the way we generate energy

[Black Sheep]

I was amazed to find by an engineer friend of mine,that all energy-producing techniques follow the same pattern:
1)Do sth that produces heat
2)Heat & water -> steam
3)turbines


Is that really the only way/best we can do?

[pranabjyoti]

I was amazed to find by an engineer friend of mine,that all energy-producing techniques follow the same pattern:
1)Do sth that produces heat
2)Heat & water -> steam
3)turbines


Is that really the only way/best we can do?
What you have said is true about thermal power plants and most of electricity we are using in our everyday life comes from thermal power plants. Among those plants, fossil fuel based power plants leads and actually reigns supreme, solar thermal and other alternative fuel based methods are now negligible in comparison.
Some twist and turns may enhance the process a great degree. By vacuum evaporating water, the latent heat of vaporization of water can be collected from surrounding atmosphere and thus the amount of fuel needed can be greatly reduced.

[mikelepore]

The basic rule that dominates (from Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction) is you have to make relative motion between a coil and a magnet. Either hold the magnet still and move the coil, or hold the coil still and move the magnet. So the problem becomes one of acquiring a lot of repeated motion by any method. When burning a fuel or when using nuclear fission, they use the heat to make steam that will produce the motion. At Niagara Falls, etc. they use the drop in elevation of a river to produce the motion. A lot more imagination would be helpful. Industrial society should put out the word to everyone: let's all try to think of creative new ways to use what nature provides to produce some relative motion between two objects. I doubt that all of the possible methods have already been investigated.

[pranabjyoti]

The basic rule that dominates (from Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction) is you have to make relative motion between a coil and a magnet. Either hold the magnet still and move the coil, or hold the coil still and move the magnet. So the problem becomes one of acquiring a lot of repeated motion by any method. When burning a fuel or when using nuclear fission, they use the heat to make steam that will produce the motion. At Niagara Falls, etc. they use the drop in elevation of a river to produce the motion. A lot more imagination would be helpful. Industrial society should put out the word to everyone: let's all try to think of creative new ways to use what nature provides to produce some relative motion between two objects. I doubt that all of the possible methods have already been investigated.
The problem with your suggestion is if you some good idea, then you need funding i.e. capital to test it. Specially, experiments regarding experimentation of new energy generation technology is a costly business. And the problem is those who have and can conceive new ideas, rarely have the money to test it.

[pranabjyoti]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6938422.html
This kind is the future of electricity generation. Though this technology is crude and at the infancy.

[Zav]

I was amazed to find by an engineer friend of mine,that all energy-producing techniques follow the same pattern:
1)Do sth that produces heat
2)Heat & water -> steam
3)turbines


Is that really the only way/best we can do?
Solar, tidal, and current energy don't use that process.

[Q]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6938422.html
This kind is the future of electricity generation. Though this technology is crude and at the infancy.


A system for generating mechanical and or electric power using low grade thermal or electro-magnetic energy reservoirs, such as air, water and incident light to fuel the power generation cycle. The system performs in a manor similar to a refrigeration cycle. But the system differs from a refrigeration cycle because the system extracts the thermal energy absorbed from the reservoir and energy of compression using the turbine/motor. Greater than 105% of the energy for compression will be available from the system when the appropriate system geometrics are used.
Ehm? How is that possible?

[pranabjyoti]

Ehm? How is that possible?
Have you read the description of the patent?

[Q]

Have you read the description of the patent?

Yeah, I quoted it in full in my previous post. Maybe I'm missing something?

[ckaihatsu]

Ehm? How is that possible?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_performance

[Invictus_88]

The problem with your suggestion is if you some good idea, then you need funding i.e. capital to test it. Specially, experiments regarding experimentation of new energy generation technology is a costly business. And the problem is those who have and can conceive new ideas, rarely have the money to test it.

France did it with nuclear, though. The gov't poured in a huge amount of money into getting nuclear energy research hammered out in the 1970s and as a consequence they not only have comparatively cheap domestic energy and profitably export that energy to the UK, but the skills and infrastructure they have developed make France a very competitive country in winning contracts to build nuclear power stations for other countries.

