Don't confuse Fukishima with a nuclear disaster. Yes there was environmental contamination, but 10's of thousands of people were killed by a tsunami. Nuclear accidents aren't nearly that bad. What we need is more sea walls, not less nuclear plants.
Also it was of the type that melts down if the cooling water is lost. Other reactor designs (eg 3-mile island) need water to operate so they shut down automatically if there's any major breakdown.
Furthermore, coal is far more dangerous. We just don't care when thousands of Chinese coal miners die every year as much as we do when Japanese farmland is rendered unusable once in a lifetime.
Why don't we just build renewable energy that is abundant and doesn't require the unknown unknowns of nuclear energy? Geothermal, wind, solar?
I don't trust anybody with nuclear power. I don't know whether I should be eating fish from the pacific ocean. I have some idea how much cesium is in our ocean water because somebody is tracking it, but no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.
Nuclear is—even counting all the accidents—the safest and one of the greenest forms of energy we know of. Geothermal is hugely limited; wind is flaky, limited, and bad for the environment; solar is promising and getting economical, but it's still faced major practical and safety challenges.
> I have [...] no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.
None. Zero. Absolutely no impact or ramifications whatsoever. And that you'd even feel like that was in question is a crushing indictment of our sensationalist media.
No, the correct answer is zero. The impact of Fukushima on someone living on the west cost of the US is negligible; as near to zero as makes no difference. There are many, many, many other things you don't worry about which has a much larger impact on your life: most dangerous of which is probably your diet and your commute to work.
> Why don't we just build renewable energy that is abundant and doesn't require the unknown unknowns of nuclear energy? Geothermal, wind, solar?
There isn't enough. Not even close. It's not as abundant as you think - the amount of our planets resources we would have to consume to make use of this "renewable" energy is enormous.
> but no idea what the ramifications of the Fukushima disaster is on me now and in the future, as somebody living in the west coast of the USA.
Well now you do. There are no ramifications whatsoever.
Since current energy storage solutions are more resource intensive (and polluting) to make than energy generation, we need on-demand energy generation.
Solar (and wind) of x MW average power means at least 2x of max power, and thus needs at least 2x of 'reserve' non-solar power to cover the gaps when it's not being produced due to daytime or weather.
This means that solar, even if it'd be completely free and perfect, can't fill a majority of global energy needs - I'd guess that a third would be an absolute maximum unless/until we get radical breakthroughs in energy storage technology.
Those types of unpredictable energy don't replace other power plants, as those nonrenewable power plants are needed anyway - they only save fuel for those plants by allowing them to reduce load at random times.
Solar and wind energy are perfectly predictable: www.energymeteo.com
There are fluktuations every day due to the differend demand and loads in any case. Thats why you link many sources together in a Virtual Power Plant. Works quite well. The biggest Virtual Power Plant in Germany is the one of Statkraft (a Norwegian Company); it has about 8GW capacity.
That is a great point, and I do think that large scale transmission (closer to a global grid) and energy storage advancements are possible, but so far have suffered from a chick/egg problems. But even so I think there's a legit place for spot generation from whatever origin (probably methane powered turbines) in a balanced energy roadmap.
It probably could, if we spent enough resources on it. It's just not worth it, Nuclear is better for the environment.
Photovoltaics could not do it, no way. But solar thermal probably could. Storing power would require immense amounts of land for pumped water storage, but we could do it.
We'd also need huge amount of land for the solar collectors, but we could do it.
And huge amounts of copper for power lines and transformers. Again, possible.
But none of that is worth it, not when we have something as good as nuclear.
That must be news about how photovoltaics could not meet global energy needs. Last I'd read up, global capacity with realistic assumptions was 3 times current energy use. Also, it's already cheaper per kWh than nuclear (fully depreciated). Also, nuclear is non-renewable. It's still flipping the bird to future generations.
Perhaps you are conflating capacity with transmission and storage?
Also, I don't understand your response.
1.) what is "too much" energy.
2.) what's your source on solar thermal vs PV EROEI at scale?
3.) what's the relevance of the solar thermal vs PV comparison, since every building in the US can have solar on the roof but not solar thermal.
4.) what's the relevance of your response to what I said?
