# Anti-Fossil Fuel, Anti-Nuke People: What's the Solution to Our Energy Problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882 "2011-04-01T23:31:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/161 "2011-04-07T05:46:08Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Lack of fuel may limit U.S. nuclear power expansion | MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology](http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/fuel-supply.html) As a matter of fact, there is not plenty of fuel available as this MIT article will explain. There will be problems with getting fuel in the near future let alone down the line . What that article means is that the demand for uranium wasn’t high, so a lot of production shut down. When the price goes up, production returns. It’s a temporary artificial shortage, not an actual shortage of easily mine-able uranium in nature. Part of the reason for the drop in price and fall off of production was because the US and Russia are sitting on tons of cold war-era nuclear fuel. We’re starting to burn through some of that now. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/162 "2011-04-07T06:13:28Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > What!!! That’s unpossible! Whatever happened to the $112,680.66 cost? You mean it could be _going down_ and going down fast? :eek: 😃 First, it has to go down in price A LOT! A lot a lot. Has a ways to go to be cost competitive. Yes we have been told of spray-on cheap solar cells. Sounds great…where can I get some? Second, so far this is pie-in-the-sky stuff. Build a test plant. Do a proof of concept. Show it can run whole cities day AND night. Show it can do it at a competitive cost. Make no mistake. I am all for this stuff. Some of the new tech is cool and I want to see research and progress continue. I absolutely think the future energy mix needs to be a combination of sources. If you have access to geo-thermal go for it. Tidal power go for it. All that stuff will mitigate how many primary power plants are needed. If they get so good they can replace them completely then great! Thing is no one has shown that they can replace fossil fuel/nuclear plants at anything remotely like a rational price. The “incentives” in the calculator for solar we have been using tells that story. Spray-on solar cells at $0.05/Kw sounds great. If it can be done super. If they can provide power at night even better.\ Show us it can be done. Done on an industrial scale. If the tech looks good I am all for the government spending money to pursue it. Right now though it is not ready for primetime. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/163 "2011-04-07T14:00:57Z")
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope] What!!! That’s unpossible! Whatever happened to the $112,680.66 cost? You mean it could be going down and going down fast? [/QUOTE] You didn’t actually read that article, did you? You opened it up and read the title and then just moved on, relying on your preconceptions to carry the day. Here is what DSeid’s link ACTUALLY says: > [@](#): > > DOE to award more than $110M to SunShot consortia to advance solar photovoltaic manufacturing in the US > [@](#): > > As part of the SunShot Initiative, the US Department of Energy has selected three consortia for up to $112.5 million in funding over five years to support the development of advanced solar photovoltaic (PV)-related manufacturing processes throughout the United States. This is, of course, in the first paragraph…it’s an award to research and develop technology to a number of vendors. I HOPE the problem is that you didn’t bother reading it. Here is what the DOE HOPES to do with these programs: > [@](#): > > DOE’s SunShot Initiative aims to reduce the total costs of photovoltaic solar energy systems by about 75% so that they are cost competitive at large scale with other forms of energy without subsidies by the end of the decade. Achieving this goal—equivalent to approximately $1 a watt or roughly 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for utility systems—would allow solar energy systems to be broadly deployed across the country, the DOE says They AIM to reduce costs…see, costs today, in the real world, are high. Paint on solar panels are still being researched and developed…you can’t, you know, buy them today. So, the DOE is giving away a big pot of money in the HOPE that some of the vendors getting the awards will use that money to make breakthroughs. This won’t happen the day after the vendors get the grants…or the day after that. It will happen when it happens. And we won’t instantly get the benefits of those breakthroughs…assuming there are any that achieves the ‘aims’ they are looking for. -XT ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/164 "2011-04-07T14:42:52Z")
Indeed, it _could_ result in solar becoming cost competitive. And I hope it does. It is a smart investment. Meanwhile another [link of interest](http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2011/04/04/ubs-fukushima-is-worse-for-the-nuclear-industry-than-chernobyl/). > [@](#): > > There has been a great deal of commentary in the last few weeks that the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima plant is not as bad as the Chernobyl meltdown. > > We can only hope that prediction proves correct. But for the nuclear industry, say the analysts at UBS, the consequences are already even worse. … > > The report predictably forecasts that safety regulations will be tightened, adding that plants’ life extensions will likely be legally limited with many plants forced to shutdown in a bid to appease public anger – naming 30 which are particularly vulnerable. > > Even more significantly- especially for investors in nuclear providers - the UBS analysts argue there could be an entire re-evaluation of the risk of nuclear companies, both by governments and insurers. > > This could mean not just higher operating costs for operators, but a greater chance that if the worst should happen, procedures will have been put in place to make sure there is no taxpayer bail-out … > > … investors will need to adjust to the new reality of nuclear operators being significantly more risky than other utilities. … > > … In general, UBS argues the big winners from Fukushima will be gas, and to a lesser extent coal and renewables. The losers will be nuclear, consumers (through higher power costs) – and the environment. We’ll see if their predictions pan out. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/165 "2011-04-07T14:46:18Z")