The initial amounts of funding required are pretty eye-watering, but the long term benefits of successfully cornering the market in a non-fossil-fuel energy source are - it seems - very significant, and probably better value than the £1,500,000,000,000 we "invested" in the banking system lately.

[pranabjyoti]

Yeah, I quoted it in full in my previous post. Maybe I'm missing something?
It's a patent granted technology and I think they (patent examiners) have idea about thermodynamics. You better read the whole process and ask the patent examiners how the patent was granted as it apparently violates 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[ckaihatsu]

---





There *is* a dynamic called 'increasing returns' wherein a certain amount of action put forth in the right place at the right time will yield sustaining, possibly growing, payoffs due to beneficial conditions around it -- planting a seed would be one example, and that plastic bird toy repeatedly dunking its beak in a glass of water ("perpetual motion") would be another.

[Rowan Duffy]

I was amazed to find by an engineer friend of mine,that all energy-producing techniques follow the same pattern:
1)Do sth that produces heat
2)Heat & water -> steam
3)turbines


Is that really the only way/best we can do?


(1) can be used to drive processes other than (2) by heating other substances than water. Helium and CO2 and other gases can been used to drive Brayton cycles.

We can also go from (1) directly to electricity through either the thermionic effect, or using a Seebeck, Peltier or Thompson device. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect )

Thermionic converter systems were developed by the Russians for use in space nuclear power. It might be possible to use them with power-tower type solar devices as well.

[Psy]

I was amazed to find by an engineer friend of mine,that all energy-producing techniques follow the same pattern:
1)Do sth that produces heat
2)Heat & water -> steam
3)turbines


Is that really the only way/best we can do?

There are other methods, many vehicles with internal combustion engines also generate electricity same with jet turbines.

[Salyut]

supposedy you can run direct conversion of fusion plasma to electriscity from a decelerator grid

heard this is a serious long shot to go tho, I think those bussard fusor people might be working on it

[Olentzero]

It may not be the best we can do, but it's certainly one of the simplest. The real problem is how that steam is generated - as noted, we could burn fossil fuels, or harness the power of radiation, or use solar/wind/tidal forces.

It's here we get into what are called the externalities - the consequences or subsequent effects of each method. Anyone who's read anything from an environmentalist perspective has a good idea of the externalities associated with the extraction of fossil fuels or radioactive material, so I don't feel the need to go into it.

The problem under capitalism is that the cleaner technology - solar, wind, and the tides - is not as highly developed as fossil fuel and nuclear technology. Though there are companies that are investing in such (I recently read an article about a company that's using solar power to generate electricity and molten salt to store it for when the sun goes down), in this time of global economic crisis few capitalists are going to want to invest in something that isn't going to return the same level of profit as the stuff that's killing us.

[pranabjyoti]

It may not be the best we can do, but it's certainly one of the simplest. The real problem is how that steam is generated - as noted, we could burn fossil fuels, or harness the power of radiation, or use solar/wind/tidal forces.

It's here we get into what are called the externalities - the consequences or subsequent effects of each method. Anyone who's read anything from an environmentalist perspective has a good idea of the externalities associated with the extraction of fossil fuels or radioactive material, so I don't feel the need to go into it.

The problem under capitalism is that the cleaner technology - solar, wind, and the tides - is not as highly developed as fossil fuel and nuclear technology. Though there are companies that are investing in such (I recently read an article about a company that's using solar power to generate electricity and molten salt to store it for when the sun goes down), in this time of global economic crisis few capitalists are going to want to invest in something that isn't going to return the same level of profit as the stuff that's killing us.
Actually, what I want to say is solar and other alternative energy technologies can be competitive with fossil fuel based technologies with some little more innovative approach. But, the problem is that needs funding and the capitalists and countries run by them don't want to "waste" that amount of funding in the research and development. I am assuring everybody that the solution is very close.

[Rowan Duffy]

It's here we get into what are called the externalities - the consequences or subsequent effects of each method. Anyone who's read anything from an environmentalist perspective has a good idea of the externalities associated with the extraction of fossil fuels or radioactive material, so I don't feel the need to go into it.