More energy than it costs to make them, or at least enough energy that it's better to build something else.
> what's your source on solar thermal vs PV EROEI at scale?
Solar thermal just needs a mirror (ideally aluminium rather than glass and silver) and the rest of the plant is the same as a regular power plant. A mirror costs less than fuel I'm sure.
Solar cells need ultra pure silicon which is very very expensive to make.
> what's the relevance of the solar thermal vs PV comparison, since every building in the US
can have solar on the roof
What would be the point if the energy return is not there?
> 4.) what's the relevance of your response to what I said?
I said they could meet global energy needs, just that it's not worth it. You assumed for some odd reason that I said they could not, so I figured you were asking about a comparison.
> Solar cells need ultra pure silicon which is very very expensive to make.
So sayeth the poster, sitting at a computer filed with the same kind of silicon out of which panels are made. The reason solar panels are so cheap to buy, is because they're cheap to build.
> What would be the point if the energy return is not there?
Everything except evidence that this is so. If solar panels didn't pay for themselves, people wouldn't buy them.
A reply to ars - a 1cm piece costs 200 dollars? Because I've got a solar pocket calculator here that I'm sure I picked up for £2 and I am pretty sure wasn't subsidised. Been doing its job for a very long time too...
> A piece about 1cm square costs $200 or more. Solar panels need square meters of the stuff.
Excuse me, but what planet are you posting from? Your claim above suggests that a monocrystalline silicon solar panel that's of average size (120 by 54 cm), 6480 sq. cm., should cost $200 per square centimeter, or 1.3 million dollars. In fact, such a panel costs $168.50:
"A piece about 1cm square costs $200 or more. Solar panels need square meters of the stuff."
And that would be a real problem if solar panels producers had to have microprocessors etched into panels, had to pay the scientists to design the processors, and had to build the plants to scale that process to industrial levels, like Intel.
Happily, they just have to buy an ingot of the stuff and cut it with a saw into a 250 micrometer by 1 meter squared (or so) piece. I will leave it as an exercise to you to verify the spot price of solar grade silicon is less than $30/kg.
So lets say a panel takes 250 micrometers * 1 meter * 1 meter * 2g/cm^3 (density of silicon) * $30 / kg (assuming spot prices and not long term contracts or internal sourcing). That's 250 cm^3 * 2g/cm^3 * $30/1000g, or $15 for a whole panel of the stuff.
Compared to what? Solar cells last a long time, and in sunny climates generate a lot of power, far more than enough to pay back the energy cost of their construction.
> Solar thermal at scale uses less energy for what it returns.
That may be true, but don't dismiss solar panels, in particular in remote locations where there's adequate sunlight.
"Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" [1] suggests renewables don't stand a chance at displacing conventional power generation without radical efficiency gains across the board and massive investment in infrastructure. They are not ready to drop in at massive scale.
As for Fukushima: I can't find a single source suggesting there is any danger short of eating fish caught right in front of the facility, which would indeed be a bad idea.
As far as I (with only an semi-educated opinion) can tell, renewable energy doesn't come with the steady output a nuclear plant provides. Either its not sunny enough (sudden cloud formations, bad weather) for solar panels or the wind calms so that wind turbines don't work.
Another issue is location, in my country (Germany) we have wind parks in the northern regions but the providers are having difficulties directing the power to where it's needed [citation needed].
Geothermal is available all the time. I'd like to read about what kind of difficulties they're experiencing directing power. Maybe it's a political problem, not a physical one.
Renewable is up there with nuclear for base load generation if one is not dumb about it, and it can be spooled up faster than nuclear because it doesn't depend on heat.
If we generate power some people are going to get hurt no matter which technology you pick. If we don't generate power some people are going to get hurt because we don't have access to the power necessary extend their lives.
Nuclear, hydroelectricity and wind have pretty much the best deaths per MWH, solar happens to be worse than nuclear.
Also it was of the type that melts down if the cooling water is lost. Other reactor designs (eg 3-mile island) need water to operate so they shut down automatically if there's any major breakdown.
Furthermore, coal is far more dangerous. We just don't care when thousands of Chinese coal miners die every year as much as we do when Japanese farmland is rendered unusable once in a lifetime.