I hope it does too, and I agree that it’s something that we should be investing in and DOE seems to be doing a good job here with these grants. Hopefully something will come out of it. -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/166 "2011-04-07T16:48:51Z")
[Alternative-Energy-News.info domain is for sale | Buy with Epik.com](http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/technology/solar-power/photo-voltaics/) There are lots of interesting and exciting new strides in alternative energies. The argument that solar can not replace all of coal or nuke today is unfair. It is an evolving technology with frequent breakthroughs that will be extremely important in the future. There are lots of important strides being taken in alternative energy. The Luddites that tout nuclear just insist of clinging to a dream that never materialized. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/167 "2011-04-07T16:49:40Z")
You don’t actually know what a ‘Luddite’ is, do you? 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/168 "2011-04-07T16:56:02Z")
Well, obviously, they like Ludd. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/169 "2011-04-07T16:58:05Z")
Depends on whether you are a Pube or a Gray I guess… -XT ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 7, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/170 "2011-04-07T17:22:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You don’t actually know what a ‘Luddite’ is, do you? 😛 > > -XT I know! I know! A Luddite is fixated with and [turned on by this](http://www.netl.doe.gov/newsroom/100yr/images/EarlyZirconiumReactor_lg.jpg). Anti-Luddites are [more like this](http://renewablegirls.com/). ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/171 "2011-04-08T17:32:42Z")
Here is some efficiency news, about [Facebook’s new energy-saving server](http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/data_centers/229401209) and data center designs. > [@](#): > > Facebook claimed Thursday to have manufactured a more energy-conserving server for its new data center than either its predecessor data center or the servers typically constructed by mainstream server suppliers… > > The result may be an ongoing arms race among the biggest companies on the Web – Facebook, Google, [Amazon.com](http://Amazon.com) – to build not only the biggest but also the most efficient data centers on earth. It’s starting to look like Efficiency™ is going to eventually kick nuclear \*and \*wind’s asses. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/172 "2011-04-08T17:57:59Z")
[http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/](http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/) There is the Bloom Box. It was on 560 minutes and supplies energy to several large companies. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/173 "2011-04-08T18:03:35Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [Customers - Bloom Energy](http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/) > There is the Bloom Box. It was on 560 minutes and supplies energy to several large companies. I’d be interested in better efficiency numbers than “\>50%” which is all their data sheet says. I know the most modern combined-cycle gas turbine plants are approaching 60%. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/174 "2011-04-08T21:34:33Z")
**gonzo** what exactly is your relevant point with the Bloom Box? In terms of power generation it is at best a small relatively less efficient natural gas supplied electricity generator. Its advantage to users is that it provides insulation from transmission inadequacies and from system disruptions. Reliable power in times of questionable infrastructure. Who know? Maybe long term it saves money for a factory or a large apartment complex or a subdivision to pay for the natural gas and produce their own electricity. But the prevention of distribution losses does not save as much CO2 as the decreased efficiency produces compared to centralized production. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/175 "2011-04-09T00:02:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **gonzo** what exactly is your relevant point with the Bloom Box? > > In terms of power generation it is at best a small relatively less efficient natural gas supplied electricity generator. Its advantage to users is that it provides insulation from transmission inadequacies and from system disruptions. Reliable power in times of questionable infrastructure. Who know? Maybe long term it saves money for a factory or a large apartment complex or a subdivision to pay for the natural gas and produce their own electricity. But the prevention of distribution losses does not save as much CO2 as the decreased efficiency produces compared to centralized production. Based on the imprecision of Bloom’s claims, I’m not sure whether your last statement is true. On the other hand, the LNG infrastructure is differently inefficient than the grid, but the inefficiencies are still there (just in the power required to maintain pressures etc instead of structural transmission losses). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/176 "2011-04-09T01:30:33Z")
Well I am trying to find out more specific comparisons … Bloom’s fact sheet claims “CO2@ specified efficiency 773 lbs/MW-hr on natural gas” but does not state what that specified efficiency is. That would, if accurate in real world applications (rather than only at “specified efficiency”) be really good, about as good as [combined cycle natural gas plant CO2 emissions](http://www.anga.us/media/41090/m45%20-%20cleaner%20environment.pdf) of 760, and better than simple cycle of 1140, let alone coal of 2028. And sparing that much transmission infrastructure demand is not a bad thing. They claim they can get the cost down to $3000/kW but for now the cost before incentives is estimated to be [$12,500/kW](http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/01/bloom-box-cost/) installed. Including the 10year warranty. [In 2007 solar cost about $8000 installed](http://www.wind-works.org/Solar/SolarPVCurrentInstalledPricesperkWinCaliforniaElsewhere.html), had no fuel costs, and installations are supposed to last longer. They are not 24/7 however, not unless you also spring for enough some storage batteries. Then again, being tied into the grid and just displacing what you’d use daytime from an average US generating mix would still displace more CO2 I think. No magic bullet. Maybe a magic pea shooter. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/177 "2011-04-09T04:09:43Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Well I am trying to find out more specific comparisons … > > Bloom’s fact sheet claims “CO2@ specified efficiency 773 lbs/MW-hr on natural gas” but does not state what that specified efficiency is. > > That would, if accurate in real world applications (rather than only at “specified efficiency”) be really good, about as good as [combined cycle natural gas plant CO2 emissions](http://www.anga.us/media/41090/m45%20-%20cleaner%20environment.pdf) of 760, and better than simple cycle of 1140, let alone coal of 2028. And sparing that much transmission infrastructure demand is not a bad thing. Interesting. I have no major beefs with that source, mainly it would be nice to know what efficiency they’re assuming for each technology (you need not look it up for me, I’ll get the paper from my librarian on Monday.) They cite a report from 2010, so I’d have to hope it’s somewhat up to date on combined cycle efficiency. Shame that you had to do gonzomax’ legwork. Again. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/178 "2011-04-09T04:30:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > So, ‘obsolete model’ means ‘economically cost effective’? 😛 You do realize that trying to build a distributed power generation system costs a lot more than building a centralized one, right? What would it cost (leaving aside the materials you’d need) to put a wind turbine or solar panel on, say, 1/10th of the buildings in the US? How many wind turbines or solar panels would that be? There are 10’s or 100’s of millions of buildings in the US…and my own solar panels (which doesn’t even cover 20% of my needs btw, though gives me some good tax credits) costs $12k…USED…and I installed them myself, with the help of my dad and a EE friend of mine. Do…the…math… > > Define ‘lots of people’. What standard of living are they getting ‘off the grid’? The one’s I know (and I know a few) lead very minimalist lifestyles (and are, frankly, a bit strange). Not something the average American (or European for that matter) is going to be happy with. > > You said that in the Pit but have yet to provide a cite to put the statement in context. What will it cost? How long will it take to implement? What are it’s backups? How much for maintenance. And, the thing is, even if all is true and all exactly as you stated, you have to realize that not every place has the exact conditions that the Empire State Building has…right? > > -XT Do you understand that solar power goes on a house or a company building. That is the model for the future. Solar panels need to be cleaned. Homeowners should replace everything that needs replacing with a alternate energy system. like this [http://solar.altestore.com/energy/Solar%20Hot%20Water%20Tank](http://solar.altestore.com/energy/Solar%20Hot%20Water%20Tank) Bloom boxes run some of the biggest corporate buildings. the point is they are off the grid. No transmission necessary. [Customers - Bloom Energy](http://www.bloomenergy.com/customers/) ---
**Author:** ![pinguin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ac8455/32.png) [@pinguin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pinguin)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/179 "2011-04-09T04:40:41Z")
Solutions? For energy generation: (1) Nuclear fusion. (2) Solar satellites. (3) Sea current power generation. (4) Geotermal energy. (5) Solar panels in every roof and wall. For energy distribution. (1) modern batteries. (2) fuel cells. There aren’t many options left, actually. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2011, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/180 "2011-04-09T04:53:32Z")
[http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/off-grid-homes.php](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/off-grid-homes.php) Here is one option. It is the best one if you can afford it. It is going off the grid one home at a time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=10)