The problem under capitalism is that the cleaner technology - solar, wind, and the tides - is not as highly developed as fossil fuel and nuclear technology. Though there are companies that are investing in such (I recently read an article about a company that's using solar power to generate electricity and molten salt to store it for when the sun goes down), in this time of global economic crisis few capitalists are going to want to invest in something that isn't going to return the same level of profit as the stuff that's killing us.

The point about capitalism not accounting for externalities is certainly correct. Capitalism will attempt to maximise the externalisation of all costs, including workers health and well-being, environmental conditions etc.

However, it's not the case that the solution is "solar, wind, tidal good, everything else bad". Tidal barrages for instance have a huge environmental impact. Some tidal turbines might have very low impact. Solar panels have high water use, especially for power-tower type scenarios. Some versions of nuclear reactors are at least as promising as many of the other alternative energy sources. The questions have to be settled in their particulars according to the costs and can't be decided in abstract based on the energy source.

[Olentzero]

My argument is certainly not that simplistic, Rowan. As I said in my earlier post, I assumed people here knew the cost to the environment, and to people's health and lives, of extracting and refining fossil and nuclear fuels, and in the case of nuclear fuels especially safely disposing of the waste products - for example, using depleted uranium as counterweights in aircraft (releasing radioactive dust into the air if they should crash and burn) or as casing in armor-piercing shells (releasing radioactive dust into the air when they explode).
My point is that there are far fewer externalities involved in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, or tides than there are in fossil fuels (I think all I need to say here is 'mining disaster' or 'well fire') or nuclear fuels, and therefore a rationally run society should give much greater consideration to the former than the latter.

[t.shonku]

To generate alternate energy we need to think out of the box we need rebel scientist and inventors to do it peoples like Nikola Tesla type individuals are needed. But the problem is energy companies , oil mafia and wall street thugs won't allow energy to become free or cheap after all this will crumble down the present economic world order and hail a new era of co-operation which off course they don't want.


I knew a German guy who built a awesome chemistry lab in his garage and there he used to manufacture all sorts of chemical and carry out experiments far beyond the capability of a home lab, the guy was basically doing research on an alternate fuel for motors and he was scoring some good success, but one day the German police raided his house and destroyed his lab and threw him in jail, so what does this prove ? this proves that governments simply doesn't want free or cheap energy because that will make them look powerless .

[Rowan Duffy]

for example, using depleted uranium as counterweights in aircraft (releasing radioactive dust into the air if they should crash and burn) or as casing in armor-piercing shells (releasing radioactive dust into the air when they explode).

First, this has nothing to do with nuclear power. Depleted uranium is employed for its material properties. Secondly it's false that the problem is radioactive dust. The radioactivity from depleted uranium is a total non-issue. The problem is that it's a heavy metal and extremely toxic. Medical research into depleted uranium has been done which estimates the toxicological effect to be somewhere around a million times more important than radiological impact.


My point is that there are far fewer externalities involved in renewable energy sources like solar, wind, or tides than there are in fossil fuels (I think all I need to say here is 'mining disaster' or 'well fire') or nuclear fuels, and therefore a rationally run society should give much greater consideration to the former than the latter.

That's just the thing, I'm not sure that's true at all. What are the externalities involved in having massive reservoirs of water for pumped water energy storage all over Europe? Building such massive structures means using a lot of workers in possibly dangerous conditions.

Another example is the use of roof photovoltaic solar power. Roof work and installation is one of the most dangerous occupations in Europe by number of deaths. Are you quite sure the external costs are lower? You'd really have to run the numbers.

[Olentzero]

First, [depleted uranium] has nothing to do with nuclear power.Of course it does. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment process by which reactor- and weapons-grade uranium is obtained. Nor is the radiation from DU a non-issue, as even the US Department of Defense acknowledges it has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium. Obviously, in sufficient quantities (which for uranium doesn't need to be a lot) that's still going to kill you. I can't post links just yet, but check Footnote 2 in the Wikipedia article on depleted uranium.

