Safe Nuclear Energy
All the assertions made below are complete rubbish. Nuclear power is safe. Primary energy production is hazardous but deaths per terawatt produced are lowest by two orders of magnitude. Helen lost the plot a long time ago. There is plenty of Uranium and finally carbon dioxide emissions for nuclear are about 3 grams of C02 per kw/h compared to 20 for solar 400 for gas and 850 for coal.
Helen should look into the the hazards of coal or LNG rather than hypothetical hazards of a technology she despises because she doesn't understand it and mixes up military activity with civilian nuclear power.
Life Cycle Analysis, focused on energy, is useful for comparing net energy yields from different methods of electricity generation. Nuclear power shows up very well as a net provider of energy, and with centrifuge enrichment, only hydro electricity is closely comparable. External costs, evaluated as part of life cycle assessment, strongly favour nuclear over coal-fired generation.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
I wrote an article on Pebble Bed reactors recently. I'm a fan of nuclear power because without bucket loads of grid power how are we going to cope with peak oil without burning a ton of Coal.
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/mckern/mckern031306.html
Solar is probably better after the tipping point because you don't need the grid, nor a managerial/ engineering class. Australia's thin layer silicon cells use 20% of the silicon of convention cells and the new production facility at the new owners in Germany just started up and has sold all its output thru 2010.
But to get past peak oil we will need nuclear power for industry and base loads in cities, so we can use wind and solar at maximum efficiency.
Here are 2 other studies that refute stormdrag/smith's anti-nuclear tosh...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/5111706.htm
http://externe.jrc.es/Germany+Aggregation.htm
Anthony Morton replied:
There is plenty of Uranium
As trace elements in other minerals, yes. But there's only enough
'easy' uranium to supply world electricity needs for a few decades, and
then the cost starts going up so you might as well go solar instead.
and finally carbon dioxide emissions for nuclear are about 3 grams of
C02 per kw/h compared to 20 for solar 400 for gas abd 850 for coal.
They're the emissions from the power station. How do you propose to
mine uranium in the Top End or Central Australia and transport it for
processing without using fossil fuel?
Helen should look into the the hazards of coal or LNG rather than
hypothetical hazards of a technology she despises because she doesn't
understand it and mixes up military activity with civilian nuclear
power.
It's true enough that terrorists can't make a weapon of mass
destruction out of coal or wind. On the other hand even a civilian
nuclear plant is a ready source of raw material.
I wrote an article on Pebble Bed reactors recently. I'm a fan of
nuclear power because without bucket loads of grid power how are we
going to cope with peak oil without burning a ton of Coal.
The things we primarily depend on oil for are liquid fuels and
hydrocarbon inputs to chemical processes. Nuclear energy doesn't
really substitute well for either.
Kevin McKern responded:
Nuclear plants are quite secure, far more secure than Gasworks or Oil storage facilities or a million better targets or sources. There is no material available at a plant that's useful to a terrorist, it might be a CANDU reactor or a pebble bed. No one talks about dirty bombs because in reality they don't work. Unlike Oil or copper, uranium has not been a major destination of exploration and thorium and recycling and breeding could stretch it out to thousands of years. Of course we need really disruptive technologies like solar but the lead demands are enormous. The new generation of plants will work for hundreds of years. Hopefully superconducting storage will change things. I heard Helen talking about life cycle C02 emissions of nuclear plants. When she wasn't clearly out of her competence, she was hysterical.
"On the other hand even a civilian nuclear plant is a ready source of raw material."
This is a really silly notion!
John Winckle observed:
Ms Caldicot is so well known for loose use of the truth, I am surprised to see anyone quoting her in anything but a joke.
and
> There is plenty of Uranium
> As trace elements in other minerals, yes. But there's only enough
> 'easy' uranium to supply world electricity needs for a few decades, and
> then the cost starts going up so you might as well go solar instead.
The trouble with solar and wind is they are not steady sources for obvious reasons. There has to be back up coal power stations for reliability. This is why solar and wind are not economic or viable. It also explains the push for geo-thermal and tidal.
> > and finally carbon dioxide emissions for nuclear are about 3 grams of
> > C02 per kw/h compared to 20 for solar 400 for gas abd 850 for coal.
>
> They're the emissions from the power station. How do you propose to
> mine uranium in the Top End or Central Australia and transport it for
> processing without using fossil fuel?
The same way you get coat to power plants but about one ten thousanth the fossil fuel.
> > Helen should look into the the hazards of coal or LNG rather than
> > hypothetical hazards of a technology she despises because she doesn't
> > understand it and mixes up military activity with civilian nuclear
> > power.
>
> It's true enough that terrorists can't make a weapon of mass
> destruction out of coal or wind. On the other hand even a civilian
> nuclear plant is a ready source of raw material.
What a phurphy!!!
Power plant uranium is refined to about 5% U Bomb grade is 80% U getting that consentration is technologically difficult and very expensive. Far far beyond the reach of terrorists. You even hear the same nonsense suggested as a risk of terrorists getting hold of waste.
> > I wrote an article on Pebble Bed reactors recently. I'm a fan of
> > nuclear power because without bucket loads of grid power how are we
> > going to cope with peak oil without burning a ton of Coal.
>
> The things we primarily depend on oil for are liquid fuels and
> hydrocarbon inputs to chemical processes. Nuclear energy doesn't
> really substitute well for either.
Electric home heating and electric buses would be a start. Oil is too good to burn.
