Green Peace Nuclear Power Proponent [Archive]

Rob Lister

2nd May 2006, 03:06 PM

Well, former Green Peace anyway. He was somewhat excommunicated for reaching a single logical conclusion...
Still, he retains his green credentials.

snip (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209_2.html)

The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination.

Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. He and Christine Todd Whitman are co-chairs of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

Tmy

2nd May 2006, 03:13 PM

What do they think about windfarms? They are clean, but they (supposably) kill bird and ugly up the scenerey. Its an enviro-catch 22.

Cleon

2nd May 2006, 03:16 PM

What do they think about windfarms? They are clean, but they (supposably) kill bird and ugly up the scenerey. Its an enviro-catch 22.

Yep. Fundamentally, there's no environmentally safe method of efficient power generation. Wind and solar are too inefficient. Coal and oil plants throw a ****load of crap into the air. Nuclear fission generates waste that is radioactive for centuries. I imagine even when we've discovered a way to use nuclear fusion someone is going to find some sort of problem with it.

The solution? Environmentalist slave labor. Just have them turn a generator in big-ass hamster wheels.

Rob Lister

2nd May 2006, 03:38 PM

I imagine even when we've discovered a way to use nuclear fusion someone is going to find some sort of problem with it.

I've already seen it. I'll let you google first [cause I'm lazy] but the stated difficulty revolved around 1) neutron pollution and 2) hazardous H2 (assuming IRC). Not much noted support though...but really no need at this early juncture. When it gets close to reality...if...then they will ramp up efforts. It's a technology just begging for an activist to anti-it.

P.S. I think the interior Antartic would be the perfect International Nuclear Storage Facility. Don't roll your eyes, it has downsides but all are political, not technical.

Jimbo07

2nd May 2006, 03:54 PM

Fusion power:

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

Protestors can get stuffed :D

gnome

2nd May 2006, 06:17 PM

What do they think about windfarms? They are clean, but they (supposably) kill bird and ugly up the scenerey. Its an enviro-catch 22.

I understand the bird-killing aspect can be avoided by a redesign of the windmills to avoid perching spots--unfortunately the irony involved of dead birds for clean energy leads the idea to spread anyway.

That said, if going heavy nuclear (with adequate safety and waste process) can help our energy independence, I'm all for it. While I'd like to give up on nuclear power because the problem of nuclear waste seems so intractible... the oil problem has priority in my mind right now.

epepke

2nd May 2006, 06:20 PM

Cleon

2nd May 2006, 06:26 PM

The dead birds can be made into biodiesel.

:D

Tony

2nd May 2006, 06:29 PM

The solution? Environmentalist slave labor. Just have them turn a generator in big-ass hamster wheels.

I've often thought about this, although, without the slavery. Why cant we use human powered energy? I'm thinking of a giant wharehouse full of thousands of people (making say, $10 an hour) riding exercise bikes with power generators. Why wouldn't that work?

Cleon

2nd May 2006, 06:36 PM

I've often thought about this, although, without the slavery. Why cant we use human powered energy? I'm thinking of a giant wharehouse full of thousands of people (making say, $10 an hour) riding exercise bikes with power generators. Why wouldn't that work?

Seems to me it would be less efficient than a windfarm, and you'd have to pay $10/hour per turbine. But I'm too lazy to actually do the physics equations.

Not to mention people who are physically fit enough to ride a bike for eight hours straight are pretty rare.

geni

2nd May 2006, 06:46 PM

P.S. I think the interior Antartic would be the perfect International Nuclear Storage Facility. Don't roll your eyes, it has downsides but all are political, not technical.

With the ice melting and therefore the weight on the bedrock reducing I'm not sure it would be that geologicaly stable. Moveing stuff as heavy as nuclear waste out there would also be a bit of a problem.

geni

2nd May 2006, 06:47 PM

Tmy

2nd May 2006, 07:00 PM

I understand the bird-killing aspect can be avoided by a redesign of the windmills to avoid perching spots--unfortunately the irony involved of dead birds for clean energy leads the idea to spread anyway.