What are the externalities involved in having massive reservoirs of water for pumped water energy storage all over Europe? Building such massive structures means using a lot of workers in possibly dangerous conditions.So does uranium mining, to say nothing of the environmentally destructive methods used to do so. Furthermore, constructing water towers for pumped water energy storage - should a socialist society decide to use that method - can be made much more safe much more easily, and with a greatly reduced environmental impact, than uranium mining and enrichment. Same for roof work - although as I understand it individual photovoltaic cells on each rooftop wouldn't be the most efficient way to approach the solar energy problem. Chris Williams, in his recent book Ecology and Socialism, points out that Europe's electrical needs could be supplied seven times over with approximately 200 ha of solar cells situated in some of the remotest sections of the Sahara Desert. Yes, obviously the work out there would be hazardous, but again - it could be made safer much more easily than uranium mining and enrichment could.

[pranabjyoti]

To generate alternate energy we need to think out of the box we need rebel scientist and inventors to do it peoples like Nikola Tesla type individuals are needed. But the problem is energy companies , oil mafia and wall street thugs won't allow energy to become free or cheap after all this will crumble down the present economic world order and hail a new era of co-operation which off course they don't want.


I knew a German guy who built a awesome chemistry lab in his garage and there he used to manufacture all sorts of chemical and carry out experiments far beyond the capability of a home lab, the guy was basically doing research on an alternate fuel for motors and he was scoring some good success, but one day the German police raided his house and destroyed his lab and threw him in jail, so what does this prove ? this proves that governments simply doesn't want free or cheap energy because that will make them look powerless .
What actually frustrates and irritates me is the apathetic attitude of today's "champions of socialism" towards such research and innovation. They themselves are always willing to follow the "bitten path" and just want to stay away from what can be the future.
But, that wasn't the case in Russia after 1917. Lenin observed Michurin and his unusual method of plant breeding. Later the whole Russian and other Republics of USSR enjoyed the fruits. Later USSR showed many innovations and inventions. T-34 was the result of Stalin's attention towards the innovative approach of an young engineer regarding tank building. That kind of approach give birth to MIG, world's first fighter jet.
But, today, what reigns is just apathy and ignorance.

[ckaihatsu]

What actually frustrates and irritates me is the apathetic attitude of today's "champions of socialism" towards such research and innovation. They themselves are always willing to follow the "bitten path" and just want to stay away from what can be the future.


(I think you mean the "trodden path" here....)

The reason why you may not see as much input from revolutionaries on particular technologies is because the *tools* we use cannot *substitute* for the *people themselves* -- meaning society's prevailing social consciousness, at whatever the norm happens to be.

For example we could wish and wish and even engineer some way to get around the mainstream media's monolithic ownership of the airwaves and dictatorial-like control over the means of mass communication -- or we could just use the Internet, which is now commonplace and arguably a certain kind of collectivization of the means of mass communication.

But, even given this tremendous tool, what are the overall *social* conditions that are prevailing in society right now -- a worldwide corporatization of the economy and regression to neofeudalism in governance of public institutions -- ?

As a point of illustration I found it wretchedly ironic to see nightly news reports on TV that families in Egypt were using high-tech web searches on the net to look for lost loved ones who had been disappeared by the Egyptian military apparatus during the Tahrir Square uprisings.





To generate alternate energy we need to think out of the box we need rebel scientist and inventors to do it peoples like Nikola Tesla type individuals are needed. But the problem is energy companies , oil mafia and wall street thugs won't allow energy to become free or cheap after all this will crumble down the present economic world order and hail a new era of co-operation which off course they don't want.


I knew a German guy who built a awesome chemistry lab in his garage and there he used to manufacture all sorts of chemical and carry out experiments far beyond the capability of a home lab, the guy was basically doing research on an alternate fuel for motors and he was scoring some good success, but one day the German police raided his house and destroyed his lab and threw him in jail, so what does this prove ? this proves that governments simply doesn't want free or cheap energy because that will make them look powerless .


I'll admit to a weak point in my politics -- the anarchist ideal of total off-the-grid self-sufficient autonomy is always a shiny lure, especially for those of us living in particularly hyper-individualizing / alienating Western-type societies -- and the *tools* for realizing this ideal may be closer than ever, as with the energy technology pointed to at this thread:


And they say solar energy is useless...

http://www.revleft.com/vb/and-they-say-t153138/index.html


But more to the point is would we be living in a society that allows these balloons to stay afloat, literally *and* figuratively -- ?