Anthony Morton answered:
The trouble with solar and wind is they are not steady sources for
obvious reasons. There has to be back up coal power stations for
reliability. This is why solar and wind are not economic or viable.
It also explains the push for geo thermal and tidal.
You can get part of the way with forecasting, and for the rest you can
rely on the law of averages once you have enough generators in enough
locations. If the wind's not blowing at A then it'll more likely than
not be blowing at B or C or D. That's how Germany and Denmark and
Spain manage to get so much of their electricity from wind.
Ireland thought for a while that there was no point developing large
amounts of wind generation because of the additional backup they'd
need. Now they have more wind, they've found they don't need nearly as
much backup as they thought.
No generation technology is 100% reliable. The difference is between
getting 400MW from a thermal plant that is available 99% of the time
but can instantaneously lose the whole 400MW in a forced outage without
warning, and getting 400MW from 200 wind or solar generators that
collectively run 99.999% of the time but have a variable output that is
predictable in aggregate, and when it drops unexpectedly does so over
minutes or hours rather than instantaneously.
They're the emissions from the power station. How do you propose to
mine uranium in the Top End or Central Australia and transport it for
processing without using fossil fuel?
The same way you get coat to power plants but about one ten thousanth
the fossil fuel.
Coal fired power stations are generally built next to the mine site,
since there's plenty of coal at reasonable distances from major load
centres. The problem is the best uranium deposits are too far away to
allow generation of electricity on-site.
And the more diffuse the uranium, the more fossil fuel is required to
extract it. Either you process the ore on-site using fossil fuel, or
you wind up trucking large quantities of ore to a place where you can
process it electrically.
Power plant uranium is refined to about 5% U Bomb grade is 80% U
getting that consentration is technologically difficult and very
expensive. Far far beyond the reach of terrorists. You even hear the
same nonsense suggested as a risk of terrorists getting hold of waste.
There's more than enough nasty stuff around nuclear plants to be
attractive to terrorists. You don't actually have to make an atomic
bomb in order to make mischief.
Brian Lloyd noted:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Anthony Morton wrote:
You can get part of the way with forecasting, and for the rest you
can rely on the law of averages once you have enough generators in
enough locations. If the wind's not blowing at A then it'll more
likely than not be blowing at B or C or D. That's how Germany and
Denmark and Spain manage to get so much of their electricity from
wind.
Ireland thought for a while that there was no point developing
large amounts of wind generation because of the additional backup
they'd need. Now they have more wind, they've found they don't
need nearly as much backup as they thought.
No generation technology is 100% reliable. The difference is
between getting 400MW from a thermal plant that is available 99% of
the time but can instantaneously lose the whole 400MW in a forced
outage without warning, and getting 400MW from 200 wind or solar
generators that collectively run 99.999% of the time but have a
variable output that is predictable in aggregate, and when it drops
unexpectedly does so over minutes or hours rather than
instantaneously.
A couple of comments:
1. I have yet to see a solar power-plant that works at night. Granted
loads on the grid tend to be less at night so you might not need that
capacity. Still ...
2. Wind and solar require a LOT of real estate. (Poor power density.)
Real estate is expensive. Also, most people don't want those ugly
things in their back yard. A nuclear or fossil-fuel plant is far more
compact for the same power output.
3. Nuclear can provide *very* high power density.
4. The "spent" fuel in a nuclear power plant isn't really spent. It
is just that its enrichment has dropped below the level where the
reactor can sustain a chain reaction. Most of the fuel is still
there. Just reprocess it. France got this one right.
5. And on that same vein, some of the U-238 in the fuel is being
converted into Pu-239. Reprocess that and burn it too. No, there is
no shortage of nuclear fuel even for Uranium-poor countries.
6. And if you do a good job of reprocessing you aren't going to have
a lot of unusuable-but-dangerous material left since not a lot of the
fuel is involved in the reaction. OK, you will have to do something
with the Sr-90, Cs-137, and I-131 that are produced but
glassification comes to mind here. These products don't have really
long half-lives and they aren't involved in any nuclear reactions
other than spontaneous decay. Make sure they don't get away and then
set them aside.
(I wonder if a beta emitter with a short half-life could be turned
into a compact power source ...)
Coal fired power stations are generally built next to the mine
site, since there's plenty of coal at reasonable distances from
major load centres. The problem is the best uranium deposits are
too far away to allow generation of electricity on-site.
Why should we care? One isn't moving nearly as much mass around as
one is with coal.
And speaking of coal, have you ever investigated the radioactivity of
the clinkers? Eyebrow raising.
And if you are worried about an accidental reaction should a train or
truck (lorry?) have an accident, it isn't going to happen. The fuel
isn't enriched enough for a spontaneous reaction without a moderator
to slow down the neutrons. I think I would worry a lot more about a
truck full of gasoline or diesel fuel than a truck full of nuclear
reactor fuel modules. (I was going to say rods but new reactor
designs might not be using fuel rods.)
And the more diffuse the uranium, the more fossil fuel is required
to extract it. Either you process the ore on-site using fossil
fuel, or you wind up trucking large quantities of ore to a place
where you can process it electrically.
Well, this is an economic issue not a technical one. This is the same
problem as with less available forms of fossil fuel, e.g. oil shale,
tar sands, etc. When the price of the cheap and easy stuff gets high
enough, we will start to process the more difficult fossil fuels as
it will become economically competitive.
The use of fossil fuel to extract uranium is, IMHO, a red herring.
You can use any power you want. Use a nuclear power plant to crack
water and produce H2. Use that as your portable fuel for vehicles.
