Finding Solutions to Sustainable Energy: A Balancing Act

[yungman]

I am not against replacing fossil fuel, but we do NOT have a good solution yet. Why not build safer nuclear power plant? Or get into fusion power plant. I worked for a company as power of the Lawrence Livermore Fusion project back in 1979, still no result. Now they are fighting a losing battle. I am sure there are ways to make those power plant safe.

I don't believe they can put enough solar panel to support the cities unless they force every home owner to put up $20K+ to put solar panel on their roof. It's going to be very difficult particular for the working poor.

I don't even want to get into politics. I myself is all for putting in the money to put solar panel as soon as I can convince my big boss to do that.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is going to be hard to answer without invoking politics, which is generally verboten.

1. Nuclear power still leaves toxic byproducts, which really just pushes the problem down the road to our progeny, as we have always done.
2. A lot of people really don't like (read: won't support funding for) nukes.
3. It's not solar/wind versus nuclear. We can do all of them.
4. Fusion is on the development bench (right there behind personal jetpacks and flying cars).

 

[hutchphd]

Fusion is on the development bench (right there behind personal jetpacks and flying cars).

Except there are now marginally operational jetpacks and flying cars. But fusion is just a decade or so away (as it has remained my entire adult life !)

But our inability to form any coherent sustainability policy for energy (or much anything else) requires us to pursue fission with all vigor.

 

[yungman]

Except there are now marginally operational jetpacks and flying cars. But fusion is just a decade or so away (as it has remained my entire adult life !)

But our inability to form any coherent sustainability policy for energy (or much anything else) requires us to pursue fission with all vigor.

Like I said, I was working on the Fusion project in 1979. How can they not manage to do it after 40+ years. I don't want to get into politics, but for cry out loud, they could have done it. This is bad.

 

[DaveC426913]

Except there are now marginally operational jetpacks and flying cars.

A very good point!

An old saw that us fogies finally have to retire in favour of some new whippersnapper complaint like "when will all the clocks in the house not each be off by their own unique amounts?". No, that's a fogey thing too... Hmm. What were young whippersnappers promised and never got?

Oh yeah... affordable education and housing.

 

[yungman]

This is going to be hard to answer without invoking politics, which is generally verboten.

1. Nuclear power still leaves toxic byproducts, which really just pushes the problem down the road to our progeny, as we have always done.
2. A lot of people really don't like (read: won't support funding for) nukes.
3. It's not solar/wind versus nuclear. We can do all of them.
4. Fusion is on the development bench (right there behind personal jetpacks and flying cars).

So are disposing the old solar panel! Imagine after their life span, all of a sudden, mountains of old solar panels piling up.

Of cause I know people don't like nukes, but give me a real solution! They built mountains of windmills even in the 70s, where does that leave us? We got no solution.

The real sickening thing is the ones that get hurt the most going solar panel are the working poor. I don't believe it's going to happen for power company to go solar, imagine mountains of solar panel needed to power the bayarea. I am not going into the transmission line problem yet. It's NOT going to happen. Only way is to force every homeowner to put out $20K+ to put solar panel on top of their roof.

 

[DaveC426913]

So are disposing the old solar panel! Imagine after their life span, all of a sudden, mountains of old solar panels piling up.

Uh, Hang on. You're comparing actively-toxic, operating byproducts with inert, end-of-life materials? Apples; oranges?Also, presumably, solar panels can be recycled for their materials. What makes you think they'll just be thrown on a heap?

 

[yungman]

Uh, Hang on. You're comparing operating byproducts with lifetime recyclability? Apples; oranges.Also, presumably, solar panels can be recycled for their materials. What makes you think they'll just be thrown on a heap?

The problem is the problem, we have to think about all these just like we have to think about the danger of nuclear power plant. Those stuffs in solar panel are toxic also.

I don't know how other ways if all of a sudden the old panel get thrown out. They have to do something to remove the toxic stuffs even to recycle. It's not like there's nothing to worry about. It's going to be mountain pile if everyone have solar panels on their roof.

 

[DaveC426913]

we have to think about all these just like we have to think about the danger of nuclear power plant. Those stuffs in solar panel are toxic also.

We have to weigh the relative impact of the factors. It's not black and white.

 

[yungman]

We have to weigh the relative impact of the factors.

Question is have they? I am for all of the above.

BTW, why can't we make nuclear power plant safe? Why are we still idling on Fusion?

 

[DaveC426913]

Question is have they? I am for all of the above.

I'm not sure where you live. Where I live, 60% of our needs are met by nuclear power.

BTW, why can't we make nuclear power plant safe?

Because its products and byproducts are radioactive?