[pranabjyoti]

(I think you mean the "trodden path" here....)

The reason why you may not see as much input from revolutionaries on particular technologies is because the *tools* we use cannot *substitute* for the *people themselves* -- meaning society's prevailing social consciousness, at whatever the norm happens to be.

For example we could wish and wish and even engineer some way to get around the mainstream media's monolithic ownership of the airwaves and dictatorial-like control over the means of mass communication -- or we could just use the Internet, which is now commonplace and arguably a certain kind of collectivization of the means of mass communication.

But, even given this tremendous tool, what are the overall *social* conditions that are prevailing in society right now -- a worldwide corporatization of the economy and regression to neofeudalism in governance of public institutions -- ?

As a point of illustration I found it wretchedly ironic to see nightly news reports on TV that families in Egypt were using high-tech web searches on the net to look for lost loved ones who had been disappeared by the Egyptian military apparatus during the Tahrir Square uprisings.
I agree with you except on one point. We must understand what the reality is, but does that mean we just surrender to the reality? If we really want to change the reality then we must be always in search of getting rid of the burden of present socials relations. My point was about the approach of heads of countries, which call themselves "pro-people" towards those new technology and other innovations. I am just wandering how they can be so apathetic to inventions that can change the world.

[Rowan Duffy]

Of course it does. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment process by which reactor- and weapons-grade uranium is obtained. Nor is the radiation from DU a non-issue, as even the US Department of Defense acknowledges it has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium. Obviously, in sufficient quantities (which for uranium doesn't need to be a lot) that's still going to kill you. I can't post links just yet, but check Footnote 2 in the Wikipedia article on depleted uranium.

The *use* of DU is because of its material properties - specifically that it has a high density. It's very possible that they would use it regardless of whether we have nuclear power.

The footnote you pointed me to mentions nothing about the radiological impact of DU. I'm well aware that it is a radioisotope, the question is how dangerous it is. It has a very long half-life and is generally not considered to be a high radiological risk.


Furthermore, constructing water towers for pumped water energy storage - should a socialist society decide to use that method - can be made much more safe much more easily, and with a greatly reduced environmental impact, than uranium mining and enrichment.

We are not talking about water towers at all, we're talking about massive water reservoirs similar to Turlough Hill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlough_Hill). That reservoir provides 293MW. You're going to have to be thinking about greater than the 12 hour storage Turlough Hill provides as there is the possibility of weather causing rather longer periods of low power generation from wind/solar. Reservoirs can be potentially dangerous, especially if we're going to need huge numbers of them.


Chris Williams, in his recent book Ecology and Socialism, points out that Europe's electrical needs could be supplied seven times over with approximately 200 ha of solar cells situated in some of the remotest sections of the Sahara Desert. Yes, obviously the work out there would be hazardous, but again - it could be made safer much more easily than uranium mining and enrichment could.

I've found similar numbers for the Sahara from my own calculations. However, when you look at the details for water use for power-towers and imagine using them in the Sahara, you end up with a situation where you're probably going to need to do your own desalination to run the plant, drastically reducing the efficiency of such an operation.

Really, the devil is in the details. It's not at all helpful to be utopian about this stuff.

[Olentzero]

The devil is indeed in the details, but under a system that seeks to generate energy for profit, those details generally won't even be discussed if there's no profit in it. It's hardly utopian to assert that there are safer and cleaner alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear energy out there, and to advocate a system that won't reject them simply based on the bottom line.

And your view of DU is quite undialectical. DU wouldn't exist without the enrichment processes used for nuclear power. It wasn't consciously designed to meed a need for aircraft counterweights and armor-piercing shells; it was a by-product that nobody quite knew what to do with until uses were found for it. Whether it's the heavy metal properties or the radiation that makes it a health hazard, you cannot deny that its use in weaponry (where it ignites and burns and a very high temperature) creates a long-lasting health hazard that is next to impossible to clean up. And as long as society relies on nuclear power, it will require uranium enrichment; as long as there is uranium enrichment there will be DU. Which means we either have to find a use for it (with its accompanying health risks) or we store it somewhere and hope that people don't dig it up 10,000 generations later. OR we establish a society aimed at meeting human needs in a safer, cleaner way and eliminate the health risks of radioactive materials by leaving 'em in the ground where we found 'em.