The bottom line is the bottom line. If it makes sense economically to
do it, we can do it.
There's more than enough nasty stuff around nuclear plants to be
attractive to terrorists. You don't actually have to make an
atomic bomb in order to make mischief.
There seem to be a lot of people worried about terrorists. Since I am
not likely to even see a terrorist, let alone be attacked by one, I
think I will worry more about the drunk driver in the car next to me.
He is FAR more likely to hurt me than any terrorist is. Heck, my
bicycle is far more likely to kill me than a terrorist is.
Whatever happened to risk analysis?
(BTW, I like wind and solar. I use them on my boat. I can and have
lived off-grid for extended periods of time. I am not a rabid
"nuclear uber alles" type. I just think that nuclear fission power
makes a lot of sense as part of a well-balanced energy policy.)
Gary P Dalrymple commented:
In my opinion an investigation of the consequences of 'Guru-dom' is long overdue.
Dr Caldicott probably did useful work in raising world consciousness about unbridled Nuclear Weapons proliferation, and at the time the linkages between Nuke Power and Nuke Weapons were greater, but once you have a Guru on a single issue, the demand pressure (suction?) from the public and the media to provide opinions must be great.
With an issue that involves Science it is very much easier to see when the Empress no longer has clothes, but I expect that in 'The Arts' where so much 'truth' is non-science based weight of opinion and argument, there must be more drivel passed down as received wisdom by Gurus who are in fact talking through their hats because they have been asked for opinion about what they know not. Viz Important Scientists of the recent past who when asked were dismissive of splitting the atom or of Spaceflight.
A need for greater public skills of Critical Thinking is probably the better prescription / immunization against Dr Caldicott's 'syndrome', rather than personal denigration.
These errors we see currently in Dr Caldicott we will surely see in others we currently respect in time.
Wishing you well in all things.
Anthony Morton answered an earlier post:
1. I have yet to see a solar power-plant that works at night. Granted
loads on the grid tend to be less at night so you might not need that
capacity. Still ...
That's a specific drawback of solar; fortunately there are plenty of
other relatively benign ways of generating electricity when the solar
option is unavailable.
What happens when you have a lot of nuclear generation is that it
competes economically with renewables for the night load. Nuclear
plants have to run 24 hours a day in order to help recover their
capital costs, and this causes wind and other renewables to be
curtailed, to the overall detriment of renewables in a market system.
2. Wind and solar require a LOT of real estate. (Poor power density.)
Real estate is expensive. Also, most people don't want those ugly
things in their back yard. A nuclear or fossil-fuel plant is far more
compact for the same power output.
In the case of wind this is rubbish: you can put wind turbines on
farmland and the land retains virtually all its use value. The fact
that there are wind farms operating now on productive rural land
indicates there's no economic barrier posed by real estate requirements.
As for solar, you can put that in the desert where real estate is
pretty cheap last I heard. Fortunately, there's plenty of arid land in
close proximity to the existing power grid.
And sure, there are quite a few people that don't like to look at wind
turbines, but they probably don't want to look at nuclear power
stations either. And a thermal power station is much more visually
intrusive than a few wind turbines in the distance.
4. The "spent" fuel in a nuclear power plant isn't really spent. It is
just that its enrichment has dropped below the level where the reactor
can sustain a chain reaction. Most of the fuel is still there. Just
reprocess it. France got this one right.
You're not talking about the Superphénix, are you? (That's the
'commercial' breeder reactor that had ongoing problems with its liquid
sodium coolant and was eventually put on ice after running with an
overall capacity factor over its lifetime of about 5%.)
And speaking of coal, have you ever investigated the radioactivity of
the clinkers? Eyebrow raising.
Yep, I posted earlier about radioactive coal ash.
And if you are worried about an accidental reaction should a train or
truck (lorry?) have an accident, it isn't going to happen. The fuel
isn't enriched enough for a spontaneous reaction without a moderator
to slow down the neutrons. I think I would worry a lot more about a
truck full of gasoline or diesel fuel than a truck full of nuclear
reactor fuel modules. (I was going to say rods but new reactor designs
might not be using fuel rods.)
I never said anything about transport accidents. I don't necessarily
agree with everything Helen Caldicott says: I'm just concerned about
Australia getting distracted by vested interests into pushing nuclear
power when we should be putting more effort into renewables.
The use of fossil fuel to extract uranium is, IMHO, a red herring. You
can use any power you want. Use a nuclear power plant to crack water
and produce H2. Use that as your portable fuel for vehicles.
I'd like to see the hydrogen fuel tank on a heavy truck - that would be
impressive.
There seem to be a lot of people worried about terrorists. Since I am
not likely to even see a terrorist, let alone be attacked by one, I
think I will worry more about the drunk driver in the car next to me.
He is FAR more likely to hurt me than any terrorist is. Heck, my
bicycle is far more likely to kill me than a terrorist is.
Sure, I think fear of terrorism is being unnecessarily inflated. But
it does seem hypocritical for a government to be telling us on one hand
to be scared of terrorists and on the other hand that we should expand
a technology that's particularly vulnerable to terrorism over
alternatives that aren't.
Jim Edwards said:
"The ABC 7.30 Report next week will be dealing with wind energy and on Thursday Catalyst will have a segment on solar power. We may be exporting our expertise in alternative energy sources while importing expensive nuclear power plants which will not be ...."
