Sustainabilty is a Hoax

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Newsflash for j_b: the Soviet-run Chornobyl plant has NOTHING to do with the French-style Nuclear power system.

 

[j_b]

and the report from Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the effects of Chernobyl, which is at 180 deg opposite to the WHO report:

 

The IPPNW/GfS Report "Health Effects of Chernobyl - 20 Years After the Reactor Disaster" documents the catastrophic dimensions of the reactor accident, using scientific studies, expert estimates and official data:

 

* 50,000 to 100,000 liquidators (clean-up workers) died in the years up to 2006. Between 540,000 and 900,000 liquidators have become invalids;

 

* Congenital defects found in the children of liquidators and people from the contaminated areas could affect future generations to an extent that cannot yet be estimated;

 

* Infant mortality has risen significantly in several European countries, including Germany, since Chernobyl. The studies at hand estimated the numberof fatalities amongst infants in Europe to be about 5000;

 

* In Bavaria alone, between 1000 and 3000 additional birth defects have been found since Chernobyl. It is feared that in Europe more than 10,000 severe abnormalities could have been radiation induced;

 

* By referring to UNSCEAR one arrives at between 12,000 and 83,000 children born with congenital deformations in the region of Chernobyl, and around 30,000 to 207,000 genetically damaged children worldwide. Only 10% of the overall expected damage can be seen in the first generation;

 

* In Belarus alone, over 10,000 people developed thyroid cancer since the catastrophe. According to a WHO prognosis, in the Belarussian region of Gomel alone, more than 50,000 children will develop thyroid cancer during their lives. If one adds together all age groups then about 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer have to be reckoned with, just in the Gomel region;

 

* Altogether, the number of Chernobyl related cases of thyroid cancer to be expected in Europe (outside the borders of the former Soviet Union) is between 10,000 and 20,000;

 

* In more contaminated areas of Southern Germany a significant cluster of very rare tumours has been found amongst children, so-called neuroblastomies;

 

* In Germany, Greece, Scotland and Romania, there has been a significant increase in cases of leukaemia;

 

* In a paper published by the Chernobyl Ministry in the Ukraine, a multiplication of the cases of disease was registered - of the endocrine system ( 25 times higher from 1987 to 1992), the nervous system (6 times higher), the circulation system (44 times higher), the digestive organs (60 times higher), the cutaneous and subcutaneous tissue (50 times higher), the muscolo-skeletal system and psychological dysfunctions (53 times higher). Among those evaluated, the number of healthy people sank from 1987 to 1996 from 59 % to 18%. Among inhabitants of the contaminated areas from 52% to 21% and among the children of affected parent from 81% to 30%. It has been reported for several years that type I diabetes (insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) has risen sharply amongst children and youth.

 

http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.html

[tvashtarkatena]

How does Chernobyl speak to the future of nuclear power? The lesson that we should not build reactors like Chernobyl or TMI, for that matter, has been well learned at this point.

[prole]

Given what we've seen lately of American firms inability to "police themselves", their tenacious resistance to real regulation and oversight, and the willingness of politicians to go along with it, we're going to need to see a lot of change in the political and regulatory environment before I'd be willing to entertain the increased use of nuclear power. Like a fifteen year old asking for the car keys, I don't think America's ready for that kind responsibility.

Edited January 13, 2011 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Fair enough.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Given what we've seen lately of American firms inability to "police themselves", their tenacious resistance to real regulation and oversight, and the willingness of politicians to go along with it, we're going to need to see a lot of change in the political and regulatory environment before I'd be willing to entertain the increased use of nuclear power. Like a fifteen year old asking for the car keys, I don't think America's ready for that kind responsibility.

 

We could hire the French to do it for us. :-)

 

[prole]

Given what we've seen lately of American firms inability to "police themselves", their tenacious resistance to real regulation and oversight, and the willingness of politicians to go along with it, we're going to need to see a lot of change in the political and regulatory environment before I'd be willing to entertain the increased use of nuclear power. Like a fifteen year old asking for the car keys, I don't think America's ready for that kind responsibility.

 

We could hire the French to do it for us. :-)

[tvashtarkatena]

It would appear that something French was thrust down that poser's pie hole shortly thereafter....

[j_b]

A good and short discussion of renewable baseload energy here

[Jim]

Yea. No kidding hydro is the best backup to the fluctuations associated to wind and solar. Yet here in the PNW, where we have the most baseload in the country of hydro, it still creates massive issues with grid distribution, unpredictability, and scheduling.

 

I notice that every renewable engery "base load" profile in the artile starts with -"..another promising technology". Non of which comes anywhere near providing a measurable contribution to base load. Yea - maybe some day but not in the foreseeable future.

 

Know what grid managers see as the counterforece to deal with the ups and downs of solar and wind? Pump storage facilities are gaining a lot of traction. Of course this is great becuase these facilities actually use more energy than they produce, it's just the differential between when they use and when they sell the energy that make them "practical". And then there are the issues of drowning more land under new lakes.

 

Yes, we need to invest more in solar and wind, particularly off-shore wind. Germany is doing a decent job on solar and the UK is doing investing heavily in tidal and wave energy, shooting for 25% of energy needs by 2050.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2011 by Jim

[tvashtarkatena]

We also need to invest up to 60 B in rebuilding the grid itself to more efficiently get intermittently generated power to far off users.

 

More efficient long distance DC transmission lines and higher voltage AC transmission would significantly reduce losses while load balancing the system nationally.

 

Electric or compressed air vehicles, typically charged at night, would help level the load to take better advantage of intermittent renewable sources.

 

In the end, thought, I think Victory in Afghanistan is much more important, however.

Edited January 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Providing further incentives for passive solar space and water heating in new and retrofit construction would do a hell of a lot towards reducing energy consumption, as well.

[tvashtarkatena]

As well as tellin' dem bitchez to take shorter fkn' showers!

[ivan]

As well as tellin' dem bitchez to take shorter fkn' showers!

conservatives generally need more than 10 seconds to jerk off in the shower b/c, let's face it, that mental image of jesus's ma just ain't that good

[tvashtarkatena]

Some conservative beyotch's been using my shower?

 

Now I know all those Clairol Nice n Easy empties came from....

[tvashtarkatena]

I would like to know what brand of lip gloss Palin uses, cuz it effectively creates the illusion that she's actually alive.

[j_b]

it's also an investment issue; since fossil fuels are subsidized, the energy majors have no incentive to go all out for renewables. For example, Washington state and many other western states have great, essentially untaped, geothermal potential, and thermal solar power has a great future in southern states while the technology already exists for the most part. It doesn't seem at all like that if we were really trying there wouldn't be adequate solutions for the foreseeable future.

 

cool looking blog about geothermal potential in Washington: http://northofthehotzone.com/

Edited January 14, 2011 by j_b

[j_b]

Nice piece at huffpo about resource extraction mismanagement and its cost:

 

On Louisiana coast, damage from oil goes much deeper than spill

Chris Kirkham

 

Last summer's Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico -- the largest offshore oil spill in recorded history -- made the Gulf Coast states the poster children for the enormous environmental risks posed by energy production near their shores.

 

But while the BP spill was conspicuous, an even more profound wave of environmental destruction has been steadily battering the Gulf Coast with little public scrutiny for most of a century: Continuous oil and gas development has contributed to the disintegration of nearly 2,000 square miles of Louisiana's coastline -- an area larger than the state of Delaware -- making New Orleans far more vulnerable to the flooding inflicted by hurricanes that regularly roll in off the Gulf.

 

Pipelines and navigation channels meant to ferry oil and natural gas from the vast reservoirs beneath the Gulf have chiseled away at the natural landscape of Louisiana, degrading coastal forests, swamps and marshlands. Many scientists believe the weakening of this formerly protective layer of land enabled Hurricane Katrina to lay waste to key areas of the city.

 

"These are long term problems that make the effects of the oil spill, even in the worst-feared case, pale by comparison," said Donald Boesch, the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Sciences who has studied coastal Louisiana and the Gulf for more than 30 years.

 

Yet despite the damage the oil and gas industry has imposed on Louisiana, the state has received only a minute fraction of the billions of dollars in royalties doled out by oil companies over the years in exchange for leasing the Gulf from the federal government. Instead, most of that money has landed in the coffers of the U.S. Treasury by dint of a decades-old disagreement over who controls the bounty of the sea -- the states, or the federal government?

 

Huge stakes hang in the balance: Offshore oil and gas revenues, primarily from the Gulf, have contributed more than $150 billion to the federal government's coffers since the 1950s, the second largest source of revenue behind taxes.

