Got to admit i was intrigued but money from my wallet, no way man.
Electric cars are a pipe dream
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Got to admit i was intrigued but money from my wallet, no way man.
Ok, fusion is still a maybe for all intents and purposes.
Nuclear is still a big player.
Also renewable energy production is on the increase. Wind, tide, the latter offers massive amounts of potential. How far away are these technologies? I know of a town called Swaffham in UK that virtually runs completely on wind power. This is a growing trend. And I recognise many more turbines are needed but this does offer clean ways to charge.
Tidal power, once really harnessed is potentially a massive player too.
Nuclear is still a big player.
Also renewable energy production is on the increase. Wind, tide, the latter offers massive amounts of potential. How far away are these technologies? I know of a town called Swaffham in UK that virtually runs completely on wind power. This is a growing trend. And I recognise many more turbines are needed but this does offer clean ways to charge.
Tidal power, once really harnessed is potentially a massive player too.
Carbon capture is still in development.
Sure X-man2, China is sick of the west and the rest of the world controlling the oil, and no doubt using it as a bargaining chip. China want to drive forwards in a more independant way. This may indeed give them a massive head start, a head start that the west should be careful of.
Sure X-man2, China is sick of the west and the rest of the world controlling the oil, and no doubt using it as a bargaining chip. China want to drive forwards in a more independant way. This may indeed give them a massive head start, a head start that the west should be careful of.
Then you just don't get it.
Three Mile Island caused a MAJOR shift in the building in new nuclear power plants all over the world but particularly in the US.
Chernobyl pretty much though brought it to a virtual halt worldwide.
The nuclear industry was just starting to get past both of those events, as you could see in the inital planning for the Texas plant, and now this incredibly expensive misshap in Japan will make Investors and Governments very reluctant to finance new reactors.
A safe bet is that Fukishima has pretty much stopped new nuclear power for a decade or more. The problem is, if/when it starts up again, it takes so long to build a new plant that our new plants will have a hard time keeping up with the old plants we retire.
In the US every one of our 104 reactors started construction BEFORE TMI, none were started after it (120 other reactors that were on order were cancelled), so the operators are already going to the NRC for licence extensions. After Fukishima these will likely be harder to get for those 34 reactors of the same style of the one whose containment vessel was breached in Japan.
As to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on March 17th she aimed to accelerate Germany's move away from nuclear energy after the crisis in Japan.
Arthur
You REALLY don't get it.
22% of the world's population today has never turned on a light switch.
That is going to change because the less developed world is, well developing.
More to the point, there will be 50% MORE people on the planet by the middle of this century and most of them will also be in the developing world.
Thus we have THIS:
http://www.energymile.com/?p=303
Thus by 2035 or so, the amount of electricity we produce will have more than doubled.
Renewables will increase substantially in that time frame but still there is no way that Wind, Solar and Tides can keep up with that kind of growth, because none of those provide BASE generation, and that's what we will need.
Thus we have THIS:
Arthur
Then you just don't get it.
Three Mile Island caused a MAJOR shift in the building in new nuclear power plants all over the world but particularly in the US.
Chernobyl pretty much though brought it to a virtual halt worldwide.
The nuclear industry was just starting to get past both of those events, as you could see in the inital planning for the Texas plant, and now this incredibly expensive misshap in Japan will make Investors and Governments very reluctant to finance new reactors.
A safe bet is that Fukishima has pretty much stopped new nuclear power for a decade or more. The problem is, if/when it starts up again, it takes so long to build a new plant that our new plants will have a hard time keeping up with the old plants we retire.
In the US every one of our 104 reactors started construction BEFORE TMI, none were started after it (120 other reactors that were on order were cancelled), so the operators are already going to the NRC for licence extensions. After Fukishima these will likely be harder to get for those 34 reactors of the same style of the one whose containment vessel was breached in Japan.
As to Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel said on March 17th she aimed to accelerate Germany's move away from nuclear energy after the crisis in Japan.
Arthur
What do you honestly think about this? Do YOU believe the design of the reactors at Fukushima led to the problems there? Seems to me it was the fact they didn't protect the backup generators sufficiently that caused the problems. Also why the hell did they build them on that side of the country? Because they felt they were tsunami proof no doubt. Why the hell didn't they encase the back up generators in sealed bunkers or raise them up on reinforced platforms?
Is the historical tail-off in new nuclear power station production down to the past accidents? Probably, because it raised concerns of the safety of the process itself, at the time. But does this have meaning for the future of nuclear power when the reactors themselves are not the issue anymore? The reactors are safe if run correctly. The Fukushima reactors shutdown as they needed to after the earthquake, but it was the backup generators, and the fact there wasn't a backup underground link to the national grid that caused the reactors to lose power?
