Dear Scumbria:
I have followed the alternative energy sources. The only ones that work seem to get the environmentalists up in arms. All resources are in a sense limited but lets look at all of the alternatives given to replace oil:
1) Coal. This nation has the largest reserves of coal in the world (Russia has the 2nd largest I believe). Current problems that the "environmentalists" have with it are first, the production of C02 (global warming, etc.), second, the production of SO2 (acid rain), third, ash (only allowed way is to landfill it and they don't like that either), fourth, radon emissions (the environmentalists conveniently forget this one whenever nuclear comes up but, all coal fired power plants produce far more radiation releases than three mile island), fifth, ozone production (just talk to the east coast about ozone and air quaility problems from midwestern power plants), sixth, the inconvenient fact that coal fired power plants do blow up (less often but, it still happens especially with explosive coal dust (nuclear plants are built to far higher standards)) and seventh, thermal pollution (hard to get rid of this one without increasing N02 production). Hard to use for mobile apps without being bigger than stationary plants at the effects listed above except radon emissions.
2) Natural Gas. First, getting rare although many other sources not tapped yet (oil shale would generate far larger quantities), second, N02 emissions (comes from the high temperatures in most gas turbines), third, CO2 generation (although methane is a greater greenhouse gas), and fourth higher blow up potential than coal fired power (ever see a natural gas explosion or fire?). Also it is more expensive for power generation than coal and is hard to store for mobile use. It could be used in fuel cells but, they are quite expensive (over 10K for 75KW (100HP equivalent)).
3) Solar. First, manufacture involves large quantities of very poisonous materials and processes, and second, looks ugly (some environmentalists complain about it). More problems exists for commercial use. Large areas required, cost per output watt very high (3x to 10x or more), needs storage for night and bad weather at site, transmission requirements (good sites far from heavy use), good predictability of future production, and calculations show that at current efficiencies to replace 1TW just for electric power use would require 100,000 km2 of land minimum (that is 25 million acres at at least $4 million an acre ($100 trillion dollars)). Also needs same infrastucture of energy storage as ZEVs (electric cars) would. Many of these problems would be solved by space based versions but, require at leats a trillion dollars up front and receiver attennas down on earth.
4) Wind. First, kills birds (yeah they seem to run into the blades alot), and second, unsightly (talk to landowners near one as they claim it would lower property values (happened here between Fond du Lac and Milwaukee for a WEPCO project)). Technical people point out that the generators are expensive, its hard to find good places where the winds blow 11 MPH (the current breakeven point) or greater on average, most of the energy in high winds (the best time to get it) is lost when the wind exceeds the limit (it actually stops spinning to save the blades (this is due to size of the generator would need to be 50 to 100 times bigger than what is needed for the average power and more than that for the amount produced at mean wind speed (read very expensive))(also solving this would rule out direct conversion to fixed freq AC (double conversion wind to DC to AC is possible but at a loss of efficiency))), the turbines currently in use are a high maintenance item, and the very unpredictability of wind. Some of these would be solved if, conversion to some storable fuel (most likely hydrogen) was used instead of putting directly on the grid. The problem of finding good sites make this unlikely to replace oil or normal power plants due to the siting issues and even when those are met, electricity costs about 4x than coal fired power.
5) Hydropower. First, habitat changes (temperature of the water colder than normal, flows too variable, barriers to fish migration, flooding of land, and many more (snail darter)), second, potential for disaster (dam breaks), and third, increased evaporation. Technical problems, sites now harder to find, expensive to maintain aging structures (some are owned by no one), siltification, low head dams are very hazardous (fatal) to people and animals, transmission problems (sites typically are far from major users), and transportation barriers to waterborne craft. Most likely, hydropower will now shrink as many dams are no longer viable.
6) Nuclear. First, radiation (horror stories abound but well run plants are less environmentally dangerous than the current options), second, waste (this is a government problem as the best way to reduce the problem is to reprocess the resulting fuel rods. The large amounts of reusable materials (Pu-239 and U-235) can be returned for more generation with less cost than simply burying it. The materials with low half-lifes will be non radioactive in less than 100 years (probably sooner) leaving very little left that needs long term storage (the longest U-238, U-235, and Pu-239 will be burned up by continued use (only the waste products that stopped the reaction with over 95% still remaining are removed)) thus, only 1 to .1% needs the Yucca mountain solution (the government does not allow anyone but itself to reprocess as one the byproducts is Plutonium (not weapons grade) and it does not do it)), third, thermal pollution (here too), and lastly, public fear (greatly exaggerated by Hollywood and is justified for the government run weapons production facilities (the military got away with it)). Technical problems, public fear causes over emphasis on building codes and licenses that are far beyond reasonableness make it very expensive to near impossible, government stupidity on not reprocessing used nuclear fuel rods (either by monitored companies or doing it itself), and waste problems caused by government inaction. Good designs exist that get rid of the U-238 by making it into burnable Pu-239, are much safer than the pressurized water reactors currently approved, are more efficient due to the high temperatures in gas cooled methods, closed loop solves most of the gas turbine problems and allow that the turbogenerators to be placed in the containment area, and shutdown could be done merely by flooding with sand or water. Before all the hurdles were raised up, nuclear is the cheapest currently viable source. This country is either number one or two in proven uranium deposits (with reprocessing, the available energy is over a thousand times that of all of the oil used to date and in proven reserves so far).
7) Deuturium or hydrogen fusion. First is radiation (although much less than nuclear by far) and second is thermal pollution. Technical problems, with available resources, not yet viable, energy extraction method unknown, and viability is unpredictable. Given resources equivalent to Manhatten project, we now could build a commercially fesiable plant (it would be very massive but doable (no one wants to spend the money ($100 Billion or so))) of about 100 GW or so. Fuel is not a problem (all the world oceans are about .1% deuturium and 11% hydrogen) and at 425 billion joules per gram of D2, (116,000 KWH or about 3,000 barrels of oil) enough energy for the forseeable future.
Only 6 and later 7 are truly viable. One we do not seem to like and the other is not here yet. Here is hoping for 7 (UW Madison is part of the facilities in R&D).
Pete |