Chris Munson replies:
I
heard John Howard say in the last two weeks, that Australia probably
won't need nuclear power plants, but other countries will need our
uranium. Since he is setting the debate, it seems more about politics,
mining and enrichment, rather than nuclear power for Australia. He did
also go on to give the reason (for no plants in Aust) as being that
nuclear power could never compete economically so long as we had such
cheap coal. Didn't take that much notice at the time, but that is what
I recall him saying.
Remember,
the current uranium debate was initiated some time ago by Howard when
he was in the US, and the Wheat Board scandal was in full swing. I say
therefore that it is more about politics and a dog whistle to call off
the media than a debate we had to have. It will be brought to our
attention at strategic times as a distraction, then put to bed after
the next election. He is setting up a little Tampa affair for later use.
Brian Lloyd commented:
On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:45 PM, Anthony Morton wrote:
1. I have yet to see a solar power-plant that works at night.
Granted loads on the grid tend to be less at night so you might
not need that capacity. Still ...
That's a specific drawback of solar; fortunately there are plenty
of other relatively benign ways of generating electricity when the
solar option is unavailable.
What happens when you have a lot of nuclear generation is that it
competes economically with renewables for the night load. Nuclear
plants have to run 24 hours a day in order to help recover their
capital costs, and this causes wind and other renewables to be
curtailed, to the overall detriment of renewables in a market system.
I guess it depends on whether you believe in the inherent rightness
of a free market. If nuclear is more economically viable than are
renewables, the market will select nuclear as the correct choice.
2. Wind and solar require a LOT of real estate. (Poor power
density.) Real estate is expensive. Also, most people don't want
those ugly things in their back yard. A nuclear or fossil-fuel
plant is far more compact for the same power output.
In the case of wind this is rubbish:
Which part of this is rubbish?
you can put wind turbines on farmland and the land retains
virtually all its use value. The fact that there are wind farms
operating now on productive rural land indicates there's no
economic barrier posed by real estate requirements.
Perhaps. I must admit I was playing devil's advocate here.
As for solar, you can put that in the desert where real estate is
pretty cheap last I heard. Fortunately, there's plenty of arid
land in close proximity to the existing power grid.
The only issue with solar is not having a good way to store the
energy. Fossil fuels and nuclear already have the energy in stored
form to be released when it is needed. Solar and wind combined with
reversible hydro provide the possibility for a fairly constant source
of power but at that point complexity and real-estate become issues.
And sure, there are quite a few people that don't like to look at
wind turbines, but they probably don't want to look at nuclear
power stations either. And a thermal power station is much more
visually intrusive than a few wind turbines in the distance.
Perhaps. Personally I think wind farms look kinda cool. I fly over
several on a regular basis. Sometimes I fly low just to look at the
different wind turbines. Still, there are people who do not agree
with my sense of aesthetics.
4. The "spent" fuel in a nuclear power plant isn't really spent.
It is just that its enrichment has dropped below the level where
the reactor can sustain a chain reaction. Most of the fuel is
still there. Just reprocess it. France got this one right.
You're not talking about the Superphénix, are you? (That's the
'commercial' breeder reactor that had ongoing problems with its
liquid sodium coolant and was eventually put on ice after running
with an overall capacity factor over its lifetime of about 5%.)
No. I am talking about the standard light-water reactor that is in
common use around the world and standardized on in France.
Enrichment of fuel implies that you increase the ratio of U-235 to
U-238. It is U-235 that participates in the chain reaction. OTOH,
some of the free neutrons from the reaction are captured by the U-238
which transmutes it into Pu-239. It is not a hugely productive
reaction is it is in a breeder reactor designed specifically for the
production of Pu-239 but it is still there. You can make the Pu-239
get involved in a fission reaction and give up energy as well as the
U-235. That is what I was referring to.
And speaking of coal, have you ever investigated the radioactivity
of the clinkers? Eyebrow raising.
Yep, I posted earlier about radioactive coal ash.
Sorry, I am a newcomer here and haven't seen previous postings. I
know, my mother told me to listen before I talk but somehow I never
learned the lesson. ;-)
And if you are worried about an accidental reaction should a train
or truck (lorry?) have an accident, it isn't going to happen. The
fuel isn't enriched enough for a spontaneous reaction without a
moderator to slow down the neutrons. I think I would worry a lot
more about a truck full of gasoline or diesel fuel than a truck
full of nuclear reactor fuel modules. (I was going to say rods but
new reactor designs might not be using fuel rods.)
I never said anything about transport accidents.
Ah, that seemed to be the direction you were going. Perhaps it is my
sensitivity to that particular argument that I saw it where it really
wasn't.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Helen Caldicott says: I'm
just concerned about Australia getting distracted by vested
interests into pushing nuclear power when we should be putting more
effort into renewables.
From my point of view, the issue is mostly economic. You will have
to spend some amount of money to deploy either. Which one gives the
greatest return on investment? The issue with renewables is that they
are not a steady source of power so you will need an auxiliary source
of power to take up the slack when your renewables are unavailable
for any reason. The trend seems to be toward small, high-power gas
turbine generating stations. They are expensive to operate but are
relatively cheap to build so if you only plan to use them during
times when available capacity does not meet demand, they might be a
worthwhile consideration.
You also have a total-cost-of-ownership issue that involves not only
the cost to initially deploy but also the cost to maintain and then
replace when it wears out. You have the issues surrounding disposal
and/or recycling of waste products. (Even PV panels and wind turbines
wear out.) There is even the environmental impact of constructing
Silicon PV cells to be considered. (Whoever said there were no waste
products from solar energy was not looking at the entire equation.)
