You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #60: I did not notice we were talking about 2050 energy demand [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-06-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
60. I did not notice we were talking about 2050 energy demand
I had calculated the number of nuclear power plants required to meet today's energy needs at 672, which includes 100% of our electricity generation and 100% of our transportation. I realize now that I did not include industrial uses nor non-electrical energy usage from commercial and residential buildings. The number would surely be higher than I gave but I cannot find a source for those two sectors' fossil fuel usage. I'll shelve that for now and will most likely stumble on it later on when I'm no longer looking.

Notably, my figures were for the USA only. And when I put in Holden's assumed 2% increase in electrical demand per year, by the year 2050 we will need 1,484 nuclear plants of 1 GWe each in the USA alone.

I think we both agree that neither the once-through uranium reactors nor the light water reactors are the technology that will allow us to get to that point. Once-through fuel cycles only consume 5% of the fissile material in each fuel rod before they need to be replaced. What a waste! That would be akin to you going to the gas station for a fill-up, driving 10 miles then pumping out all of the remaining gasoline in your tank to be stored in a huge cistern under your garage. Would anybody be stupid enough to do that?

The light water reactor designs harken back to the 1930s and need to be retired. We don't drive cars you have to crank start anymore do we? No, the technology has moved on and so should nuclear power plants. Light water reactors need to be retired and replaced with Generation IV nuclear power plants.

