Energy Debate on TV last night

[[R_H]]

There was an energy debate on TV last night. The picture went white at times, not due to technical problems but because of the sheer amount of renewable energy wank by the representatives of the Greens, the Green Liberals and the Socialist Party.

Naturally, all the party representatives supported renewable energy (since it's one of the hip new things to do) and agreed that more needs to be done to improve the efficiency of households etc. Then the topic came to "Well where/how do we get the electricity we need?". And that's where the renewable energy wank started.

Gems like "The most efficient solution for electricity generation is more efficiency at the consumer end and renewable energy."

Gee whiz, last time I checked renewables were the most inefficient compared to fossil fuels or gasp, nuclear power.

Naturally the Greenies proclaimed that all the electricity could be provided by renewables. Time for a reality check courtesy of the Ministry of Energy. Their representative stated that if the current power plants were kept in operation, by 2018 they wouldn't be able to satisfy the demand and the windfall could only be made up with large power plants, not some dinky ass (he didn't say this) renewable power projects.

Then the SVP representative (SVP is far right) stated that Switzerland could massively reduce the CO2 emissions, while generating enough electricity and being independant from other nations is to use nuclear power.

Cue the Greenies "Hur hur, we would still be dependant on the outside for the uranium, if we switched to renewables that wouldn't be the case"

Appearantly it didn't fucking occur to her that you can buy uranium from places like Canada, or Australia (better than buying oil and gas from the Middle Eastern countries, or Russia) and the uranium has a very fucking high energy density (didn't Sikon once post that a couple hundred kilograms of uranium (can't remember if it was enriched or not) would be equivalent to a few thousand tonnes of coal). Lastly, I doubt that Switzerland has the industrial capacity to manufacture shit like solar panels, hydroelectric dams, geothermal power plants, or wind turbines...which would make us dependant on the outside anyways.

Another gem was "Renewable is efficiency"

Yeah, right. Thanks for lying, try again. Most sources of renewable energy are intermittent (except hydro dams and geothermal), how are they going to make up for the windfall when it's intermittent? Install fossil fuel power plants, oh wait, biogass or biomass power plants? The efficiency of the average Danish wind turbine is 20%, in Germany the average 5MW turbine only produces 1.7 MV (34% efficiency). Wind for sure isn't going to cut it, it's intermittent and low efficiency (theoretical max is <60% due to the Betz law). Perfect Turbine According to this page, it's not terribly likely to have turbines above 35% efficiency.

I've compared my GOOD wind turbine columns with production data from 4 reputable manufacturers' turbines, using their data. NONE of them are as good as my GOOD turbine columns. Those are based on an average efficiency of 35%. It is not terribly likely that you'll find a machine that is more efficient than suggested by this column.

According to this article Boeing Spectrolab Achieves 40% Solar Cell Efficiency They achieved 40.7% solar cell efficiency, however that was using

Using concentrated sunlight

and it was

using a new class of metamorphic semiconductor materials

From this site Photovoltaic Cells The maximum recorded module efficiency for Single crystalline silicon was 22.7% while the maximum recorded laboratory efficiency was 24.7%

I don't have any comments on hydroelectric dams other than that they change the ecology up and downstream, which kind of defeats the point of using renewable energy to minimize changing the Earth's ecology.

Naturally the subject of waste came up and the Greenies said "It's bad when you produce electricity with waste problems". It's a problem because ignorant people don't know how dangerous the waste really is and have been feed deceitful information about the dangers (or lack thereof) of nuclear power. But of course no-one mentionned what kind of chemicals are used in the manufacture of photovoltaic cells of course.

Then came the Greenpeace twat who ranted about how great renewable energy is.

Then came the token bit from a representative of the Evangelical People's Party, jammering about zero energy homes

(Note, there was more to the debate than this, I just wrote down all the juicy bits I heard.)