That said, if going heavy nuclear (with adequate safety and waste process) can help our energy independence, I'm all for it. While I'd like to give up on nuclear power because the problem of nuclear waste seems so intractible... the oil problem has priority in my mind right now.

What kind of dumb ass bird cant avoid a giant windmill!?!?

rudar

2nd May 2006, 07:02 PM

I've often thought about this, although, without the slavery. Why cant we use human powered energy? I'm thinking of a giant wharehouse full of thousands of people (making say, $10 an hour) riding exercise bikes with power generators. Why wouldn't that work?

I was on a resistance bike for a bit at the physio last week, and it was rated in watts. I could sustain about 150W, for 15 minutes. OK, I've been off the leg for a while (hence the physio), but still, I'd be surprised you'd average more than 200W per ``employee'' on this scheme. So, $50 per kWh, just in salaries, without counting equipment maintenance and distribution network. I'm thinking not so viable...

Zep

2nd May 2006, 07:09 PM

Re the dead bird from windmills thing: How many birds have been killed by generator windmills so far?

[Obviously leading to...]

Is this just a giant (windmill) furphy?

The Fool

2nd May 2006, 08:32 PM

P.S. I think the interior Antartic would be the perfect International Nuclear Storage Facility. Don't roll your eyes, it has downsides but all are political, not technical.
yea rob...top Idea, I end up spending all day beating off huge mutant penguins with evil glowing green eyes landing on the south coast of Australia......Nope....smack bang in the centre of the USA is the best place, nothing much goes on there!!

ETA: I just checked a map and Nebraska seems just about perfect...never heard of anything good that has come out of Nebraska..

gtc

2nd May 2006, 09:28 PM

I was on a resistance bike for a bit at the physio last week, and it was rated in watts. I could sustain about 150W, for 15 minutes. OK, I've been off the leg for a while (hence the physio), but still, I'd be surprised you'd average more than 200W per ``employee'' on this scheme. So, $50 per kWh, just in salaries, without counting equipment maintenance and distribution network. I'm thinking not so viable...

I wonder if a gym could cut its electricity bill by harnessing the electricity generated by the exercise bikes.

The Fool

2nd May 2006, 09:45 PM

I wonder if a gym could cut its electricity bill by harnessing the electricity generated by the exercise bikes.

There is a lot of competition from big players in the electricity generation business. Gyms would be better off looking for a niche market in high value added products....milling organic flour or churning boutique cheeses etc....

Cain

3rd May 2006, 03:07 AM

Make it a condition for receiving universal healthcare. People get exercise, we generate electricity, quality of life increases, healthcare costs (presumably) decline. It might after all be more efficient to have people die of a massive heart attack in their mid-fifties, losing ~ten years of productive labor, than have them live to be 90, thus draining social services without making an economic contribution.

Also, that article is old. I'm pretty sure that guy is no longer a member of Greenpeace and elsewhere he has denied global warming (which made the article, if I remember correctly, rather dishonest). He might have been the guy featured in a monumentally stupid segment on Penn & Teller's show.

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 05:00 AM

yea rob...top Idea, I end up spending all day beating off huge mutant penguins Keep your sexual fantasies to yourself, Fool!
ETA: I just checked a map and Nebraska seems just about perfect...never heard of anything good that has come out of Nebraska..Johnny Carson was from Nebraska.

Try NeVADa (I know, similar sounding names, both out west somewheres...). It's 90% stinking desert, and 3/4 of the population lives in Las Vegas.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 05:03 AM

What kind of dumb ass bird cant avoid a giant windmill!?!?

Exactly! Only the smart birds would avoid them. Then, as natural selection does its dirty work, the bird population would gradually get smarter and smarter. Next thing you know, a huge mutant army of super-intelligent pigeons will be warring against us for control of the planet!

Wind power...Bad stuff.