My belief is that nuclear fission is likely to be a better long-term
solution. France has embraced it and has a program that is pretty
easy to examine. They seem to have made it work technically and
economically. Perhaps Australia should look more closely at their
program.
But renewables have a place in the mix.
I used to live on a boat. The primary electrical supply was wind and
solar with a diesel generator for backup. For some things I just
couldn't generate enough power from solar and wind and had too use
the generator. (Primarily air conditioning for when it got too hot
and the trade winds weren't blowing which usually also brought on an
infestation of mosquitos too.) I believe that, as a result, I have a
pretty good feel for power generation and storage.
The use of fossil fuel to extract uranium is, IMHO, a red herring.
You can use any power you want. Use a nuclear power plant to crack
water and produce H2. Use that as your portable fuel for vehicles.
I'd like to see the hydrogen fuel tank on a heavy truck - that
would be impressive.
That is a good point and you go to the heart of the problem with a
hydrogen economy. That is also the reason that nothing has displaced
hydrocarbon-burning internal-combustion engines in vehicles. It is
just too convenient. I can carry a lot of energy in a small container
and I can really quickly refill that container in order to continue
to operate.
(Warning: orthogonal topical diversion brought about by mentioning
motor vehicles. You may want to skip the next couple of paragraphs.)
There is a movie starting to make the rounds here (and perhaps there)
named, "Who Killed The Electric Car". Seems there is some belief in a
conspiracy. (People seem to love conspiracies to do away with
something revolutionary and "good".) OTOH, I bet most of them never
actually used one.
I have a friend who had one of the GM EV-1 electric cars (about 10
years ago). He loved it. But I remembered one day we were sitting
there and he was busy poring over maps. Seems he was going to drive
from San Diego to Los Angeles, a trip of about 150 miles. The car did
not have the range. He was going to have to stop half-way and
recharge the batteries, a 2-hour proposition. He wanted to make sure
he would have a good way to kill 2 hours. This led to the discussion
of true hybrids that would run on stored energy until the need for a
long trip and then they would run on fossil fuel. (This is as opposed
to the fossil-fuel powered cars that have electrical assist that we
call "hybrids" today.)
The all-electric car failed because it was not economically viable.
Recycling batteries is a serious problem. Battery capacity (range) is
a serious problem. Maintainability is a serious problem. Perhaps new
battery technology will make it more viable. Perhaps fuel cell
technology will make it more viable. (Shall we talk about fuels for
the fuel cells?) But the electric car has failed as a replacement for
the gasoline-powered automobile because it was plain-old economically
less desirable.
There seem to be a lot of people worried about terrorists. Since I
am not likely to even see a terrorist, let alone be attacked by
one, I think I will worry more about the drunk driver in the car
next to me. He is FAR more likely to hurt me than any terrorist
is. Heck, my bicycle is far more likely to kill me than a
terrorist is.
Sure, I think fear of terrorism is being unnecessarily inflated.
But it does seem hypocritical for a government to be telling us on
one hand to be scared of terrorists and on the other hand that we
should expand a technology that's particularly vulnerable to
terrorism over alternatives that aren't.
I agree on that completely. The start is to put terrorism in proper
perspective. Funny thing that, now that the US has been attacked,
everyone is NOW running around like chickens with their heads cut
off. It is not like terrorist attacks are new. I must admit that one
of my very first questions to on Sept. 11, 2001, was, "gee, I wonder
why it took them so long?"
Anthony Morton replied:
From my point of view, the issue is mostly economic. You will have to
spend some amount of money to deploy either. Which one gives the
greatest return on investment? The issue with renewables is that they
are not a steady source of power so you will need an auxiliary source
of power to take up the slack when your renewables are unavailable for
any reason. The trend seems to be toward small, high-power gas turbine
generating stations. They are expensive to operate but are relatively
cheap to build so if you only plan to use them during times when
available capacity does not meet demand, they might be a worthwhile
consideration.
Much is made of the variability of renewable sources, particularly by
those who have a vested interest in keeping them out of the market.
Those countries that have made a serious effort to encourage renewables
now have wind energy supplying about 20% of their electricity demand,
rising to 100% at some times. Up to the 20% level the variability of
wind can be covered by existing reserves. Beyond this level the
obstacles are pretty clearly technical rather than economic (since
there's no shortage of people wanting to build new wind farms, and
consumers have barely noticed any increase in prices). It's only a
matter of time before the technical obstacles are overcome, and the
Europeans will do it long before us.
Of the various renewables, wind energy is now in a position to compete
in a free market with fossil fuels. The problem in our existing market
is that fossil fuels are effectively subsidised because fossil
generators don't have to account for their CO2 emissions (or indeed for
that radioactive coal ash that escapes to the atmosphere).
I'm doubtful that even conventional light-water nuclear reactors are in
a position to compete in a free market with either renewables or fossil
fuels. The ones that operate in 'free' energy markets now can do so
only because their governments cover the cost of decommissioning.
You also have a total-cost-of-ownership issue that involves not only
the cost to initially deploy but also the cost to maintain and then
replace when it wears out. You have the issues surrounding disposal
and/or recycling of waste products. (Even PV panels and wind turbines
wear out.) There is even the environmental impact of constructing
Silicon PV cells to be considered. (Whoever said there were no waste
products from solar energy was not looking at the entire equation.)
Yep, PV cells have a real problem with energy payback, but there's
ongoing research to get more value out of the same amount of silicon,
so we might see it become workable in the future. Right now it's all
about wind, and wind generators have an energy payback period of about
six months (as long as they're not built on peat bogs).
