Shared publicly  - 
102
82
William Harley's profile photoArt Wang's profile photoTeresa Claffey's profile photoNauka Znanost's profile photo
19 comments
 
Pretty nice - although I find it hard to say ecotricity with it morphing into atrocity.
 
Oh, hey,, that first section was in my city.
 
LOL, out with the old, and in with the....oh shit we don't have anything else, yet. Asinine. Don't even begin with solar and wind. Do the math, or show your ignorance.
 
But Wind mills need thousands of miles of land just to produce enough electricity for a single small city. The truth is Nuclear power is the most reliant power we can have. Even after the U-235 is used it can be buried and reused in 75 years again. The U-235 lasts at least 40 years.
 
and how do you propose we do this......
 
Like the video (cool animation always gets a vote) but agree with those saying "HOW?" Someday it will happen but until we get there we need to make current tech work!
 
Oops. By posting the video I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was a good idea.

Wind certainly has some place as an energy source. Anti-nuclear people protest all nuclear but what most of them are protesting are generation I-III reactors.

Upcoming Thorium / fast-breeder reactors are far better than previous generation reactors.
 
what? are you kidding? Nuclear sucks. Fusion in 30 years will be a different story though.


Meanwhile, back on planet earth:


In Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Renewable Energy Plans Are Clear. "...a nuclear phase-out by 2017, even faster than the current government plans, would be feasible without negative climate impacts."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/free-green-concepts/news/article/2011/03/germany-set-to-abandon-nuclear-power-for-good?cmpid=rss


According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), renewable energy — biofuels, geothermal, solar, water, wind — has passed a milestone as domestic production is now greater than that of nuclear power. http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/07/05/260805/u-s-renewable-energy-production-has-surpassed-nuclear/

Google CEO: "Renewable Energy Is Cheaper, Not Nuclear" (VIDEO) http://fora.tv/2008/10/01/Eric_Schmidt_Renewables_are_Cheaper_Not_Nuclear

Some good news-Globally Renewable Energy is Outstripping Coal and Nuclear http://www.celsias.com/article/globally-renewable-energy-coal-and-nuclear/

Renewable energy passes nuclear as U.S. power source http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2012/01/10/renewable-energy-passes-nuclear-as.html

Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good. It is betting billions on expanding the use of renewable energy to meet power demands instead. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/free-green-concepts/news/article/2011/03/germany-set-to-abandon-nuclear-power-for-good?cmpid=rss


Japan: 100% renewable energy. "By fully committing to wind, solar, and geothermal, Japan could cancel all planned nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, replace the existing ones, and power its transportation system with carbon-free domestic energy." http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2011/update94

In Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out, Renewable Energy Plans Are Clear. "...a nuclear phase-out by 2017, even faster than the current government plans, would be feasible without negative climate impacts." http://www.wri.org/stories/2011/06/germanys-nuclear-phase-out-renewable-energy-plans-are-clear
 
Those have nothing to do with whether Thorium or fast-breeder reactors are good or bettwr than current gen reactors.
 
I'll write something up later about all their advantages. With the knee jerk reactions to Japan, who knows if they'll end up being widely used.
 
From Wikipedia: "A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle with current or near term reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current state of nuclear technology, despite the potential benefits. Their report analyses only a fuel-rod based system: the LFTR design is not covered by this analysis and there is no discussion of the difference in fuel construction, initiation, processing, or waste disposal issues which are cited as advantageous by LFTR enthusiasts."

If you put solar panels on your home, you are in a sense democratizing energy. It is also distributed, comes online quickly and starts producing power right right away. It takes years if not decades to build a nuclear plant before it starts producing power. Then it produces power for 20 years and needs to be decommissioned which also takes a lot of time and money.


"Historic Crossover" - Report says Solar Energy Now Cheaper Than Nuclear Energy http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/

Nuclear Impractical — Global Price on Carbon & Solar Grid Parity to Change the World. It won’t be long until solar hits grid parity. And when it does, “the world changes,.. the world changes.” http://cleantechnica.com/2011/11/15/nuclear-impractical-global-price-on-carbon-solar-grid-parity-to-change-the-world-video/
 
Laugh. Do the math yourself. Wind generation cost per watt is lower thwn everything but coal generation for many regions including the region im in. Which is probably why i see a new windmill every month on my 11 mile commute.
 
+John Despujols I think you need to re-read my original comment about Thorium and fast-breeders. You are attacking a position never taken by me.

I didn't claim that nuclear was the future. The future of energy is too affected by the vagaries of politics and public opinion to be swayed by mere facts, thus it's hard to say with certainty anything about the future of energy.

My claim was that many (most?) anti-nuclear people base their analysis on decades old nuclear reactor technology...that is the Generation I-III designs. Most of the complaints leveled at those reactors don't hold for Gen IV or V reactor technology.

Additionally, the very Wikipedia quote you source seems to contradict your assertion that "Nuclear sucks".

There are many new thorium / fast-breeder reactors being initiated worldwide...just not in the US. China, India, Australia, Czechoslovakia are just a few with thorium reactors of varying types in the planning stages or under construction.

Thorium reactors have almost no waste (and the radioactive waste they do produce is valuable for non-proliferation type industry), are vastly simpler in design, and much safer than currently operating nuclear reactors.

How prolific they become has more to do with regulatory issues, public opinion, and how fast other technologies advance. Very little of their future proliferation has anything to do with them "sucking".

In short, your classic rhetorical technique of throwing a ton of sources into the wind (haha!) to counter your perceived opponents doesn't work because you're fighting a fight that doesn't exist.

I never claimed that wind or solar power wasn't any good. I never claimed that nuclear power would be the future of energy.
Add a comment...