Any sensible person can see that nuclear power is safe. It just shows you the problems caused by cutting corners. Like I said, safety reviews to tackle these issues are the overhanging question at the moment, not the general safety of nuclear power.
So who gets it?
You REALLY don't get it.
22% of the world's population today has never turned on a light switch.
That is going to change because the less developed world is, well developing.
More to the point, there will be 50% MORE people on the planet by the middle of this century and most of them will also be in the developing world.
Thus we have THIS:
http://www.energymile.com/?p=303
Thus by 2035 or so, the amount of electricity we produce will have more than doubled.
Renewables will increase substantially in that time frame but still there is no way that Wind, Solar and Tides can keep up with that kind of growth, because none of those provide BASE generation, and that's what we will need.
Thus we have THIS:
Arthur
It is a combo of all the sources of power I have mentioned that creates the picture. Renewables, carbon capture, CO2 containment, nuclear. A general movement away from CO2 release.
I think you don't really get it. If it needs to happen it will. What are the alternatives? Runaway global warming? OK for the older generation, but what about the future?
What is your stance on global warming? Denialist? 'F%$k It we're doomed anyway!'? 'It's worth the risk'? or other?
This is far from an answer but interesting nevertheless:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/greenbox_captur.php
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/07/greenbox_captur.php
I don't think it matters that much why the reactors failed.
They did fail.
And in doing so they released a significant amount of radiation.
So much so that it has spread all over the Northern Hemisphere which has been in the news for well over a month and will continue to be in the news for the rest of this year (that's how long it will take to get these reactors under control).
And the size of this failure is going to probably bankrupt TEPCO and it has already done a huge number on people's savings and retirement funds since they owned what they thought was safe TEPCO stock.
But more importantly (for the nuclear industry) is it will make financing the next power plants that much more expensive, and that is already the thing that makes building nuclear plants so expensive, the up front costs.
When the safety people rewrite the rules to account for the things that weren't accounted for, the cost of the plants will also go up.
Nuclear will probably eventually recover, but it got a HUGE setback by Fukishima.
Arthur
They did fail.
And in doing so they released a significant amount of radiation.
So much so that it has spread all over the Northern Hemisphere which has been in the news for well over a month and will continue to be in the news for the rest of this year (that's how long it will take to get these reactors under control).
And the size of this failure is going to probably bankrupt TEPCO and it has already done a huge number on people's savings and retirement funds since they owned what they thought was safe TEPCO stock.
But more importantly (for the nuclear industry) is it will make financing the next power plants that much more expensive, and that is already the thing that makes building nuclear plants so expensive, the up front costs.
When the safety people rewrite the rules to account for the things that weren't accounted for, the cost of the plants will also go up.
Nuclear will probably eventually recover, but it got a HUGE setback by Fukishima.
Arthur
Old article, but shows you these things are being looked at and are in development. All part of a new and more intelligent way of manipulating the systems around us.
Onwards we go!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-look-at-carbon-capture-and-storage
future is brighter than the pessimists would have us believe.
http://www.i-newswire.com/invest-in-carbon-capture-now-says/a91705
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211134444.htm
Onwards we go!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-look-at-carbon-capture-and-storage
future is brighter than the pessimists would have us believe.
http://www.i-newswire.com/invest-in-carbon-capture-now-says/a91705
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080211134444.htm
A set back of a year in some projects, less in others, more in others. But it will still be an ongoing resource for electricity production. The trend you were observing wasn't entirely accurate and informed though was it?
No, there is not general movement away from CO2 release. If you will notice the amount of fossil fuel use is double what it is today in 2035.
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/42033
I do get it.
The problem, as I've tried to point out to you, is it doesn't matter what the US and the UK and the EU do about GW, it's what the developing world is going to do, and I don't know if you realize this but they were SPECIFICALLY left out of Kyoto. They have insisted that they have the right to industrialize just like the developed world and so the Developing world isn't going to slow their growth.
Those 22% of the globe who haven't ever turned on a light switch?
Well that's going to change over the next several decades.
Arthur
You are discounting the changes that are happening and will continue to happen. The global economic crisis is slowing developments and this does seem to be a bit of a pessimism producing factor, but when humans keep pushing at these problems something has to give. To say there isn't going to be a general movement away from CO2 (a movement that is already in motion) is a bit ridicuolous. you have already admitted renewables are on the rise.
I hear you, but the technologies the West produce to tackle these issues can be implemented abroad by trade pressure and monetary manipulation. The West holds most of the cards, and it maybe our best gift to the world to push change.
I totally agree. That is why these issues are so important.
