A Green New Deal?

[Loren Pechtel]

So we'll cool/heat our homes and generate the power to run our cars and businesses with unicorn farts?

Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear. Were you intending to appear stupid about these things?

Nuclear is green but it isn't renewable.

The renewables are solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal and tidal.

Biomass has it's place in recovering energy that would otherwise be lost but unless you run it with waste it's not remotely green. (Hint: Ethanol fuel produces at least as much carbon as gasoline. It's just emitted upstream rather than from the car.)

Geothermal is severely limited by a lack of suitable locations.

Hydro is likewise severely limited by a lack of suitable locations and it's quite destructive to the ecology.

That leaves solar, wind and tidal.

AFIAK we haven't built practical tidal power generators. Solar and wind are good for supplementing the grid but only to the extent of the fast-throttle power coming from other sources. (Although it could have greater use if used to run things that are tolerant of intermittent power--say, a desalinization plant. When the sun is shining pump water up to a holding tank, run the desalinator on gravity pressure rather than directly from pumps.)

We can reduce carbon emission considerably, we can't eliminate it at present.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

She knows it'll fall short, so she's over reaching. She's doing what Obama should have done on health care. He didn't even TRY or start at single payer and work his way down in compromise. He started with this "public option" thingy.

 

[Elixir]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

She knows it'll fall short, so she's over reaching. She's doing what Obama should have done on health care. He didn't even TRY or start at single payer and work his way down in compromise. He started with this "public option" thingy.

Yup. We're a long way from weaning politicians off oil money. Ocasio-Cortez seems to have done it - in one corner of one city. But that will hardly be enough to inspire anyone else to give it a try. Still, I applaud her message, even though I agree that she sounds (in this instance) like a hair-on-fire radical.

 

[bilby]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk), the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

 

[ZiprHead]

AFIAK we haven't built practical tidal power generators. Solar and wind are good for supplementing the grid but only to the extent of the fast-throttle power coming from other sources. (Although it could have greater use if used to run things that are tolerant of intermittent power--say, a desalinization plant. When the sun is shining pump water up to a holding tank, run the desalinator on gravity pressure rather than directly from pumps.)

I just saw this last week on FB. Thought it was pretty cool.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/GA_UgVm9bvU[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Derec]

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Indeed.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk),

Yes, I am surprised more has not been done with this fuel.

the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Renewables are also not technically "renewable", thanks to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That term is more of a marketing term than anything else. Solar will run out with the Sun of course, wind would run out too if the red giant Sun would not have blown off Earth's atmosphere first, and tidal power works only as long as Earth doesn't become tidally locked to the Moon. It's not like the Sun 'renews' itself every morning or the tide twice a day. Nothing renews: the Sun is a giant fusion reactor and the Earth (with respect to tides) is like a giant flywheel.

 

[dismal]

Do California first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She knows it'll fall short, so she's over reaching. She's doing what Obama should have done on health care. He didn't even TRY or start at single payer and work his way down in compromise. He started with this "public option" thingy.

Yup. We're a long way from weaning politicians off oil money. Ocasio-Cortez seems to have done it - in one corner of one city. But that will hardly be enough to inspire anyone else to give it a try. Still, I applaud her message, even though I agree that she sounds (in this instance) like a hair-on-fire radical.

This isn't about oil money, it's about technology. We have no viable technology for 100% renewable power.

- - - Updated - - -

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk), the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Nuke is low carbon but it isn't renewable.

- - - Updated - - -

AFIAK we haven't built practical tidal power generators. Solar and wind are good for supplementing the grid but only to the extent of the fast-throttle power coming from other sources. (Although it could have greater use if used to run things that are tolerant of intermittent power--say, a desalinization plant. When the sun is shining pump water up to a holding tank, run the desalinator on gravity pressure rather than directly from pumps.)

I just saw this last week on FB. Thought it was pretty cool.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/GA_UgVm9bvU[/YOUTUBE]

Wave power != tidal power. I feel there's some substantial limit on wave power but it's not coming to mind at the moment. I was wrong in my list, though--I should have included wave.

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed.

Yes, I am surprised more has not been done with this fuel.

the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Renewables are also not technically "renewable", thanks to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That term is more of a marketing term than anything else. Solar will run out with the Sun of course, wind would run out too if the red giant Sun would not have blown off Earth's atmosphere first, and tidal power works only as long as Earth doesn't become tidally locked to the Moon. It's not like the Sun 'renews' itself every morning or the tide twice a day. Nothing renews: the Sun is a giant fusion reactor and the Earth (with respect to tides) is like a giant flywheel.