The Generation IV reactors I mentioned in an earlier post are up to the task. Many of them can be mass produced and if we use a Thorium fuel cycle we will have enough Thorium to last 1,000 years. If we haven't perfected Fusion power by then we should stop funding that research! :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Another example of how the CANDU can't kristopher  Oct-04-10 09:08 AM   #0 
  - Rec to no avail  madokie   Oct-04-10 11:56 AM   #1 
  - That's the best you can do?  Nederland   Oct-04-10 03:22 PM   #2 
  - It's typical nuclear: "2 years behind schedule and nearly $1 billion over budget"  kristopher   Oct-05-10 12:20 AM   #5 
     - Typical Nuclear in the Western World  Nederland   Oct-05-10 01:05 AM   #6 
        - I'm sure it has nothing to do with the coal and oil funded NIMBY/anti-nuclear crowd.  TheWraith   Oct-05-10 01:25 AM   #7 
        - The economic stakeholders for coal and nuclear are nearly identical  kristopher   Oct-05-10 02:08 PM   #11 
           - One article in the Grand Forks Herald as "proof."  TheWraith   Oct-06-10 12:04 PM   #37 
              - Deleted sub-thread  Name removed   Oct-06-10 12:08 PM   #39 
        - No, typical around the world.  kristopher   Oct-05-10 07:21 AM   #8 
           - Your data on Japan is outdated  Nederland   Oct-05-10 11:11 PM   #17 
  - I did not have neutron exchange with that reactor...  txlibdem   Oct-04-10 07:10 PM   #3 
  - what about 60 year old wind turbines?  DrGregory   Oct-04-10 10:56 PM   #4 
     - We need the most advanced technology we can come up with, no question  txlibdem   Oct-05-10 08:43 AM   #9 
        - Fairly good summary but a few problems are present.  kristopher   Oct-05-10 09:18 AM   #10 
           - A phase out not an abrupt cutoff in my view  txlibdem   Oct-05-10 02:15 PM   #12 
           - Be cautious of accepting the thoughts of those aligned with environmental skepticism  kristopher   Oct-05-10 03:25 PM   #13 
              - I'll concede the point on the sole purpose of Germany's Feed In Tariffs  txlibdem   Oct-05-10 10:01 PM   #14 
                 - It would BE a catastrophe. It's a very, very, very, very, very dirty form of energy, and batteries  NNadir   Oct-05-10 11:01 PM   #16 
                 - That wasn't Gore's plan, nor does the anecdote you cite mean much.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 07:20 AM   #19 
                 - Are you sure you're responding to the correct post?  txlibdem   Oct-06-10 04:10 PM   #49 
                    - You don't know what you are talking about.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 04:17 PM   #51 
                       - I may not but Al Gore sure as heck does!  txlibdem   Oct-06-10 10:15 PM   #59 
                 - As to sitting on Solar Power location, sounds like what happened in the 1970s on the locks and dams  happyslug   Oct-06-10 03:12 PM   #46 
           - Extremely high? Higher than any source? We'll chalk that up to anti-nuke math...  NNadir   Oct-05-10 10:39 PM   #15 
              - Why are you saying that California doesn't have natural gas peakers?  XemaSab   Oct-06-10 02:35 AM   #18 
              - Lack of knowledge and an ingrained inability to reason characterize your posts  kristopher   Oct-06-10 07:28 AM   #20 
              - Let's compare  txlibdem   Oct-06-10 07:40 AM   #21 
                 - The costs look pretty much the same, all right.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 07:46 AM   #22 
                 - That is a half assed, uninformed analysis based on an inaccurate bunch of crap/  kristopher   Oct-06-10 07:56 AM   #23 
                    - So are the costs of electricity from nuclear and wind not similar in your opinion?  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 08:26 AM   #24 
                       - That is typical misleading framing of the issue.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 09:33 AM   #25 
                          - No, you just disagree with this framing.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 09:57 AM   #26 
                          - Just goes to show what you don't know...  kristopher   Oct-06-10 10:31 AM   #27 
                             - That's a usage of the word "outstanding" I haven't encountered before.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 10:41 AM   #29 
                                - Your posts establish your goals very clearly.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 11:12 AM   #30 
                                   - Is it possible  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 11:15 AM   #31 
                                      - No, it isn't.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 11:46 AM   #33 
                                         - Define "BETTER"  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 12:02 PM   #36 
                                            - Cooper's paper is an independent review by a highly qualified analyst.  kristopher   Oct-06-10 12:06 PM   #38 
                                               - See the commentary on this "review" that I posted below.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 12:30 PM   #41 
                          - An OECD report from this year compares electricity costs from various sources in various countries  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 10:36 AM   #28 
                          - Trust in the nuclear industry much? Why not accept the fossil industry's view of carbon?  kristopher   Oct-06-10 11:33 AM   #32 
                             - Or the wind industry's views on wind power?  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 11:57 AM   #34 
                                - Here it is  kristopher   Oct-06-10 11:59 AM   #35 
                                   - No, that comes from a biased paper.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 12:28 PM   #40 
                                      - Seriously? You are going with anonymous comments as critique?  kristopher   Oct-06-10 12:44 PM   #42 
                                      - I found it interesting that Scientific American readers had about the same reaction as I did.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 12:51 PM   #43 
                                      - I've already replied to that point with the itemization by Severence  kristopher   Oct-06-10 04:01 PM   #48 
                                      - MIT severely underestimated the costs - read what the CEO's of Entergy, Exelon, and Constellation  bananas   Oct-07-10 04:55 AM   #62 
                                         - Let's keep our eye on the ball.  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 06:04 AM   #64 
                                            - So you've been saying we should use nuclear because it is the least expensive  kristopher   Oct-07-10 06:37 AM   #65 
                                            - Not quite  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 06:57 AM   #67 
                                            - They do not have similar cost profiles.  kristopher   Oct-07-10 07:34 AM   #70 
                                            - Here's what we're trying to accomplish  bananas   Oct-07-10 10:09 AM   #77 
                                            - Laudable goals, with which I broadly agree.  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 10:24 AM   #79 
                                      - I also find it interesting that the EIA says that wind subsidies are $0.20+ per KWh  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 01:00 PM   #44 
                                         - Yes you are missing something - a careful moment with your calculator  kristopher   Oct-06-10 04:22 PM   #52 
                                            - Ah, I slipped a decimal place. Thanks. n/t  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 04:34 PM   #55 
                                      - You went to a crackpot blog  bananas   Oct-07-10 04:22 AM   #61 
                                         - In this debate "crackpot" tends to mean "someone whose opinions I disagree with"  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 05:59 AM   #63 
                                            - Again with the false claims about what nuclear can do.  kristopher   Oct-07-10 06:45 AM   #66 
                                            - If repeated beatings with that Jacobson C&P haven't changed my mind by now  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 07:02 AM   #68 
                                               - Another piece of crap bit of logic  kristopher   Oct-07-10 07:39 AM   #71 
                                            - I have no problem with differing opinions, but some people really are crackpots.  bananas   Oct-07-10 08:02 AM   #72 
                          - 1700 nuclear power plants needed?  txlibdem   Oct-06-10 03:30 PM   #47 
                             - Holdren  kristopher   Oct-06-10 04:16 PM   #50 
                                - I did not notice we were talking about 2050 energy demand  txlibdem   Oct-06-10 10:46 PM   #60 
  - I found something odd in an article on English wind turbines.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 02:06 PM   #45 
     - You call Cooper's extensive analysis "shit", yet you think that is credible?  kristopher   Oct-06-10 04:26 PM   #53 
     - It's not pretending to be an analysis, it's just a newspaper story.  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 04:32 PM   #54 
     - More info on that wind development  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 04:53 PM   #56 
        - Are you serious? I really thought you were a bit brighter than that...  kristopher   Oct-06-10 06:03 PM   #57 
           - Where am I coming from?  GliderGuider   Oct-06-10 09:02 PM   #58 
              - Your position continues to ignore all known facts regarding energy systems  kristopher   Oct-07-10 07:24 AM   #69 
              - Again with the Jacobson?  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 08:23 AM   #73 
                 - Deleted message  Name removed   Oct-07-10 08:57 AM   #74 
                    - Of course you don't agree with my position. No problem.  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 09:24 AM   #75 
                       - The basis of your position is simply fabricated - it doesn't agree with reality  kristopher   Oct-07-10 10:32 AM   #80 
                          - Even if that were true, why would it matter to you?  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 10:40 AM   #81 
                             - Which is the appropriate response.  kristopher   Oct-07-10 10:48 AM   #82 
              - What happened to peak oil?  bananas   Oct-07-10 09:58 AM   #76 
                 - I am capable of having more than one concern at a time...  GliderGuider   Oct-07-10 10:10 AM   #78 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC