Letters to the Editor
-
@dcmeserve
There are a couple of things to correct in your letter.The first that one face of the moon always faces the sun and has constant sunshine.The power could be stored till the earth rotates into postion to transmit that power and it can be transmitted to stations on all sides of the earth.The second of moondust has been dealt with as they have invented a microwave Zamboni which would turn the moon surface your working on into a hard glass surface(eg no dust).The Mars mission not costing trillions is like saying that the Iraq mission was going to pay for itself.High hopes.
-
A late response
Well, this thread is aging fast but I would like to do Saleem and dcmeserve the courtesy of a response. Saleem, I haven't discounted solar as part of the solution, only as the entire solution. The reason I describe it as a niche player is because I'm trying to be realistic. Right now solar and wind together provide about 1-2% of our electricity around the world. The International Energy Agency (IEA), a multinational group specifically created to track energy and policy trends and provide data and forecasts to governments around the world, estimate that at best these technologies may reach 4-5% in the coming decades if only because they are starting from such a small base, the technologies are still in development, and (this is important) world energy demand is expected to double by mid-century or even by as early as 2030.
So even if wind, solar, and other renewables increased so dramatically as to provide as much electricity as the entire world needs today, we'd still be that much short by as early as 2030. I don't think even the most ardent promoter of solar and wind predicts such a huge ramping up of those infrastructures in their wildest imagination. So we're left with a pressing need for huge amounts of pollution-free baseline power, and if you don't get it from nuclear, where is it going to come from?
Issues of safety, cost, proliferation resistance, and waste have all been solved, but our government killed and buried that project in 1994. No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, it's a fact. It's in the Congressional Record. It's about to be unburied, however. Whether we can convince the public and politicians to buck the status quo and put the fossil fuel companies out of business is the big question. Yes, dcmeserve, I am indeed talking about pyrometallurgical reprocessing techniques, on-site, which could burn up not just some of our spent fuel but every bit of it. Old nuclear weapons material, too. Because this technology relies on passive safety which uses the very laws of physics to prevent meltdowns, with heat transfer systems operating at atmospheric pressure with extremely simplified design, the costs will be even lower than the lightwater reactors currently used in France, which produces its electricity from nuclear at a cost of about three cents per kWh (compared to our average cost to the consumer in the USA of ten cents). These plants can be built both cheaper and safer than anything being used today, and the waste that comes out of them will be so short-lived and stable that it's not even an issue. But there is, unfortunately, not space here to do the subject justice. Please keep your eyes peeled later this year for a book entitled Prescription for the Planet. It will all be in there, and after you read it I'll be happy to discuss this with either of you at length.
-
@Hermit
"I'm not willing to invest in PV's because I think they are in the R & D stage and I'm not willing to bankroll development."
PVs are well past that stage, but are constantly improving. You can buy quality PV systems, from the panels to the regulators to the batteries.
That doesn't mean PVs are the best choice for *you*, however. The big question is how much return-on-investment a PV system would give you, compared to investing the same money in other technologies (wind, insulation, etc.) In Michigan, the answer is very likely not to be PV.
"I am convinced that changes in behavior and lifestyle can save more energy and reduce pollution more than any laws or technology, but have to bet against my fellow man's willingness to make the changes due to greed, laziness, vanity and fear."
Add ignorance to that list. Also boy-who-cried-wolf phenomenon.
"I've watched energy, land or other valuable resource saving efforts completely overwhelmed, or currently becoming overwhelmed, by rising population numbers."
That's the ultimate problem, and the ultimate choice. We can either choose to limit our population to match the available resources, or the available resources will do it for us.
That goes against the grain of many Americans, for whom "growth" is synonymous with "good". But as Edward Abbey said, "growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell".
"Cheap energy has ALWAYS had the same effects: to raise population further, to encourage driving more and make ostentatious and conspicuous consumption more attractive."
And to make conservation and efficiency technologies not cost effective. If electricity from the grid is three cents per kWh, there's just no way solar can compete. If it's thirty cents per kWh, it's a different story.
"If we don't grow up soon we will be facing some terrible choices."
If we're lucky. We may not have choices.
Thirty years ago, the Carter Administration tried to get the USA going in the right direction. But Americans didn't like that idea, and when the supply of energy stabilized in the early 1980s those old ideas were largely forgotten. It was somehow unAmerican to even talk about limits, about conservation, about living a minimal-impact lifestyle. Instead it was Morning In America, and we needed to focus on Star Wars/SDI and helping the Afghan "freedom fighters". That didn't quite turn out as hoped...
Now the cycle repeats.
-
@Gulliver
"Right now solar and wind together provide about 1-2% of our electricity around the world."
But in the USA, wind now provides about 3%, and the number keeps rising as more turbines are installed. That doesn't mean wind is the complete answer.
"I am indeed talking about pyrometallurgical reprocessing techniques, on-site, which could burn up not just some of our spent fuel but every bit of it. Old nuclear weapons material, too."
If this can be done, it should be done, if for no other reason than to use up the spent fuel and old nuke material.
"the costs will be even lower than the lightwater reactors currently used in France, which produces its electricity from nuclear at a cost of about three cents per kWh (compared to our average cost to the consumer in the USA of ten cents)."
Check your numbers. The French pay more for residential electricity than Americans do, even those who buy from Con Ed.
I suspect you are comparing the cost to generate with the price charged to a residential customer. That's apples-and-oranges, because the residential price includes not only the cost to generate, but also the cost to distribute, the cost of connection, taxes, fees, and other charges. What matters to most people is the total cost when they get their bill. That's what you have to compare.