Energy Thread - How to Power Civilization

Strifen

Strifen

Molten Core Raider
309
1,588
Opening this thread up for discussion on the various ways in which energy can be generated, the pro's and con's of various energy sources, breakthrough's in new energy technology, energy sources and their impact on climate change, and just about anything related to the way we power society.

For those who may not be up to date, the Obama administration recently formalized their intent to regulate green house gas emissions as a pollutant under the EPA. This will require each state to examine their energy mix and devise a plan as to how they can reduce the GHG emissions from their power plants. The Obama administration is pushing towards reducing the use of coal fired power plants, which will see more solar, wind, nuclear, and natural gas be used to replace coal plants.

US supreme court backs EPA plan to cut carbon emissions from power plants | Law | theguardian.com

The US supreme court largely upheld Barack Obama's plans to cut carbon pollution from power plants on Monday, delivering critical support for his climate action plan.

The court reaffirmed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, which is the pillar of Obama's climate plan
Click to expand...
Some more reading here;

Nuclear vs. renewables: Divided they fall | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
The world must build more nuclear power plants to halt climate change | The Verge
China could complete 9 nuclear reactors in the next 7 months and then start construction on 30 reactors over the next 18 months
China and Russia plan a nuclear energy future - Six new nuclear reactors per year planned in China and Russia has over 20 nuclear reactors for export construction
Power cuts in north India spark riots - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English
On the Road to Green Energy, Germany Detours on Dirty Coal by Fred Pearce: Yale Environment 360
New solar power plant is the first to go s long-term cost and efficiency still questioned | ExtremeTech
Fracking the US - Monterey Shale's 96% downgrade blows the scam - The Ecologist
 
Cad

Cad

I'm With HER ♀
<Bronze Donator>
24,496
45,437
The fact that we haven't built a ton of Generation 3 nuclear plants to replace the old ones/add to capacity is a great failure of human kind. The nuclear waste is far far easier to deal with than the effect of fossil fuel consumption.
 
Chanur

Chanur

Shit Posting Professional
<Gold Donor>
26,744
39,090
Maybe because I am in the energy industry but I would like to see us go towards more Nuclear and Wind while we further develop Solar.
 
Faltigoth

Faltigoth

Bronze Knight of the Realm
1,380
212
I think more nuclear is the answer. We've made it almost impossible in the US to do anything nuclear. So shit, we almost lost Harrisburg and a chunk of central PA a few decades ago when 3 Mile Island got a little crazy. Wouldn't have been a major loss, and I say that as a resident of the area.

Nuclear plants fricking everywhere until someone figures out cold fusion or some other mystical energy source.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
Strifen_sl said:
For those who may not be up to date, the Obama administration recently formalized their intent to regulate green house gas emissions as a pollutant under the EPA. This will require each state to examine their energy mix and devise a plan as to how they can reduce the GHG emissions from their power plants. The Obama administration is pushing towards reducing the use of coal fired power plants, which will see more solar, wind, nuclear, and natural gas be used to replace coal plants.[/url]
Click to expand...
New EPA Regulations Would Force Power Plants To Find 30% More Loopholes By 2030 | The Onion - America's Finest News Source
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,472
2,275
The biggest problem for Nuclear is the ignorant NIMBYs that refuse to let a plant be built within 100 miles of them. Since they cover the entire country that makes it tough to get anything done.
 
F

Flank_sl

shitlord
499
0
BrutulTM_sl said:
The biggest problem for Nuclear is the ignorant NIMBYs that refuse to let a plant be built within 100 miles of them. Since they cover the entire country that makes it tough to get anything done.
Click to expand...
This is also my opinion.

It is also worth noting that building nuclear plants is a lot more expensive than building fossil fuel plants. I would imagine that corporations want a lot of assurance from the government before investing tens of billions of dollars.
 
Famm

Famm

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
11,041
794
BrutulTM_sl said:
The biggest problem for Nuclear is the ignorant NIMBYs that refuse to let a plant be built within 100 miles of them. Since they cover the entire country that makes it tough to get anything done.
Click to expand...
Seems pretty ironic as well that all the most hippie "green" people are vehemently anti-nuclear. So instead we get shit like fracking and shale with horrible EROI and Germans replacing nuclear plants with fucking coal of all things. Way to save the fucking planet you idealistic morons.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
As others have said, Liquid Metal Cooled nuclear reactors (Generation Three). They essentially eliminate all the problems of light/heavy water reactors, and give even more benefits. They consume 99% of the fuel put into them, so the radioactive waste is very small. And, most of this waste, has a very short half life--so in a few hundred (As opposed to tens of thousands) it will be completely inert. Also, they can actuallyuse waste from old style nuclear plants, so the large stockpiles of waste we have would actually be fuel; converting this waste into energy, and, as said, a much shorter half life form of waste. During a meltdown, the plant doesn't need a mechanical "cool down" device, the actual heating element is enough on it's own to stop the reaction; simply letting it run would seal it off and prevent a catastrophe. (So this plant would have easily survived, say, the Tsunami with no bad effects.) In other words, while you need a human to keep the plant producing energy--the LACK of humans would not cause a melt down that would throw off radiation. The melt down would just automatically smother itself (As far as I know.)

Oh, and we have enough fuel to power our needs for 50,000 years. It is literally the answer to all of our prayers, and any time an Anti-nuclear fuck argues about how bad Nuclear is, you should beat him for the sake of the future your children will never have.
 
Agraza

Agraza

Registered Hutt
6,890
521
A lot of greens have become pro-nuclear in the USA as we've become more aware of the issue of global warming. Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and some others are still anti-nuclear, but I think the tide has turned. There are a few pieces of recent legislation meant to make it easier to build nuclear facilities, but the availability of natural gas has further weakened interest from the nuclear industry to attempt any expansion.
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Trapped in Randomonia>
30,474
22,325
I was reading that some of the newest production wind turbines can pay for themselves in as little as 8 months.

That seems like it's damn near a tipping point.

Solar seems relatively pointless until we can go straight to organic solar cells. Regular photovoltaic materials seem to use too much rare earth stuff to ever be truly wide scale.
 
Melvin

Melvin

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,399
1,168
Last year awind turbine companyopened a new factory a few miles away from me. Every so often I see some of their work as I'm going down the interstate, and it's mighty impressive even before it's finished. A single blade of a turbine looks to be about as long as 3 regular semi trailers. I'd love to see one fully assembled and working.
 
Strifen

Strifen

Molten Core Raider
309
1,588
Anyone interested in nuclear as a way forward should check this out. Somebody who is pro environment and is anti-nuclear just isn't looking at things rationally.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.