I used to live on a boat. The primary electrical supply was wind and
solar with a diesel generator for backup. For some things I just
couldn't generate enough power from solar and wind and had too use the
generator. (Primarily air conditioning for when it got too hot and the
trade winds weren't blowing which usually also brought on an
infestation of mosquitos too.) I believe that, as a result, I have a
pretty good feel for power generation and storage.
Fair enough, but a stand-alone application is of course very different
from a nationwide power system. When you have hundreds of generators
in widespread locations, you can count on some generators being
available when others aren't. It's the same with putting solar panels
on your house: you'll have a power deficit whenever it's cloudy, but
thanks to the grid you can get power from someone else's roof where
it's sunny. Then when it's sunny at your place and you have a power
surplus, you sell the energy back to others where it's gone cloudy.
I have a friend who had one of the GM EV-1 electric cars (about 10
years ago). He loved it. But I remembered one day we were sitting
there and he was busy poring over maps. Seems he was going to drive
from San Diego to Los Angeles, a trip of about 150 miles. The car did
not have the range. He was going to have to stop half-way and recharge
the batteries, a 2-hour proposition. He wanted to make sure he would
have a good way to kill 2 hours. This led to the discussion of true
hybrids that would run on stored energy until the need for a long trip
and then they would run on fossil fuel. (This is as opposed to the
fossil-fuel powered cars that have electrical assist that we call
"hybrids" today.)
Actually, there's a healthy amount of research going on into electric
vehicles in Australia, much of it in Queensland. I wouldn't count on
them to solve our peak-oil problem though.
Andrew FW wrote:
A few years ago I was working with the Hydro Electric Corporation in
Tasmania, for a short peroid of time, and had some peripheral
involvement in the King Island wind farm installation (checking
electrical drawings and cross referencing schematics and assembly
drawings) when I first saw mention of the Redox flow battery. In this
case it was a Vanadium redox battery.
I am not a chemist or physicist but have since then wondered if this
was a solution for mobile electical power as it would have the
advantage of allowing you carry extra "charge".
Am I being fanciful?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
Geoff Pain answered:
Chemical recharge batteries other than lead seem the way to go.
I think they were working on them at Murdoch Uni also.
You
could design electric cars for battery changeover as fast as filling
with petrol, or drain and refill with fresh electrolyte.
Meanwhile, on 23/7/2006, Geoff had started a thread named "Helen Caldicott is not hysterical"
Helen Caldicott was kind enough to campaign (at her own expense) for my election to Federal parliament in 1993 on the basis that more scientists should represent the community.
I oppose the uranium industry and I am an inventor with patents on mass production of thin film solar cells.
Interestingly Martyn Ferguson also worked hard to try to get me elected. I will have to persuade him renewables are the way to go.
Currently working on a cow poo power plant proposal for a WA country town.
Helen is not hysterical, just scientifically and medically qualified and she reads a lot!
Michael Bailes responded:
More options 14:41 (1 minute ago) It is interesting that 50% of the
world's Physicists are employed by Stockbroking firms.
Something about Chaos Theory and the$
With scientists off chasing the $ (as too in biotechnology) we probably need
inspired amateurs, with fire in their bellies, like Helen Caldecott. At
least she gets people talking about the issues.
My favourite amateur is Rachel Carson (You can read her story in an
excellent book called "Since Silent Spring"). Now it seems, after all her
work exposing the dangers of DDT and similar, we are starting to use the
poison again. People have short memories.
Peter Macinnis replied:
There is a middle ground. Carson objected to wholesale splattering,
spraying and fogging with DDT, as was the norm from the 1940s to the
1960s. It would have continued to be the case without her. That sort
of misuse was stupid, and cannot be condoned. In large amounts, DDT
builds up in the food chain, and certainly harmed birds of prey.
On the other hand, no human has ever been poisoned with DDT, and used in
a controlled way (in mosquito traps in malarial areas), very tiny
amounts of DDT can save many human lives. It must be controlled,
ideally with a swingeing deposit on the impregnated mats so they are
returned for reprocessing and disposal, but it is a legitimate and
responsible use.
Rachel Carson got us thinking more sensibly about pesticides, but some
of her latter-day acolytes lack the scientific background to make a
sensible and rational decision.
Michael Bailes added:
Spraying the inside of houses, every 6-9months, is pretty "wholesale" in my
view.
The chemical has a"half-life" of 18 years yet no one yet has shown what it
breaks down into.
It is more likely that it just spreads out. (I would include all chlorinated
hydrocarbons in this scenario)
What worries me is that it floats in the top micron of the sea-surface and
interferes with phytoplankton reproduction - our major source of oxygen
There are many other effects too, which led to its banning in western
economies, which I am sure you can research for yourself.
I would prefer to see pesticides that do break down into something rapidly;
rather than accumulating in the world's food chains.
With luck our Brisbane medico researchers may come up with a malaria vaccine
in the next twelve months. If they do, I think it will be the greatest
medical breakthrough ever.
Well worth a couple of Nobel Prizes
Peter Macinnis disagreed:
Michael Bailes wrote:
Spraying the inside of houses, every 6-9months, is pretty "wholesale" in my
view.
Is anybody proposing that? Most of the plans I have seen use pads that
the mosquitoes land on -- there is no spraying there. Could that be
some campaigner's scare story?
Even if they are (and that is an old debater's trick -- never trust any
body who uses it), it is certainly a great deal less than the wholesale
fogging I used to see 45 years ago in Port Moresby.