Kerberos

3rd May 2006, 05:19 AM

Exactly! Only the smart birds would avoid them. Then, as natural selection does its dirty work, the bird population would gradually get smarter and smarter. Next thing you know, a huge mutant army of super-intelligent pigeons will be warring against us for control of the planet!

Wind power...Bad stuff.
Pstt, pinguins can't fly. Also it's a well known fact that only radiation and mad scientists can cause mutations, so our upcoming overlords the sparrows would most definetly NOT be mutated.

Darat

3rd May 2006, 05:24 AM

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 05:35 AM

Solar collection in space beamed down as microwaves to receiving centres and super-conducting cables to distribute the power.

I'd love to see it. But I just don't see that being efficient and viable, certainly not today.

But Pournelle may be right and we will leave the real solutions until it is too late...

Yeah, I tend to agree.

BPSCG

3rd May 2006, 05:39 AM

Look, the French manage to build and run nucular power plants very efficiently and very safely, and they can't even build a decent automobile.

So how hard can it be?

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 07:36 AM

Solar collection in space beamed down as microwaves to receiving centres and super-conducting cables to distribute the power.

Given the technological and capital hurdles, will we get there or to fusion first (if either)?

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 07:45 AM

Given the technological and capital hurdles, will we get there or to fusion first (if either)?

Fusion seems to be getting the funding for it, with France's commitment to start building the fusion research center a year or two ago. As far as I'm aware, the "orbiting solar collector" model is only theoretical at this point, and has been for years.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 09:03 AM

Fusion seems to be getting the funding for it, with France's commitment to start building the fusion research center a year or two ago. As far as I'm aware, the "orbiting solar collector" model is only theoretical at this point, and has been for years.

but,

Solar power has been repeatedly demonstrated as effective for spacecraft. As well, ITER (the 'center' you're referring to) will not be designed to be a commercial plant. That goal is for the following generation, for which there are no firm commitments. So, since even ITER will not see regular operation for at least a decade (more if schedule overruns), you are looking at a minimum of 2 decades before fusion. What will happen in space by then?

both are exciting, but pretty tenuous yet...

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 10:20 AM

but,

Solar power has been repeatedly demonstrated as effective for spacecraft.
Which is only a tiny part of the overall equation. You also have to figure out a way for microwave transmission of the electricity, deployment of solar collection arrays that would be (at today's technology) gargantuan, and do it all in such a way that it's worth more than the time, energy, materials, and money thrown at it.

This is a bit like saying fusion has been repeatedly demonstrated in H-bombs. Yeah, great, but that doesn't really help us.

As well, ITER (the 'center' you're referring to) will not be designed to be a commercial plant.
No, it's for research. As I said. But that research is already in motion, with some achievments already made.

That goal is for the following generation, for which there are no firm commitments. So, since even ITER will not see regular operation for at least a decade (more if schedule overruns), you are looking at a minimum of 2 decades before fusion. What will happen in space by then?
It's not a matter of what will happen in space, but what will happen on Earth. The model is theoretical; the problem is application. Not only are we nowhere near application of such a model, but nobody seems to be seriously working towards it--unlike fusion.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 11:05 AM

I've sorta lost track of which of the three of us (Cleon, Darat, Me) are strongly arguing which points... Let's see:

Darat: Space Solar -> Microwave power transmission -> Collector -> Superconducting distribution

Cleon: Fusion is ahead of solar

Me: Both are 'way cool,' but neither is viable in the near or medium term (i.e. neither before 2 decades, minimum).

Right?

Darat - Superconducting distribution would be cool in many industries, but if you wanted to integrate easily with the grid, you'd probably go with pre-existing high voltage lines, eliminating that development step, so this isn't a critical-path technology, I suspect.

Cleon - Space Solar might benefit from a non-linear event, such as development of a space elevator, and yes your Hydrogen bomb was exactly the sort of proof-of-concept thing I was getting at with space-grade solar cells. It may come down to a cost issue. However, if fusion is ahead, I'm thinking only marginally. One might also use land-based solar farms as a model, and they are in production.

