Case For/Against Renewable Energy (continues) w/new video!

[Brickjectivity]

Some of you may recall the 'Case Against Renewable Energy' thread which contained links to past threads about the same subject, and I linked in a video arguing against renewable energy. Now I have another video making the opposite case and citing tech nobody on the site had referenced before! The presenter says energy companies are closing coal mines as they are no longer as profitable as renewable energy. It mentions pumping stations that store energy with gravity and other gravity tech, and it also talks about some renewable energy success stories as well as explaining the Duck Back Problem for renewables where energy is best produced during the day but peak demand comes around 7pm. Now I have briefly explained the video. Anybody who wants to put in an oar, please consider skimming the videos and looking through the past threads which can be found in the previous thread! (just follow thread linked to by the quote below) Enjoy!

Just watched a TED related video by Michael Shellenberger, who talks about how windmills kill birds and the instability of solar power leads to a need for more natural gas power. He discusses the problem of disposing of toxic solar panels the relative expense of renewable infrastructure versus relying upon nuclear energy.

So what do you think about these things? Please take the time to watch the video if you can or skim it. Its about 17 minutes long. Are windmills and solar panel farms a mistake?

For reference here are some previous threads hosted here on RF where the topic of renewable energy has been discussed:
100% Renewable Energy Vision
Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?
Another Energy Thread
Compressing Air for Renewable Energy Storage

Here's the video:

...and here's the new video that speaks highly and optimistically of renewable energy

 

[sun rise]

This is a really classic example of how problem solving works. No one will or at least should deny that, for example, the duck exists. But people should not assume that the duck will always be with us.

Similarly to advocate for really expensive nuclear power over solar is to ignore that dealing with nuclear waste is an extremely long term problem.

All technologies should take full lifecycle costs into account while at the same time being aware that breakthroughs can change those costs.

 

[Shad]

This is a really classic example of how problem solving works. No one will or at least should deny that, for example, the duck exists. But people should not assume that the duck will always be with us.

Similarly to advocate for really expensive nuclear power over solar is to ignore that dealing with nuclear waste is an extremely long term problem.

All technologies should take full lifecycle costs into account while at the same time being aware that breakthroughs can change those costs.

New reactor designs solved the issue with nuclear waste.

 

[suncowiam]

New reactor designs solved the issue with nuclear waste.

Oh, how so?

 

[suncowiam]

There are pros and cons of any subject.

The real debate is how renewables compare to non-renewables.

The cons of renewables listed in the previous are that windmills kill birds, and solar panels are toxic... Yeah, don't get me started on non-renewables concerning that.

Renewables are not as reliable. Sure, I'll agree to that but it's also in its infancy concerning technology and research. Over time, it probably will never be as reliable but I'm sure it will come to a point where it's reliable enough for average consumption.

 

[sun rise]

New reactor designs solved the issue with nuclear waste.

Solved as in no waste. Is that just your opinion or do you have a cite for that?

And, of course, there's the extremely high cost for nuclear power which advocates ignore.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Anticipating conservative argument that Solyndra proves economic non-feasibility and corruption in the field of solar power.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Trump thinks we are going to run out of sun if we use solar power. We will drain the sun's batteries!

 

[Shad]

Solved as in no waste. Is that just your opinion or do you have a cite for that?

Oh, how so?

More than that. It uses the existing waste stockpile as fuel. Look up the PRISM reactor. The issue is it is not commercially cost effective with projections only becoming reasonable in 2030. . There are also design in the works beyond mk 4s. Most reactors in use right now are mk 2s and mk 3s.

 

[sun rise]

More than that. It uses the existing waste stockpile as fuel. Look up the PRISM reactor. The issue is it is not commercially cost effective with projections only becoming reasonable in 2030. . There are also design in the works beyond mk 4s. Most reactors in use right now are mk 2s and mk 3s.

I support fusion research which is a different matter. But I don't see how this design would be cost effective with rapidly dropping costs of other technologies especially given the over a decade from now estimate.

PRISM

GEH believes that modern recycling technologies should be used to address used nuclear fuel. This would generate at least a hundred times more electricity from used nuclear fuel and decrease the long-term radiotoxicity of the remaining wastes.

 

[Shad]

I support fusion research which is a different matter. But I don't see how this design would be cost effective with rapidly dropping costs of other technologies especially given the over a decade from now estimate.

PRISM

Costs will drop as the technology develops. Nuclear power still outproduces solar for example even with old reactors.



GEH believes that modern recycling technologies should be used to address used nuclear fuel. This would generate at least a hundred times more electricity from used nuclear fuel and decrease the long-term radiotoxicity of the remaining wastes.[/QUOTE]

The issue of waste is how long it stay radioactive and what to do with it. PRISM solves it by using waste as fuel.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Trump thinks we are going to run out of sun if we use solar power. We will drain the sun's batteries!

And windfarms kill "piles of bald eagles". Coal fired power plants, of course, never harm birds.

 

[sun rise]

Costs will drop as the technology develops. Nuclear power still outproduces solar for example even with old reactors.



GEH believes that modern recycling technologies should be used to address used nuclear fuel. This would generate at least a hundred times more electricity from used nuclear fuel and decrease the long-term radiotoxicity of the remaining wastes.

The issue of waste is how long it stay radioactive and what to do with it. PRISM solves it by using waste as fuel.[/QUOTE]
Yes, nuclear is still ahead on total power production but that's rapidly changing as cheap renewables come on line.

They did not claim "solved" but "decreased". I accept their version that asserts a decrease.

 

[Shad]

Yes, nuclear is still ahead on total power production but that's rapidly changing as cheap renewables come on line.

It is only changing as mk 4 and beyond reactors are not being constructed. Beside it will need to be used for down-time, low

They did not claim "solved" but "decreased". I accept their version that asserts a decrease.[/QUOTE]

That is a solution ergo solved. It is use previous fuel

"We can continue down the same path for used nuclear fuel that we have been on for the last 50 years, or we can develop an approach that brings the benefits of nuclear energy to the world while also reducing proliferation concerns and nuclear waste.

GEH believes that recycling is a good approach in general, and is invested in solving the issue of used nuclear fuel by recycling it in a proliferation-resistant manner, rather than securely storing a resource with more than 95 percent of its fuel unused.

In GEH’s view, what is generally considered to be “nuclear waste” these days is not really waste at all. Light Water Reactor (LWR) used nuclear fuel is composed of 95 percent uranium, 1 percent transuranics, and 4 percent fission products. Many of these transuranic isotopes have long half-lives, which can create long-term engineering challenges for geologic disposal. By using electro-metallurgical separations, PRISM is designed to perform the recycling of the 96 percent of the fissionable material (uranium and transuranics) remaining in used nuclear fuel.

PRISM fuel is metallic, which allows the use of a simple electrometallurgical process to recover all the long-lived waste products that make spent fuel so problematic to dispose of."

You quoted the wrong part..