So there you have it, Greenies are renewable wanking fools everywhere.
[/url]

[[R_H]]

Ghetto edit:

Some links for excerpts and videos from the show

Energie und Umwelt

I'll try to find a complete transcript of the show and translate as much as possible.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm afraid a big investment in nuclear fission power plants in most countries of Europe is impossible unless the shit really hits the fan, and by then it's probably going to be too late. The nuclear fearing masses prevent it, and I don't even blame them so much, given how many discussions I've had with colleagues with PhD's in multiple areas of science and who still oppose nuclear, and won't hear otherwise.

Efficiency the way you're defining it (amount of practical Vs theoretical energy output) is not such a big deal anyway as long as we're not talking about portable power sources, if there's the political and popular will of mass building wind, solar or wave based power plants. Countries like Germany and Portugal are examples of that. It is more costly, but it's what people and by extension the politicians want.

[PeZook]

They were pretty much right on the spot when they said that increasing efficiency on the consumer end would go a great amount of good for the energy situation.

If we cut down energy use at home by, say, 20% (easily achievable!), we won't have to build as many nuke plants once shit hits the fan. And that means less death, less starvation, bankrupcies and whatnot, all for a price of an automobile downpayment and a bit of a sacrifice.

In fact, I think that governments should start subsidizing things like home-installed solar cells right now. You really can't lose on that - it's far cheaper than expanding existing energy capabilities, anyway, and you get huge political score from the greens.

[Uraniun235]

...I don't even blame them so much, given how many discussions I've had with colleagues with PhD's in multiple areas of science and who still oppose nuclear, and won't hear otherwise.

It sounds like they had some compelling arguments. What were they?

[Colonel Olrik]

...I don't even blame them so much, given how many discussions I've had with colleagues with PhD's in multiple areas of science and who still oppose nuclear, and won't hear otherwise.

It sounds like they had some compelling arguments. What were they?

They don't have compelling arguments. They just "know" that the "the residues are dangerous, it's not renewable, OMG Chernobyl!!1!" mantra is true and refuse to understand why it's not. And it is perfectly within their capabilities to understand the physics of the problem, unlike for the majority of the population. It's just that their mind is closed in this particular issue. It's not only colleagues anyway, my father has a PhD in Mech. Engineering and I can't discuss this with him either.

But bear in mind that while they have PhD's in science, baring a few they're not physics. Their studies and work are in other fields. People that I meet in work or conferences who are actually experts in the field of energy, are all strong supporters of nuclear as another alternative source of energy.

Recently I assisted to a conference presentation where the main proposal was to fill a part of the Sahara desert with power plants, Solar, Nuclear, etc and use the available sand to produce Silicon, which would be exported in large quantities to Europe and burned there to produce energy. Interesting stuff. The amount of research done in the area has been increasing exponentially, at least there's that.

[[R_H]]

They were pretty much right on the spot when they said that increasing efficiency on the consumer end would go a great amount of good for the energy situation.

If we cut down energy use at home by, say, 20% (easily achievable!), we won't have to build as many nuke plants once shit hits the fan. And that means less death, less starvation, bankrupcies and whatnot, all for a price of an automobile downpayment and a bit of a sacrifice.

In fact, I think that governments should start subsidizing things like home-installed solar cells right now. You really can't lose on that - it's far cheaper than expanding existing energy capabilities, anyway, and you get huge political score from the greens.

I agree completely, and all the representatives were in agreement that it's best to be more efficient, especially in the household. In fact, there may be a law that will ban the use of incandescent bulbs (by 2010). And for small scale power generation things like solar panels are good, what they're not good (and wind turbines) is large scale generation, you can't replace a fossil fuel/nuclear power plant with a solar facility. At the moment ~52% of the electricity is generated by hydroelectric dams, ~41% by nuclear power plants (there are 5 reactors, the oldest was put on line in 1969, the "newest" in 1984 (average time between construction begin and generation was 5.4 years)), the rest is generated by renewables (~4%, will go up to 10% and then 35%) and plants buring non recyclable trash. There was in fact an initiative to start decommissioning reactors after a 30 year life span, and one to lengthen the ban on construction of new plants until 2010, fortunately, these were rejected.

All the waste here is stored geologically, and has to be stored domestically.