The chemical has a"half-life" of 18 years yet no one yet has shown what it
breaks down into.
It is more likely that it just spreads out. (I would include all
chlorinated
hydrocarbons in this scenario)
That sounds feasible. As far as I know (BIG qualification), nobody
knows how DDT works on insects, either.
What worries me is that it floats in the top micron of the sea-surface and
interferes with phytoplankton reproduction - our major source of oxygen
There are many other effects too, which led to its banning in western
economies, which I am sure you can research for yourself.
That doesn't sound feasible, but I have no data to back it.
I would prefer to see pesticides that do break down into something rapidly;
rather than accumulating in the world's food chains.
Errm, depends what it beaks down into, surely? It is (I hope) unlikely,
but could the degradation products be even worse? I think this may be
so with one or the other of dieldrin and aldrin.
With luck our Brisbane medico researchers may come up with a malaria
vaccine
in the next twelve months. If they do, I think it will be the greatest
medical breakthrough ever.
Well worth a couple of Nobel Prizes
Sadly, you have to discount most claims of imminent breakthroughs on
cures, because most of them fall at the second or third hurdle. At
least we now know more things that don't work.
Until we have a REAL working vaccine, I am afraid DDT has to be part of
the armoury, and those in NGOs who demand a total ban have to be
dismissed as small-minded PC warriors. No doubt their hearts are in the
right place, but their minds are clearly below their centres of gravity.
Which is about as politely as I can put it.
Michael Bailes demurred:
This is the UN proposal, spraying every 6,9, 12 months depends who you read.
Sprayed "carefully" on all inside walls of homes. Also pads also DDT
impregnated mosquito nets are used& proposed.Some African countries are not
happy about the proposals. Especially those with organic farming industries.
But the World Bank should bring them to heel.
> The chemical has a"half-life" of 18 years yet no one yet has shown what
it
> breaks down into.
> It is more likely that it just spreads out. (I would include all
> chlorinated
> hydrocarbons in this scenario)
That sounds feasible. As far as I know (BIG qualification), nobody
knows how DDT works on insects, either.
Resistance is also a problem.
What worries me is that it floats in the top micron of the sea-surface and
> interferes with phytoplankton reproduction - our major source of oxygen
> There are many other effects too, which led to its banning in western
> economies, which I am sure you can research for yourself.
That doesn't sound feasible, but I have no data to back it.
My source is Dr. John Earl (Phd Chemistry)
> I would prefer to see pesticides that do break down into something
rapidly;
> rather than accumulating in the world's food chains.
Errm, depends what it beaks down into, surely? It is (I hope) unlikely,
but could the degradation products be even worse? I think this may be
so with one or the other of dieldrin and aldrin.
Yes true. Any chlorinated hydrocarbon that accumulates in the environment
and in the fatty tissues of mammals (like breasts & breast milk) must be
avoided at all costs. If it means western nations have to dig deeper to pay
for more expensive but safer pesticides then so be it.
However I think t is more about mult-national profits than safety as
pesticides like pyrethrum and neem can be home grown. India one of the
world's major produces of DDT has been shown to have a cavalier disregard of
African health given the counterfeit drug trade they are heavily involved in
(Again refer to ABC reports 4 Corners?) Most natural pyrethrum is grown in
Africa
Anything organic would help. The "problem" is few are long lasting and
spraying has to be more frequenteg pyrethroids and neem. They can be locally
grown though. Even synthetic pyrethroids would be preferable and it lasts
longer
I don't think mosquito traps have been fully investigated either.
Sadly, you have to discount most claims of imminent breakthroughs on
cures, because most of them fall at the second or third hurdle. At
least we now know more things that don't work.
Well, we don't actually The vaccine discussed on Quantum last week was a
re-working of an old idea. It has already been through some human
trials.They have been working on it for 20 years. Mark II will begin human
trials next year.
It looks to be very cheap to produce.
Until we have a REAL working vaccine, I am afraid DDT has to be part of
the armoury, and those in NGOs who demand a total ban have to be
dismissed as small-minded PC warriors. No doubt their hearts are in the
right place, but their minds are clearly below their centres of gravity
I don't agree. I think it is ecological madness for the planet not just
Africa.
We are still dealing with the problem of residues in Canada and the USA
where chlorinated hydrocarbons have been banned for decades.
Phillip commented:
Please.
Rachel Carson was a scientist.
Professional graduate and employee.
No amateur.
Her book, "Silent Spring", was so well researched and documented that
the "evil captains" of the chemical industry were unable to fault her.
Maybe the paperbacks leave out the documentation but it was there in the
original
and to Michael Bailes:
As with our attempt to emulate soil bacteria by co-opting their chemical
warfare biotechnology, the insecticide (species-icide) option is doomed
to ultimate failure even if not found morally repugnant.
Organisms are too good at developing resistance, tolerance, immunity ...
DDT and the like must be thought of as a short term solution to a
problem needing a more definitive answer.
I agree, the malarial parasite immunisation option is showing promise
John Winckle observed:
One
child dying of malaria every three seconds seems pretty wholesale to me
too. Anti DDT hysteria in the sixties has removed this useful product
from developing countries and nothing has replaced it, and while
conservationists agonise about what the world needs children die.
Michael Bailes replied:
And this is not emotional melodrama?
There are alternatives to DDT and these should be explored.
Many African nations are also unhappy about the UN programme.
Brian Lloyd noted:
And you know, this bypasses the whole economic issues of how those
people are going to create sufficient wealth to prosper. Will the
infrastructure support more people? Will the economy support more
people? When people try to isolate one part of an interconnected
system they often invoke the law of unintended consequences.