Why are we still idling on Fusion?

What makes you think we're "idling"? I get news in my science feed every week about advances in fusion tech.

 

[yungman]

I'm not sure where you live. Where I live, 60% of our needs are met by nuclear power.
View attachment 304899Because its products and byproducts are radioactive?What makes you think we're "idling"? I get news in my science feed every week about advances in fusion tech.

I live in the bayarea, I don't think we have nuclear power here.

Still talking about fusion after 40+years and no result?

 

[DaveC426913]

I live in the bayarea, I don't think we have nuclear power here.

Have you considered moving to a place whose energy policy is more in line with your views?

Still talking about fusion after 40+years and no result?

OK, so it's a tough nut to crack...

Is there more to say? (I guess not by me, so I'll step back.)

 

[berkeman]

I live in the bayarea, I don't think we have nuclear power here.

This is the closest facility to us, I think here in Norcal, but it's inland with no access to natural water cooling, so I don't think it's for power generation:

Probably the closest is in San Luis Obispo on the coast?

 

[berkeman]

What makes you think we're "idling"? I get news in my science feed every week about advances in fusion tech.

As do I -- my new Google Pixel 6 phone wants to tell me about all kinds of new advances like fusion when I wake up in the morning. Have you found one instance of substantive new science when you click into those Google news stories?

 

[DaveC426913]

Have you found one instance of substantive new science when you click into those Google news stories?

Well when you say it like tHaT ...

 

[yungman]

This is the closest facility to us, I think here in Norcal, but it's inland with no access to natural water cooling, so I don't think it's for power generation:
View attachment 304905
Probably the closest is in San Luis Obispo on the coast?

Ha ha, that's too too far away. Put it bluntly, if there is a will to do it, it can be done many years ago, be it nuclear or fusion. It's NOTHING new. Like I said, I worked on the fusion project in 1979. It's 43 years ago. Come on.

Want to bet, 20 years later, fusion is still a "working progress".

 

[pinball1970]

Ha ha, that's too too far away. Put it bluntly, if there is a will to do it, it can be done many years ago, be it nuclear or fusion. It's NOTHING new. Like I said, I worked on the fusion project in 1979. It's 43 years ago. Come on.

Want to bet, 20 years later, fusion is still a "working progress".

Agree.
Global warming is our biggest threat right now not nuclear waste. Build more power stations properly and maintain them with trained technologists and scientists.
Scrimp on them and you will be asking for trouble.
Our grandkids will work out what to do with the waste.

 

[russ_watters]

As do I -- my new Google Pixel 6 phone wants to tell me about all kinds of new advances like fusion when I wake up in the morning. Have you found one instance of substantive new science when you click into those Google news stories?

I've been seeing a lot of those too. I've read a few...no, I'm seeing lots of hype, but nothing suggesting a deployable fusion solution is imminent.

 

[russ_watters]

Public opinion on this issue has been steered by activists who often have a thin understanding of the issues and mixed motives. That leads to the general public having a very flawed understanding of the issues. But they've won the battle, so we don't seem to be primed for a change in path. My fear is this path will not lead to fixing climate change. I'm afraid that in 30 years we'll still have a near 50% fossil fuel electrical system that is also more expensive and less reliable.

 

[yungman]

Public opinion on this issue has been steered by activists who often have a thin understanding of the issues and mixed motives. That leads to the general public having a very flawed understanding of the issues. But they've won the battle, so we don't seem to be primed for a change in path. My fear is this path will not lead to fixing climate change. I'm afraid that in 30 years we'll still have a near 50% fossil fuel electrical system that is also more expensive and less reliable.

That's the problem, I don't necessary believe in burning fossil fuel necessary cause huge problem in the short term like they predicted the world would freeze over by 1980, ocean will rise in the 90s, then climate change to cover their butt. BUT, I do believe burning fossil fuel got to affect climate to a certain extend with all the extra C02. It is prudent to reduce C02.

I am for less depending on fossil fuel, the problem is like you said, they absolutely refuse to go back to nuke, which is still possible, BUT do pushing for the safer Fusion, that is STUPID. I don't buy into that they cannot make it work for 40+ years. Like I said, I worked in a company designing and built all the power supplies for Lawrence Livermore Lab in late 70s. Why is it still not working?

The way they are going, they will NEVER remove fossil fuel. Sad part is what they are pushing, it hurts the working poor the most. Power company using solar panel is a pipe dream. For big cities like the in the bayarea, where is PG&E going to put the solar panel? It might work for smaller state where population is low, have a lot of land around cities to put lots of solar panel. Imagine NYC area, where are they going to put the solar panel? The ONLY way is to:
1) Fool people to buy electric car like now.
2) Overload the transmission line and generator and cause brownout.
3) People cannot charge their cars.
4) The service secter people have no choice but to put $20K+ to put solar panel on their houses because they usually cannot work from home. And also they've been FOOLED into buying an expensive electric car already, they have no choice.