All information from Country Profiles

It's really disappointing that people have such negative attitudes towards nuclear energy. I'm surprised that the companies involved in this industry aren't doing more to inform the people (or paying a lobby group to do so), haven't been putting ads on TV etc. I don't understand the mentality of "OMG nuclear energy is dangerous", well, you either live with the "danger" that's probably the most strictly regulated activity of them all, or you live with a shitty (shittier) environment.

A good point was brought up, the Greenies were ranting about "RAR Germany uses so much renewable energy." to which the response was "Yeah, but it's not enough, they're still having to build new coal fire plants."

As someone who's interested in studying nuclear engineering, this trend is extremely disappointing (especially the lack of A)rationality and B)listening to fucking people who know about nuclear power). I wish the technocrats of the French government were more present in other European countries.

[Zixinus]

Really, all we saw is that the greenies run the TV because they are cool, while they ignore the geeks with the PhDs and/or masters in nuclear engineering. What else is new?

[[R_H]]

That they're crazy.

It was hilarious the ranting that the Greenpeace guy did, it would have been hilarious to tell him that one of the founders of the organization now supports nuclear power. Sadly, none of the non-Greenies were aggressive enough to hammer on the retarded claims that were made during the RAR renewable energy is all we need wank period.

[dragon]

There something in the news the other day that the government gives tax deductions for installing solar panels, not sure how much though. Granted with the price and efficiency of current solar cells, it would take a few years to pay off. Thats not counting replacing broken cells. That's why I like the Nano Solar, they had a discovery program on it. The stuff is more efficient than current stuff and it is thinner and lighter as well as capable of functioning even if damaged.

Here in Germany the government gives a very nice tax break for solar panels. Plus there are 6 nuclear plants within 100 miles of where I live.

[Zixinus]

That they're crazy.

No, we knew that before.

[Colonel Olrik]

They don't have compelling arguments. They just "know" that the "the residues are dangerous, it's not renewable, OMG Chernobyl!!1!" mantra is true and refuse to understand why it's not. And it is perfectly within their capabilities to understand the physics of the problem, unlike for the majority of the population. It's just that their mind is closed in this particular issue. It's not only colleagues anyway, my father has a PhD in Mech. Engineering and I can't discuss this with him either.

Scrap that. I just had a good talk with my parents and they now agree with me about the oil and nuclear issues The news of the last couple of months have convinced them, while even as late as July when I last was with them they thought I was being an alarmist. Hmm, I hope this means that public opinion is becoming much more aware, even if only the more educated class.

[[R_H]]

Wow, that's pretty sudden. Good work.

Speaking of educated people being anti-Nuclear, there was an advertisment for some anti-nuke politicians, three or four of them. Two of them had doctorates, one in economics, the other in climate science

[Zixinus]

Speaking of educated people being anti-Nuclear, there was an advertisment for some anti-nuke politicians, three or four of them. Two of them had doctorates, one in economics, the other in climate science

And, SURPRISE! Neither fields gives education of any concepts of engineering, meaning that they know about just as much as the public.

Oh wait. We are expecting politicians to actually know what they are talking about.

Stupid me.

[Nephtys]

...I don't even blame them so much, given how many discussions I've had with colleagues with PhD's in multiple areas of science and who still oppose nuclear, and won't hear otherwise.

It sounds like they had some compelling arguments. What were they?

PhDs don't mean a damn unless they're explicitly related. A Bio professor I know as a family friend for example, hates nuclear power with a passion. Of course, he knows what radiation does to cells. But does that apply to the real world? Not in the slightest. Does that qualify him in the field of how one is engineered? Nope. Nor in what the economics of it are, or the alternatives.

But of course, a PhD is 'fancypants smart' to most of the population. They MUST know what they're talking about then!

[Uraniun235]

Well, I misread Olrik's post; when he said "I don't blame them" I misread it as "I don't blame the PhD folks I've been talking to", not as "I don't blame the general public, when we've got a bunch of PhDs talking irrational nonsense".

