers? We can make two figures to create a range, we'll take the cheap 2,5 MW wind turbine and the beefier 5 MW wind turbine and give figures for both of them maxed out. The truth  will be somewhere in between no doubt.

If you want to use 2,5 MW wind turbines exclusively, you'll need 162.000 wind turbines to reach the 405 GW figure. In case of the 5 MW figure it will take 81.000 wind turbines.

There are currently somewhere between 225.000 and 250.000 wind turbines in the world. So adding another 405 GW is a drop in the water really, it is even less than we have today.

If you want to make a significant difference in terms of energy production, you would roughly need 3500 GW worth of wind turbines, then you would be supplanting half of the coal production in the world, this would translate into 1.4 million wind turbines around the world... Supplant all of the coal production you'll need 2.8 million wind turbines.

Don't get too excited, according to Grist.com wind is getting "real big", they are going to add another 162.000 wind turbines over a time period of thirty years. Now the funny thing is that the wind turbines put up today, will have to replaced before this thirty year timespan is over. Isn't that ironic? So the same which has been said today, applies to this story as well. If you're going to install 162.000 wind turbines over a timespan of thirty years, you might as well double that number, since these windmills have a very limited lifespan, due to fatigue issues, maintenance issues, etc.

Just as with all other sources of energy, wind energy isn't free. The [carbon] cost is hidden in mining, purification, materials creation, manufacturing, transportation, installation and maintenance. Also the intermittency remains a significant problem, the wind isn't always present so these windmills will only be producing energy for 15 to 35% of the time. There are people who argue that if you connect windmills and solar panels to smart grids with battery storage, all is fine and well. But they clearly don't see the meek punch these two technologies deliver, and then construct a fairy tale of battery storage to keep the dream going.

Let's have a look at the PER MEGAWATT footprint of "next generation" wind turbines.

• Steel : 103.000 KG/MW
• Concrete : 402.000 KG/MW
• Fibreglass : 6.800 KG/MW
• Miscellaneous : 9.300 KG/MW
• Copper : 3.000 KG/MW
• Cast Iron : 20.000 KG/MW
• Total : 540.000 KG/MW

Let's see : 405 GW = 405.000 MW
Let's make a nice total tally, shall we?

• Steel : 41.7 million metric tons
• Concrete : 162.8 million metric tons
• Fibreglass : 2.8 million metric tons
• Miscellaneous : 3.8 million metric tons
• Copper : 1.2 million metric tons
• Cast Iron : 8.1 million metric tons
• Total : 218.7 million metric tons

Source : Wind turbine figures

Once installed, the energy is free! Really??? So much for free energy...
The concrete alone accounts for 146.5 million tons of Carbon Dioxide... The steel for roughly 124 million tons of Carbon Dioxide, the Cast Iron for 16 million tons. So all in all the carbon footprint in construction of these winged terrors amounts to roughly 280 million tons of carbon dioxide.

Source : Concrete production carbon emissions

Now it is true that nuclear power plants for instance use a lot of concrete as well, but it is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of concrete used to create 81.000 ~162.000 wind turbines at a capacity of 405 GW, 2.3% of the capacity required today.

Building 400 GW worth of heavy steeled and overly concreted contemporary nuclear power plants will account for 120 million tons worth of carbon dioxide emissions, they have double the lifespan and newer generations have a smaller materials footprint than contemporary reactors. Basically this means that equivalent windmill production will be three, almost four times as carbon intensive than nuclear energy...

Source : Carbon Footprint from Nuclear Reactor construction by Tim Jervis

Lets be honest, we are living on a planet with 7 billion individuals. Energy is necessary for clean water, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation and domestic use. We CAN'T run the world on renewable energy, it is a dream that simply isn't going to happen, and this "grist.com" article proves that it simply isn't feasible. Once more an article that was supposed to raise a sense of optimism in the environmentalist/renewable camp, it's really a rather self defeating argument.

I am someone who accepts the science behind anthropogenic climate change, I don't see carbon dioxide as pollution, but I do accept that we need to mitigate our emissions, because we're precipitating runaway behaviour in the Arctic, Antarctic and other parts of the world.

The burning of fossil fuels also has other hazardous by products like NOx, SOx and carcinogenic emissions. Mitigating these emissions will only be possible if we become smarter about energy technologies. Weed out the stuff that isn't going to help and invest in the means of power production that pack a decent punch and have the propensity to kick fossil fuels out of the picture.

Wind Turbines are arguably the worst form of energy production, their "non conventional waste streams" consist of sleepless nights and dead birds. If some island nation wants to go all renewable, that's fine but stick to solar panels for the time being, while we, the nukes..., will find solutions in nuclear scalability...

We only have two or three decades to reverse the problematic worldly issues we've catalysed.
If there is a field in which technological answers to our problems can be given, it is in the world of nuclear energy. If you would ask me what needs to be done? It's quite simple!!! Ramp up the nuclear innovation industry, give nuclear physicists and engineers the means to complete the push for fusion and generation IV fission. These are the technologies that pack the required punch and will help us propel humanity into a plentiful future, full of wonder.

To cap it off grist.org ends the article with this :

"In other words, come 2050, wind turbines could be almost as much a part of the view above Mississippi’s Natchez Trace Parkway as they are today all across West Texas."

Is that really what we want???

(source : NASA)