It suddenly occurs to me I may not be debating a socialist here. Am I correct in that assumption?

[Olentzero]

Just ran across this. socialistworker .org/2011/04/19/fukushimas-disposable-workers

Please, Rowan, explain to me how the failure of a solar power plant or wind turbine farm could have the same lethal consequences. These are the details you spoke of, and the devil seems to be very much at home.

[pauljake]

There should be more windfarms. Its the most ecofriendly source of energy.:thumbup1:

[t.shonku]

What actually frustrates and irritates me is the apathetic attitude of today's "champions of socialism" towards such research and innovation. They themselves are always willing to follow the "bitten path" and just want to stay away from what can be the future.
But, that wasn't the case in Russia after 1917. Lenin observed Michurin and his unusual method of plant breeding. Later the whole Russian and other Republics of USSR enjoyed the fruits. Later USSR showed many innovations and inventions. T-34 was the result of Stalin's attention towards the innovative approach of an young engineer regarding tank building. That kind of approach give birth to MIG, world's first fighter jet.
But, today, what reigns is just apathy and ignorance.

Well said Comrade ! USSR produced some of the biggest genius of all times, like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky the father of modern rocketry without his work there would be no space flight, remember that during Tsarist regime he was always under appreciated it was only after the revolution he got the respect he deserved and was hailed as a hero of people, then we should also remember Kalashnikov inventor of AK 47 if he was born in some other country he would have been a lost dude and an average Joe, also remember the electronics guru Leon Theremin ? he too would have been lost in time if there was no Communist party and the great one Comrade Lenin to back him.


I don’t know some people here may consider me a crack pot ! but the truth is that today science has reached a point where there is a huge wall and it has been erected by the society controlling capitalist thugs, they don’t allow research into things that doesn’t earn them fat profits , they hate rebel inventors , they surround themselves with loyalist pen pushing , ambitious scientist who would even invent drugs that can kill a man but they would still do it just to impress their boss and get promotion in job.

Science and Technology is now in an ICU and only Communists can save it, because science is about free thinking and self-less thoughts and ideas, we can not let this corporate thugs destroy science just like popes in Rome tried to destroy Galileo . For decades free thinking scientists and inventors have always found Communism attractive and now it is time all those rebel inventors and scientist join the Communist cause and march along !

[pranabjyoti]

Well said Comrade ! USSR produced some of the biggest genius of all times, like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky the father of modern rocketry without his work there would be no space flight, remember that during Tsarist regime he was always under appreciated it was only after the revolution he got the respect he deserved and was hailed as a hero of people, then we should also remember Kalashnikov inventor of AK 47 if he was born in some other country he would have been a lost dude and an average Joe, also remember the electronics guru Leon Theremin ? he too would have been lost in time if there was no Communist party and the great one Comrade Lenin to back him.


I don’t know some people here may consider me a crack pot ! but the truth is that today science has reached a point where there is a huge wall and it has been erected by the society controlling capitalist thugs, they don’t allow research into things that doesn’t earn them fat profits , they hate rebel inventors , they surround themselves with loyalist pen pushing , ambitious scientist who would even invent drugs that can kill a man but they would still do it just to impress their boss and get promotion in job.

Science and Technology is now in an ICU and only Communists can save it, because science is about free thinking and self-less thoughts and ideas, we can not let this corporate thugs destroy science just like popes in Rome tried to destroy Galileo . For decades free thinking scientists and inventors have always found Communism attractive and now it is time all those rebel inventors and scientist join the Communist cause and march along !
You forgot Ivan Michurin.

[t.shonku]

You forgot Ivan Michurin.


I think you mentioned about him in your last post and about his unusual method of plant breeding

Anyways the Soviets produced so many great geniuses that if we were to talk of them we should open a separate thread on them, because the number is huge

[Rowan Duffy]

It suddenly occurs to me I may not be debating a socialist here. Am I correct in that assumption?