[Zixinus]

A Bio professor I know as a family friend for example, hates nuclear power with a passion. Of course, he knows what radiation does to cells.

Not to mention that he doesn't know the nature of radiation just because he knows what it does to cells. There is a reason why medical radiology is a study in itself.

[Gil Hamilton]

Recently I assisted to a conference presentation where the main proposal was to fill a part of the Sahara desert with power plants, Solar, Nuclear, etc and use the available sand to produce Silicon, which would be exported in large quantities to Europe and burned there to produce energy. Interesting stuff. The amount of research done in the area has been increasing exponentially, at least there's that.

Wait... I've got a question. Why not instead of making silicon and import it to Europe with said powerplants but importing the power directly to Europe. That seems more efficient that adding an energy losing step in there, on top of shipping all that silicon?

[Colonel Olrik]

Wait... I've got a question. Why not instead of making silicon and import it to Europe with said powerplants but importing the power directly to Europe. That seems more efficient that adding an energy losing step in there, on top of shipping all that silicon?

The big problem, now and always, is how to carry produced energy across distances. Solar power is more reliable and productive in the Sahara than in Northern Europe, but you can't just install high tension wiring between the two locations, exactly the same way that we import oil to burn it in our power plants, instead of buying electricity directly from Saudi Arabia. Silicon would be a means of carrying energy to the small power plants all around Europe.

[Gil Hamilton]

The big problem, now and always, is how to carry produced energy across distances. Solar power is more reliable and productive in the Sahara than in Northern Europe, but you can't just install high tension wiring between the two locations, exactly the same way that we import oil to burn it in our power plants, instead of buying electricity directly from Saudi Arabia. Silicon would be a means of carrying energy to the small power plants all around Europe.

I dunno, it seems like it defeats the purpose of having power plants in the Sahara that are more efficient if you add an extra step that loses a ton of power.

Why not just build more power plants in Europe and connect them to the power grid? France seems to be doing okay and they are damn near all nuclear. Just build more nukes in France and start exporting power to other European countries? I don't understand why making power generation more complicated and less efficient is desirable.

[salm]

Why not just build more power plants in Europe and connect them to the power grid? France seems to be doing okay and they are damn near all nuclear. Just build more nukes in France and start exporting power to other European countries? I don't understand why making power generation more complicated and less efficient is desirable.

If you suggest building more nukes Germans won´t vote for you. They´ve been thoroughly brainwashed on this issue.

[Colonel Olrik]

I dunno, it seems like it defeats the purpose of having power plants in the Sahara that are more efficient if you add an extra step that loses a ton of power.

The presentation/article I saw claims an efficiency of around 40%. That's not too bad, and it would be a possible way of Moroccans making money, hell the Saudi Arabians and neighbours who are currently oil producers have a lot of Sun and sand too.

Why not just build more power plants in Europe and connect them to the power grid? France seems to be doing okay and they are damn near all nuclear. Just build more nukes in France and start exporting power to other European countries? I don't understand why making power generation more complicated and less efficient is desirable.

What Salm said. Many Germans actually pay more to make sure that their power comes from renewable energy sources. As long as they're energetically viable, alternative schemes to generate power are better than hoping for a cataclysm that changes people's minds.

Besides, we need portable energy sources as alternatives to oil. Silicon type stratagems also target that. Nuclear power can't replace oil by itself.

[Zixinus]

Besides, we need portable energy sources as alternatives to oil. Silicon type stratagems also target that. Nuclear power can't replace oil by itself.

Not when it comes to cars, unless EEStor's super- ultra- hyper- whatever- capacitators work out. However, an enormous amount of oil is spent on power plants, and a power plants needs thousands of tons of fuel while a nuclear power plant needs only a few kilograms.

[Colonel Olrik]

Not when it comes to cars, unless EEStor's super- ultra- hyper- whatever- capacitators work out.

I don't mean cars.

However, an enormous amount of oil is spent on power plants, and a power plants needs thousands of tons of fuel while a nuclear power plant needs only a few kilograms.

Psst, read my posts more carefully and don't preach to the choir