Applying the Reality Test

I've been off-line for a while, doing some heavy background reading.  And I find several disturbing situations.  First, there seems to be an unstated premise that the whole energy/climate question just arose, and the new people just getting into it are expressing some of the first thoughts on the subject.  Little recognition is given to the fact that 36 years (so far) of heavily subsidized R & D on this topic followed the world crisis posed by the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.  Careful evaluation of the experience and lessons of those decades, should proceed drawing any conclusions from the situation of 2009.

Second, nuclear seems to have become a dirty word.  It is seldom mentioned any more in discussions of "how to get away from dependence on fossil fuels."

Third, an unquestioned goal seems to be to use many different types of energy sources, although the facts seem to indicate otherwise.

Although there is emphasis on new and exotic sciences throughout, the paleo-technologies wind and sunshine  are increasingly emphasized as the probable energy sources of choice.

Some of the detailed reports mention "show-stoppers" that bring into question the basic feasibility of using the energy source in question. They involve mundane subjects, like transporting biofuels from the field to the customer, or transmitting solar electricity from the western deserts to the New England power plants.  But the questions they raise must not be glossed over. They must be capable of being answered realistically in the commercial world, or the large-scale use of those energy sources are nothing but expensive pipe-dreams.

So, my next few posts will consider these topics, one at a time, and look for your input.  I will word the questions provocatively, but the discussions will be on a factual basis, not on unsubstantiated opinions.  I will introduce some interesting papers and sites, and will try hard to keep the discussion to factual matters that can be answered factually.

It is, you know, possible to agree on facts and still differ as to their implications.  But it is much more useful to clarify the facts than yell about differences of opinions.

First post of this series coming up soon.  Please join us.

Comments

[Zack M]

I look forward to your future posts. I am convinced that only nuclear holds the power to revitalize the economy and environment. Maybe in the distant future advances in nanotechnology will allow for the invention of a paint-like photovoltaic solar substance that can be quickly sprayed across the desert, that doesn't wear away or need to be cleaned. Perhaps it can be used to charge super-energy dense batteries for when the sun doesn't shine. But right now, we need several miracles to get solar to work. And other sources, even wind, can't provide more than about a terawatt each, even though the globe will need 30 terawatts by 2050. As for fusion, zero-point energy, etc, it may happen long-term, and we should invest in those areas, but nuclear is the only realistic option right now.
In the entire world right now, there are 10 square miles of solar panels with 5,000 megawatts of capacity. But because the sun only shines on them about 20% of the time, they produce 1,000 megawatts-- less than a single GE-Hitachi boiling water reactor rated at 1,100 megawatts!

[R Margolis]

I still recall in a solar energy class the instructor talking about the various times that solar and wind were reconsidered. He argued that "this time for sure" solar would be back. After class I told him my reading of history was that folks did go nostalgic for solar during each energy transition, but in the end the higher energy density source own out.

By the way, that discussion was in the 80's and natural gas became the fuel for over a decade. I am convinced that nuclear will expand once natural gas prices are shown to be too volatile. I would not be surprised if the shale gas craze also turns a bust as any exponential use would rapidly deplete the gas fields as we did in the 80's and 90's.

Looking forward to your next posts.

[Jerry Cuttler]

There is a considerable amount of realistic information in the publication: Nuclear Energy and Health, but it is not likely that people will believe it. After all, the public has been misled for more than 50 years.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2664640&tool=pmcentrez
Jerry Cuttler