For professional people(likely people on this thread) that have money to put solar panel, we can work at home. I did a 1 1/2yr. contract working 100% at home. It's the WORKING POOR that is suffering. I don't think the climate change people care for the working poor.

Just watch, this is going to back fire, people will change their minds, this might likely backfire on the cause of climate change and further delay this as people likely changing their mind against the whole thing when they suffer enough. Look at the news how people are suffering everyday because of the gas price.

 

[Bandersnatch]

like they predicted the world would freeze over by 1980, ocean will rise in the 90s, then climate change to cover their butt.

Those are all myths.
I.e. it's a myth there was any sort of scientific consensus that an ice age is imminent. There were a handful of papers around the 70s, presenting, shall we say, tenuous evidence in support (example), while in the background everyone was talking about global warming.
It's a myth that anyone invented ocean rise as a problem that didn't happen. Again, papers discussing this go back way further than the 90s, and the ongoing sea level rise is well-documented (but the public does overestimate its magnitude).
It's also a myth that climate change is something new or different (the narrative being, 'they' are changing the name to cover their failures).
All of this can be checked with a few minutes spent skimming the literature on Google Scholar.

 

[yungman]

Those are all myths.
I.e. it's a myth there was any sort of scientific consensus that an ice age is imminent. There were a handful of papers around the 70s, presenting, shall we say, tenuous evidence in support (example), while in the background everyone was talking about global warming.
It's a myth that anyone invented ocean rise as a problem that didn't happen. Again, papers discussing this go back way further than the 90s, and the ongoing sea level rise is well-documented (but the public does overestimate its magnitude).
It's also a myth that climate change is something new or different (the narrative being, 'they' are changing the name to cover their failures).
All of this can be checked with a few minutes spent skimming the literature on Google Scholar.

That's what they based on all the protests. Thanks to those people. I don't want to name names. I predict it's going to back fire big this time. When people are going to go hungry because of the expensive energy(gas, solar panels), they will rebel. Who cares about the world is going to end in the future if they are hungry today.

 

[hutchphd]

It's also a myth that climate change is something new or different (the narrative being, 'they' are changing the name to cover their failures).

That's what they based on all the protests. Thanks to those people. I don't want to name names. I predict it's going to back fire big this time.

In 1975 I personally heard Carl Sagan accurately lay out our climate predicament with almost uncanny prescience. He was a scientist par excellence not a purveyer of myth.
Fusion power in the near term is the very definition of myth. Fool me once...

 

[yungman]

In 1975 I personally heard Carl Sagan accurately lay out our climate predicament with almost uncanny prescience. He was a scientist par excellence not a purveyer of myth.
Fusion power in the near term is the very definition of myth. Fool me once...

Most people just listen to who's the loudest, that's what people heard about world is going to end over and over. Even now, all the protest are talking about irreversible harm in so many years and all that, exactly like world is going to freeze over in 1980, ice cap is going to melt in the 1990s and all that.

People can say it's myth, but those have been very loud through the years one after the other. You seriously think people will double check all the scientific journals?

BTW, if people really want to clean the air, look to China, India etc. Not at USA or Europe.

 

[gmax137]

Probably the closest is in San Luis Obispo on the coast?

That's right, at least for now. Since politics is off limits, anyone interested in the future of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plants will have to do their own research.

Public opinion on this issue has been steered by activists who often have a thin understanding of the issues and mixed motives. That leads to the general public having a very flawed understanding of the issues. But they've won the battle, so we don't seem to be primed for a change in path.

I agree with this. Nuclear power was first associated with the military-industrial complex and nuclear weapons. It is easy to be "against" those. Nuclear power plant finances push for large central stations, and the safe control and disposition of the used fuel rely on stable government and the rule of law. It was easy to be "against" that, especially in the 1960s and 1970s. So, it was always "cool" to be against nuclear power.

My fear is this path will not lead to fixing climate change. I'm afraid that in 30 years we'll still have a near 50% fossil fuel electrical system that is also more expensive and less reliable.

I think this is almost a certainty.

 

[berkeman]

Thread is closed temporarily for Moderation...

Update -- After a Mentor discussion, the thread will remain closed.

Update_2 -- The Mentors were asked for an explanation for why the thread was closed. Basically from the beginning it was based on an unsourced and sweeping strawman argument, and near the end, it was heading for a flame war. It was getting to be too much work to try to Moderate it.