 

To be sure, Louisiana has seen significant economic benefits from the presence of the oil and gas industry -- not least, approximately 15 percent of household earnings, according to the state, and tax revenues and fees that contributed about 14 percent of the state's general fund. But state leaders argue that a lack of direct compensation via a slice of offshore energy royalties has left them with inadequate funds to restore lands that have been harmed through oil and gas extraction.

 

The damage has left southern Louisiana, and particularly New Orleans, acutely exposed to the anticipated effects of climate change. The city is widely considered the most vulnerable in North America to the impacts of rising seas.

 

[...]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/louisiana-damage-deeper-than-spill_n_807274.html?view=print

[j_b]

A 2006 report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), that included the potential of enhanced geothermal systems, estimated that investing 1 billion US dollars in research and development over 15 years would allow the creation of 100 GW of electrical generating capacity by 2050 in the United States alone.[11] The MIT report estimated that over 200 zettajoules (ZJ) would be extractable, with the potential to increase this to over 2,000 ZJ with technology improvements - sufficient to provide all the world's present energy needs for several millennia.[11]

 

 

[Lucky Larry]

It's probably true, no doubt why no ones talking about it.

[tvashtarkatena]

EGS would probably require the gubmint to largely foot the bill for the first commercial scale operation in the US to prove out the technology for industry, then healthy investment incentives thereafter for development. The hard rock drilling required is twice as expensive as for oil and gas for the same depth. Probably the only way cost per kWHr can be brought down to competitive, sub 10 cent level. Figgrin' out how to get a deep man made reservoir to work right will require extensive experimentation.

 

Not a conspiracy, just an expensive, very experimental technology that will require a huge effort to work the bugs out and build it out to a commercial scale.

 

Also, don't forget to build the plant life cycle cost into it: Sites are only viable for a few decades before the heat extraction process cools them down too much. Game's over until it heats back up...a century or more later.

Edited January 14, 2011 by tvashtarkatena

[j_b]

1)it sounds like you are describing nuclear (high initial investment requiring public dollars, expensive, no existing technology to deal with waste,...), not EGS.

 

2)EGS is a proven technological breakthrough. Its cost? The MIT report found that EGS could be capable of producing electricity for as low as 3.9 cents/kWh.

 

3)we are discussing sustainable energy production, i.e. it's the real economy, not the make believe world of passing external costs onto future generations, and we don't have to be absolutely competitive with current unsustainable coal economics. But, even though, EGS will be competitive with the dirtiest, most unsutainable form of energy within a few years. EGS is possible most everywhere and doesn't need storage, grid infrastrucure or waste management.

[tvashtarkatena]

Dude, who are you preaching to? Yeah, EGS sounds good. Proven? The first commercial plant hasn't even been commissioned, yet. The 3 cent per KWHr cost you mentioned is the low end of a possible future estimated range of from 3 to 9 cents. The same piece (yeah, I read it too) also goes on to say that costs are simply not known at this time, which of course is obvious, since the technology has yet to go commercial.

 

You can be an effective proponent of something without trying to bullshit people about it.

 

Just sayin....

[j_b]

MIT report:

 

"Findings: Geothermal energy from EGS represents a large, indigenous resource that can provide base-load electric power and heat at a level that can have a major impact on the United States, while incurring minimal environmental impacts. With a reasonable investment in R&D, EGS could provide 100 GWe or more of cost-competitive generating capacity in the next 50 years. Further, EGS provides a secure source of power for the long term that would help protect America against economic instabilities resulting from fuel price fluctuations or supply disruptions. Most of the key technical requirements to make EGS work economically over a wide area of the country are in effect, with remaining goals easily within reach. This achievement could provide performance verification at a commercial scale within a 10- to 15-year period nationwide."

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

 

what other energy resource can you say this about? Certainly not coal (dirty and impossibly expensive to clean and get rid of CO2 emissions, utter destruction of all other resource), oil (GHG's, Spills, resource peak), nuclear (uncertain resource, cost, risk), hydro (resource maxed), and wind and solar aren't base-load yet although they could easily become so with the evolution of storage. Who is bullshiting whom on this considering your pushing nuclear just a few pages ago?

Edited January 18, 2011 by j_b

[tvashtarkatena]

Awesome. Build out already proven green power generation technologies, such as nuclear, wind, and solar today, along with a more efficient grid, while developing future technologies like EGS. Sounds good.