No you are not correct. I am a communist.



Please, Rowan, explain to me how the failure of a solar power plant or wind turbine farm could have the same lethal consequences. These are the details you spoke of, and the devil seems to be very much at home.

Wind power has had a rising number of deaths per TWh as it has become more prevalent. The disaster scenarios for wind power are much less punctuated but more frequent.

For wind deaths per Terrawatt-hour: http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

LWR are a very difficult technology to make safe for a whole host of reasons. With liquid core reactors we would have much smaller inventories of fuel in the reactor at time with vastly less iodine and cesium could be released even in a worst case scenario. Large inventory solid fuel reactors will always have the potential to release this - which is part of what makes them dangerous.

However, people are overestimating their danger with respect to other technologies, and wind and solar are only comparable to nuclear if they can replace nuclear or coal and gas - which is something not at all clear. I think they'll be part of the puzzle, but I don't believe they will satisfactorily complete it.

People on the left seem vastly more unified and sure of denouncing nuclear than they are in denouncing coal and natural gas, despite the fact that the most likely outcome of immediate reductions in nuclear is increase in coal and natural gas. Deaths per TWh for coal are so insane as to make Chernobyl+Fukushima look like a walk in the park - even if we completely ignore global warming. I find the phenomenon somewhat strange.

[Rowan Duffy]

And your view of DU is quite undialectical. DU wouldn't exist without the enrichment processes used for nuclear power. It wasn't consciously designed to meed a need for aircraft counterweights and armor-piercing shells; it was a by-product that nobody quite knew what to do with until uses were found for it.

This is upside-down. Why the use of LWR+Fast breeders and generation of enriched uranium in the first place? That was because they needed enriched Uranium and Plutonium for military purposes. It's not that LWR creates a militarily useful output, it's actually the reverse.

You don't need to have enriched uranium to have nuclear power.

[Olentzero]

I took a look at the article you linked to, and I have to admit I am appalled at the level of clouded thinking you display. Have you looked at the data this fellow uses? He documents a total of 44 deaths - 44 - over 35 years of wind power usage. How long did it take Chernobyl to rack up 44 deaths? How long will it take Fukushima to do so, if it hasn't already?

Here's another bit of information from your source:
In the two decades I've tracked this data, no passerby has been injured by wind energy. Can the same be said of nuclear energy? How many 'passers-by' in Pripyat were injured by Chernobyl's meltdown? How many 'passers-by' will suffer from Fukushima's barely-contained collapse?

Additionally, I note that he lists very meticulously the causes of death in each accident (or as many as he can where information is available). Of those accidents, only a handful are attributable to the turbine rotors turning, i.e. the deaths can be linked to the nature of wind energy. Whereas the number of deaths linked to the accidental release of huge amounts of radiation is arguably in the tens or hundreds of thousands. This is to say nothing of the environmental devastation wrought by such accidents.

Judging the safety of an energy source by such a subjective factor as deaths per unit of energy produced distorts the picture completely. I do not presume to judge whether or not you deliberately ignored the in-depth details of the analysis you linked to, but it is clear that your assertion, upon closer examination, entirely fails to hold water.

[Olentzero]

You don't need to have enriched uranium to have nuclear power.Not my point; my point is that DU has everything to do with nuclear power. I believe I have demonstrated this, in that DU is a by-product of the enrichment process used both to produce weapons-grade and reactor-grade material.

Of course it is possible to have nuclear power without enriched uranium, however low the output may be in comparison. But it is impossible to have enriched uranium without DU. Nuclear power sees the potential for greater efficiency by using the enrichment process, and it therefore gets a by-product that it needs to figure out something to do with (dump or use). Wind and solar energy generate no such toxic by-products, therefore there is a whole set of externalities (use of the by-product and the potentially lethal consequences thereof) those energy sources do not have to take into consideration.

[Kotze]

May I ask the participants to stick to deaths-per-same-amount-of-energy comparisons?

[Olentzero]

You may, but I'm not going to. As demonstrated, it's practically meaningless in the context.