True, but the sun is going to burn whether we collect the power or not. Our collecting it in no way consumes the source, thus I'm fine with calling it 100% renewable.

 

[Elixir]

Except that the Greens take nuclear off the board for no good reason.

Agreed. I used to agree with them about nuclear. Then I got better.

Yup. The irrational fears of nuclear that have been pushed by fossil fuel interests for the last half century are the big thing standing in the way of slashing our carbon footprint by 90% or more.
Well, that, and a big fat orange asshole promising stupid people that their coal jobs will come back...

 

[dismal]

Except that the Greens take nuclear off the board for no good reason.

Agreed. I used to agree with them about nuclear. Then I got better.

Yup. The irrational fears of nuclear that have been pushed by fossil fuel interests for the last half century are the big thing standing in the way of slashing our carbon footprint by 90% or more.
Well, that, and a big fat orange asshole promising stupid people that their coal jobs will come back...

Yeah, effin Trump has been in public life for almost 2 years now so obviously he's the one most to blame for the state of worldwide carbon emissions.

But in any case, I think they can do California first without Trump. Just ban the production and importation of all fossil fuels and fossil fuel related products. I think they've already done plastic straws and grocery bags.

 

[bilby]

She sounds like an eco-warrior crank. Totally unrealistic, pie in the sky wishful thinking.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk), the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Nuke is low carbon but it isn't renewable.

Gosh. If only I had thought of that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. The irrational fears of nuclear that have been pushed by fossil fuel interests for the last half century are the big thing standing in the way of slashing our carbon footprint by 90% or more.
Well, that, and a big fat orange asshole promising stupid people that their coal jobs will come back...

Yeah, effin Trump has been in public life for almost 2 years now so obviously he's the one most to blame for the state of worldwide carbon emissions.

But in any case, I think they can do California first without Trump. Just ban the production and importation of all fossil fuels and fossil fuel related products. I think they've already done plastic straws and grocery bags.

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

- - - Updated - - -

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk), the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Nuke is low carbon but it isn't renewable.

Gosh. If only I had thought of that.

Remember that she's calling for 100% renewable. I seriously doubt she wants nukes.

 

[bilby]

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

- - - Updated - - -

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with you on something. This is hopeless dream rather than something that actually can be accomplished.

Among other things we simply do not have the technology at present for 100% renewable power.

But we DO have the technology at present for 100% low carbon emissions power. We are just not allowed to use it because people are fucking idiots. In Australia, it is specifically prohibited by Commonwealth Law.

Given proven breeding technology for fissile fuel (particularly Thorium breeding to make ²³³U, which is not a weapons proliferation risk), the effective fuel resource for nuclear fission is likely to significantly exceed the remaining existence of the Earth, so while it is not technically 'renewable', it IS inexhaustible.

Nuke is low carbon but it isn't renewable.

Gosh. If only I had thought of that.

Remember that she's calling for 100% renewable. I seriously doubt she wants nukes.

No shit, Sherlock.

 

[dismal]

We are blaming him because he's trying to increase emissions rather than trying to do something about them.

And how has that been going?

What energy use trends have meaningfully changed under Trump?

 

[TSwizzle]

But in any case, I think they can do California first without Trump. Just ban the production and importation of all fossil fuels and fossil fuel related products.

CA has already started. 100% carbon free by 2045. No problem. It will probably be done before the "bullet" train is complete.

 

[ruby sparks]

Except that the Greens take nuclear off the board for no good reason.

Agreed. I used to agree with them about nuclear. Then I got better.

Nuclear is not ideal, for several reasons, and I can understand some environmentalists de-emphasising it at least. Ideally, we would not have to resort to it, but that said, if it offers major benefits, it has to be considered an option, imo.

On that topic (on which I am not an expert) here is a case for saying that it has limitations as a solution on a worldwide scale:

Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.

Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.

Nuclear waste: Although nuclear technology has been around for 60 years, there is still no universally agreed mode of disposal. It’s uncertain whether burying the spent fuel and the spent reactor vessels (which are also highly radioactive) may cause radioactive leakage into groundwater or the environment via geological movement.

Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the Fukushima accident). Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.

Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.

Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

Uranium extraction from seawater: Uranium is most often mined from the Earth’s crust, but it can also be extracted from seawater, which contains large quantities of uranium (3.3 ppb, or 4.6 trillion kg). Theoretically, that amount would last for 5,700 years using conventional reactors to supply 15 TW of power. (In fast breeder reactors, which extend the use of uranium by a factor of 60, the uranium could last for 300,000 years. However, Abbott argues that these reactors’ complexity and cost makes them uncompetitive.) Moreover, as uranium is extracted, the uranium concentration of seawater decreases, so that greater and greater quantities of water are needed to be processed in order to extract the same amount of uranium. Abbott calculates that the volume of seawater that would need to be processed would become economically impractical in much less than 30 years.

Exotic metals: The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.

Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy needs
https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

 

[untermensche]

It is all moot.

The world and governments are held captive by dictators that control oil.

This power is going to ensure that every drop of oil possible is extracted and consumed.

 

[dismal]

But in any case, I think they can do California first without Trump. Just ban the production and importation of all fossil fuels and fossil fuel related products.

CA has already started. 100% carbon free by 2045. No problem. It will probably be done before the "bullet" train is complete.

Hmmm, maybe someone should inform them human breathing emits CO2 before they get too carried away.

But I'm thinking they should step up to being fossil fuel and fossil fuel product free by the time Trump is done being President in 2024. To serve as a shining example for those who say it can't be done.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.

1) Coal and oil fired plants need just about as much water.

2) You don't need 15,000 locations. It's common to site several reactors in close proximity.

3) The enrichment plant and ore processing aren't located with the plant anyway. They don't need the water and exclusion zone.

Lifetime: Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.

Yeah, the metal breaks down in time. You don't need to replace everything, though, just the reactor itself. Just build a new one on the site of the old one.

Nuclear waste: Although nuclear technology has been around for 60 years, there is still no universally agreed mode of disposal. It’s uncertain whether burying the spent fuel and the spent reactor vessels (which are also highly radioactive) may cause radioactive leakage into groundwater or the environment via geological movement.

1) We need to pull our heads out of our ass and reprocess the spent fuel. What's left after that will decay to ambient in 10,000 years. We have plenty of disposal schemes that would be quite adequate to safely contain it for this long.

2) Coal generates far more hazardous material (the fly ash.) It's not a threat due to radioactivity so it never decays to safety. Consider the storage needed to handle one year's worth of fly ash. For the same amount of power that volume can handle the nuke waste for all eternity (because after 10,000 years you can pull the stuff back out.)

Accident rate: To date, there have been 11 nuclear accidents at the level of a full or partial core-melt. These accidents are not the minor accidents that can be avoided with improved safety technology; they are rare events that are not even possible to model in a system as complex as a nuclear station, and arise from unforeseen pathways and unpredictable circumstances (such as the Fukushima accident). Considering that these 11 accidents occurred during a cumulated total of 14,000 reactor-years of nuclear operations, scaling up to 15,000 reactors would mean we would have a major accident somewhere in the world every month.

Look at the death toll. All power sources kill people, nuke as the lowest fatality rate for the amount of power generated.

Proliferation: The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.

1) Thorium reactors pose no proliferation threat at all.

2) Normally operated power reactors are not a meaningful threat. The fuel rods stay in too long. The desired reaction is U-238 + n -> U-239. U-239 undergoes beta decay to Np-239 which undergoes beta decay to Pu-239. However, there is also the reaction Pu-239 + n -> Pu-240. The longer you leave the fuel rods in the more of the Pu-239 gets converted to Pu-240. Too much Pu-240 will poison your bomb, causing it to detonate while it's still imploding. This robs the bomb of most of it's power.

Uranium abundance: At the current rate of uranium consumption with conventional reactors, the world supply of viable uranium, which is the most common nuclear fuel, will last for 80 years. Scaling consumption up to 15 TW, the viable uranium supply will last for less than 5 years. (Viable uranium is the uranium that exists in a high enough ore concentration so that extracting the ore is economically justified.)

That's U-235 abundance. That doesn't count breeder reactors, nor does it count thorium reactors.

Exotic metals: The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. This is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.

And you can't recover them from the worn out reactor??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Hmmm, maybe someone should inform them human breathing emits CO2 before they get too carried away.

You're smarter than this.

CO2 emission by humans and animals is of no concern because the CO2 that we emit came from the food we ate--which took the CO2 out of the atmosphere in the first place. It's like the filter pumps of a swimming pool will not change it's level no matter how much water they pump into the pool, but a lowly garden hose will despite sending much less water.