It is interesting that the article’s author chooses to disregard renewables because they (not counting biomass) only constitute about 4% of the global energy supply - but chooses to promote nuclear energy, which (according to the article’s own reference) constitutes all of 4.8%.
Given the rapidly growing capacity and dropping cost of renewables, the omission seems even stranger. Global solar energy grows about 33% a year with a cost decline of 85% over the last 7 years, while wind power grows about 20% per year with a cost decline of 66% over the last 7 years.
3 Likes
There are enormous stretches of land which are basically barren. Not only lacking in economic value, but mostly lacking in much of a biosystem as well. Think California west of Yuma (sand dunes), North Africa, and the Gobi. What biosystems they have are limited by water (which solar collectors conserve, or even concentrate with gutters) and shade (which would allow more life under the collectors.
However, big generating plants really aren’t the future of solar generation. Cities are – rooftop solar has zero differential footprint and even with current technology generates more power than the occupants use for all but the densest populations.
2 Likes
Yes, and those are far from the people who need energy. Like the idiot idea that they might put solar panels on the boarder wall, it’s generating power where it isn’t needed. Remember that we lose a ton of generated electricity through the cables it runs through, so they need to be semi close to the people to make it viable.
And while there are areas barren of PEOPLE, animals still live there. Wind farms already kill tons of birds. I am not saying that neither shouldn’t still be pursued, but that they aren’t a perfect solution.
Like I said above, I think solar will ultimately be our savior, when the tech is able to be efficient enough that most homes can power themselves and give some to the grid.
I think that for some countries it is already happening. Spain has so called “sun tax” to make home photovoltaic systems unprofitable. Their law also mandates giving excess power to grid for free for installations with less than 100kW.
1 Like
The nuclear power from the Palo Verde plant in Arizona already travels past the Yuma desert on its way to San Diego. (There’s also a solar plant just down the road that takes advantage of the same transmission lines.) The SunZia transmission line between Texas, Arizona, and California goes right past White Sands in New Mexico. It may not be efficient to bus power all over the USA, but we do it already for nuclear so it’s not a differentiator.
Please see my previous observation on desert ecosystems. Do bear in mind that I’ve lived for more than 60 years in the desert Southwest and am not unacquainted with the flora, fauna, and microbiota of “deserts.”
We’re there and have been for some time. My seasonal peak monthly electric use in central New Mexico averages 1.5 KW, and a house newer than my 135-year-old adobe would use quite a bit less. Even so, ~8 square meters of solar collector at current efficiency would generate on average more than that. The only reason I haven’t done so is that the house is poorly sited for collection and the wiring … well, the house predates both electricity and indoor plumbing.
3 Likes
Lots of comment here on the comparative costs and hazards of coal, nukes, wind, solar, hydro. Not much mention of the 800-pound gorilla which is eating everything else’s lunch
1 Like
Solar Energy: 0.0000%
Nah, I bet people have died installing panels and the like.
1 Like
Because it’s a really bad idea. First, Empty mines - not the tailings, just the hole in the ground - are a major source of groundwater and surface water heavy metal poisoning. The act of digging the hole changes the groundwater system, and you have water flowing through rocks where it didn’t used to go, picking up toxins and carrying them downstream. If the mine is on a mountain (they usually are), the poisoned water can come out on the surface and it’s not just wells, it’s the whole ecosystem downstream. Putting spent fuel rods in that mine and you make the potential contamination dozens of times worse, with bonus radioactivity added.
Second, even diluted, it’s not less radioactive than the original ore. It’s differently radioactive. You’ve got a much higher proportion of fissionable nuclei, which are constantly producing neutrons, which are constantly radiating out and transmuting adjacent materials, making them radioactive too.
3 Likes
Maybe not. Analogies are problematic sometimes. But my point is still valid. Humans tend to be horrified by big accidents that cause hundreds of lives – like airplane accidents. Yet we live complacently with lives being lost by the hundreds of thousands in individual events – like car accidents. That was the point I was making. It wasn’t the best analogy but it was the best I could come up with.
2 Likes
This is where affordable room temperature superconductors would be nice – except I guess they’re still too expensive, or fragile, or need lots of toxic materials to be made. Of course, the big problem is they don’t exist yet.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