Then, on 24/7/2006, Toby Fiander started another thread titled "Helen Caldicott is highly hysterical"
How many hundreds of thousands extra children is your ideological madness
going to kill? Nothing is perfect - there isn't going to be a perfect
solution to insect control.
In the mean time, stopping the death of an extra two hundred thousand people
each year by spraying with DDT seems entirely justified. In this respect,
one can only marvel at the arrogance of rich people who suggest that poor
people should eat cake because the bread is not environmentally sound.
And the battle between pesticide and resistance is an on-going one... more
less in perpetuity. Fortunately, there is genetic engineering to assist
now.
Michael Bailes replied:
Or is the West just going for the cheap option?
Hoping any health or environmental consequences will stay in Africa?
"Let them eat cake" and use a pesticide we have banned because of its
health and environmental risks for decades.
Read "Since Silent Spring"
John Winckle commented:
Give us a break
mate, we read Silent Spring, way back in the sixties and were freaked
out by it. The passage of time and science has made us understand just
how seriously flawed the book was.
Michael Bailes added:
From just todays news
DDT Exposure Linked to Increased Rates of Liver Cancer
According to an article recently published in the Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, the pesticide known as DDT
(1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethane) appears to
significantly increase the risk of developing cancers that originate
in the liver.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/news.aspx?id=37668
Tony Fiander responded:
It is hardly news that it is nasty but it has the potential to save lives.
Michael Bailes retorted:
So, it is said, does war.
Toby Fiander replied:
I have never heard that said, but if you are asserting it, then perhaps you
would like to give an example.
Peter Macinnis commented:
Interesting and both surprising and unsurprising. Surprising because
there seems to be so little prior literature on DDT causing cancer and
unsurprising because you'd expect DDT to have some sort of biological
effect on us, and it causes tumours in rodents.
I don't know about the site you referred us to, but the NCI is on the
level. A search of their site at http://www.cancer.gov/ on <Zheng
McGlynn DDT> does not bring much up. Googling the same string brings
quite a few hits. Searching NCI on DDT brings up a LOT of hits (176),
but most of those (148 of them) seem just to tack DDT on to PCBs.
With only that single study, it might be a bit early to say case proven
-- and the trade-off between malaria and a slightly heightened risk of
liver cancer would make it well worth while. There may well be
confounding factors here: some liver cancers are provoked by fungal
toxins, and it may well be that those exposed to high levels of DDT live
in rural areas, and so are exposed to other factors.
Against that, the abstract (see http://tinyurl.com/kcflh ) seems to
indicate statistical care (and it is in a peer-reviewed journal, so we
would be entitled to DEMAND careful control of such factors, but it
might have happened. And how big is the risk? Not that much:
"A calculation of crude liver cancer risk found that there would be 26
liver cancers per 100 000 persons per year in the lowest quintile of DDT
exposure versus 46 liver cancers per 100 000 persons per year in the
highest quintile of DDT exposure."
In other words, it does not even double the risk.
Gerald Cairns added:
I have reservations about DDT also, however I also accept that there risks that should be taken for the general good and I believe this to be one of them.
When I was young lad many moons ago in Scotland I brought home a nice little hedgehog and "Shock Horror" within 24 hours the whole house (a large one) was crawling with fleas. I was not popular with anyone for a time but the whole house was dusted with DDT beds included and we slept with the stuff for a couple of weeks as I recall. No one that I am aware of suffered any consequences from this although my mother contracted cervical cancer at about age 65 here in Aust. She survived and again contracted bowel cancer at about age 80 and again survived then died from an accidental fall aged 87. Dad died almost 94 and I am almost 70 and no signs of cancer - just been extensively NMR Scanned prior to my op. I think it fair to assume that DDT had nothing to do with these events. No other members have suffered thus. As for Mr. Hedgehog he was treated and returned from whence he came no doubt to collect a new load of passengers.
This hardly constitutes a trial but it is reported for what it is worth. It is also worth remembering many of these influences are genetically determined i.e. susceptibility.
John Winckle observed:
With a twenty year old world ban on DDT where did the figures come from?
Terry Hyland noted:
Hate to inform
you.DDT is not banned here in USA.For you need permits for its use.
Like all other insecticdes.For use in agriculture.
Jim Edwards posted:
China. viz.:
"It has been speculated that DDT exposure may increase the risk of liver
cancer, so researchers affiliated with the National Cancer Institute
recently conducted a study to evaluate individuals from China and potential
risks associated with DDT. This study included 168 patients who had been
diagnosed with liver cancer, and 385 individuals who had not been exposed to
DDT."
Geoff Pain noted:
Depends what you think is acceptable risk.
I come from the school that says anything over one in a million is significant risk.
Of course the benefit has to be analyzed, but DDT dusting is no magic bullet for prevention of mozzy bites on human skin.
Phillip Chalmers wrote:
Did the research team disclose where on earth they found humans that had
not been exposed to DDT?
to which Jim answered "In China"
Peter Macinnis replied:
The odd mosquito bite is not a problem. What is a problem is a mosquito
biting an infected person, picking up parasites, then biting again.
That is the idea behind DDT-impregnated pads.
You balance the HIGH probability of malarial transmission against the
far lower probability of a cancer. Of course, if you just use pads,
people won't get a load of DDT, and so won't be at risk.
John Winckle observed:
Hate to sound cynical, but if you live with malaria mosquitoes, the problem of late life cancer is academic.