Yes, renewables are on the rise, but they aren't rising as fast as the demand for energy itself. So while the total we get from renewables will certainly increase, the actual percent we get is unlikely to increase. The reason for that is because by far the largest percent of renewables is the one that we are unlikely to increase much over the next several decades, large Hydro.
Global emissions in Million Metric Tons of CO2 continue their relentless rise:
2001 23,949
2002 24,681
2003 25,891
2004 27,517
2005 28,366
2006 28,939
2007 29,724
2008 30,399
I'm not making this up.
Arthur
Large hydro iteself is restricted by its negative environmental effects?
The percentage can increase if new capacity is preferentially installed as renewables. I realise this is a big ask. Tidal (could be referred to loosely as large hydro) would seem to offer the biggest energy potential, and is widely under utilised at the moment due to a need for development of the way we do it.
So are we doomed?
No one is pushing the Chinese to do anything though and we aren't preferentially installing Wind or Solar.
As to our side of the pond, 6,682 MW (11 new Coal plants) became operational in the US during 2010.
• Rodemacher(Brame) (700 MW)
• Comanche (850 MW)
• Iatan (850 MW)
• J K Spruce (820 MW)
• Oak Creek-Unit 1 (615 MW)
• Oak Grove (879 MW)
• Plumb Point (720 MW)
• Southwest (300 MW)
• Trimble (834 MW)
• Willmar (4 MW)
• WygenIII (110 MW)
We added about 5.6 GW of Nameplate capacity of wind in 2010, which given our capacity factor of ~28% means we added less than 1/3rd as much wind as new coal plants to the grid.
In addition to this China has 209 GW of new coal plants expected to come online by 2016 (this is a staggering amount of new plants).
No, we are NOT moving away from increasing our annual CO2 production.
You really need to look at what is going on outside of the UK.
Arthur
Last edited:
As was pointed out, China are pushing themselves towards EV to remove the pushing of the West. I said "IF new capacity is preferentially installed as renewables."
Did I say "we are moving away from increasing our annual CO2 production"? If I did I can see the room for misunderstanding. Please let me clarify.
The fact renewable capacity is being installed instead of a number of fossil fuel plants shows that a movement to renewables is happening. We can bandy back and forth about the way we analyse the stats, but renewables are on the rise and the tech is developing. That is my point.
Ok, I hear you, it is very hard to compete with the economics of coal.
In the UK we have good reserves of coal that are not being mined because of past cost restrictions and cheaper coal from africa etc. But keeping these reserves is a good idea because if coal power stations can be cleaned up then it will be a valuable resource for the future.
I just state that humans are showing willing to try and tackle the CO2 issue. The semantics are not really the issue, it is the trend we must look at. And I do see a growing trend. Ok renewables are slow at the moment and are not keeping up with fossil fuels in the new capacity they are meeting, but this picture is a complex one. We have looked in this thread at many endeavours to reduce CO2 production. This in itself shows willing.
I do admit there is a long way to go. I am not delusional.
You used this as an arguement for lower CO2, but once again you miss the point.
As the link you referenced pointed out:
China plans on having 5 million EVs on the road by 2020 but then the article also points out:
More to the point though is the article ALSO mentions that China sold 18 million cars last year, ending 2010 with nearly 100 million cars on the road and China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology estimates that there will be over 200 million cars in the country in 2020. So claiming that you are going to add another 100 million cars, but 5 million will be EVs is not going to slow the growth of CO2.
Night Traffic in Beijing
http://chinaautoweb.com/2010/09/how-many-cars-are-there-in-china/
Arthur
A few facts from Schwab's AM report today:
"... NRG Energy Inc , the second largest power producer in Texas and a finalist for federal loan support, said U.S. regulatory uncertainty in the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident forced it to abandon a plan to build reactors near Houston. ..."
"... NRG Energy Inc , the second largest power producer in Texas and a finalist for federal loan support, said U.S. regulatory uncertainty in the wake of Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident forced it to abandon a plan to build reactors near Houston. ..."
Yes and the TREND is quite clear.
The Kyoto Protocol was created in 1998 and it's goal was to reduce the CO2 production to 5% below 1990 levels.
But by 2001 our annual CO2 had increased by 12% over 1990 levels and thus we were 17% over that target.
Since then, between 2001 and 2008 our global CO2 production has increased by another 27% putting us 45% over the Kyoto target.
Considering that Hydro and Nuclear (by far our largest sources of non CO2 producing energy) are nearly flat in contrast to all the Coal plants being built over the last decade (and planned for this decade) combined with the large annual increases in NG consumption and the dramatically increasing industrialization in China and India and the ever growing population, yes I'd say all the trends are quite clear, and none of them point to reversing the growth of CO2 on an annual basis.
Arthur