Me - either way, neither technology is a near term solution to any problem.

This is a bit like saying fusion has been repeatedly demonstrated in H-bombs. Yeah, great, but that doesn't really help us.

Agreed.

No, it's for research. As I said. But that research is already in motion, with some achievments already made.

The concept of solar energy collection is proven. Is this equivalent to no research?

It's not a matter of what will happen in space, but what will happen on Earth. The model is theoretical; the problem is application.

Of course, I meant space science and space-systems engineering, both activities which happen largely on Earth.

Not only are we nowhere near application of such a model, but nobody seems to be seriously working towards it--unlike fusion.

Depends what you mean by seriously. You mean as a massive international governmental project? No. If you mean terrestrial solar collection, already in place, then yes.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 11:20 AM

What kind of dumb ass bird cant avoid a giant windmill!?!?
The blades move incredibly fast, plus the currents and turbulence mess with their normal flying skills. Still, it seems to me we are ignoring the really simple solution, one that I learned as a child playing with the fan in my room. Put some damned screens in front of them! Yeah, it reduces power a little, but it should satisfy the environmentalists.

DaChew

3rd May 2006, 11:22 AM

I think we should build a giant nuclear station right on the border of Iran in Iraq but design it so it looks like a big cluster of missiles pointed right at them. Then tell them it's strictly for civilian power purposes.

Tricky

3rd May 2006, 11:24 AM

Solar power has been repeatedly demonstrated as effective for spacecraft.

Er, yeah, except for the part about getting the craft into space.

WildCat

3rd May 2006, 11:38 AM

The blades move incredibly fast, plus the currents and turbulence mess with their normal flying skills. Still, it seems to me we are ignoring the really simple solution, one that I learned as a child playing with the fan in my room. Put some damned screens in front of them! Yeah, it reduces power a little, but it should satisfy the environmentalists.
That would be one monster screen! I once saw a truck on a highway which had a very elongated trailer to carry an unusual load, as I got closer I realized the load was a single blade for a wind turbine! Those things are unbelievably huge.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 11:47 AM

I
The concept of solar energy collection is proven. Is this equivalent to no research?

In this situation, yes. Because the "solar energy collection" is a tiny, tiny, tiny part of the overall equation. Again, it's like arguing that fusion power is right around the corner because we can already conduct fusion reactions.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 12:24 PM

Er, yeah, except for the part about getting the craft into space.

Okay...

That's why I was trying to clear up where we all stand. It seems like I'm being pushed into a situation where I'm going to wind up having to defend space solar! :boggled:

All I'm trying to do is point out that I'm making a subjective call that fusion isn't that far ahead... I'm a proponent of both! We have both functioning space-grade solar cells, and spacecraft. The (difficult) trick is scaling both up to industrial scales. OTOH, even with ITER in the works, there isn't a really good demonstration of industrial fusion either.

Go both!

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 12:39 PM

All I'm trying to do is point out that I'm making a subjective call that fusion isn't that far ahead... I'm a proponent of both! We have both functioning space-grade solar cells, and spacecraft.

I'm reminded of a Lewis Black routine.

"I don't understand why we have a hole in the ozone layer. We have spaceships, we have duct tape. FIX IT!"

Of course, things are a wee bit more complex. It's not just a matter of putting big-ass solar collectors in space, though that's difficult enough. You also have to find a way to safely get the energy from said solar collectors down to Earth. That's the difficult part, and it's not a trivial undertaking by any means.

The (difficult) trick is scaling both up to industrial scales. OTOH, even with ITER in the works, there isn't a really good demonstration of industrial fusion either.

The difference being that people are actually working on it. There is not, to my knowledge, any substantial "space solar" project beyond the assertion that it's theoretically feasible.

gnome

3rd May 2006, 12:45 PM

Solar collection in space beamed down as microwaves to receiving centres and super-conducting cables to distribute the power.

But Pournelle may be right and we will leave the real solutions until it is too late...
Receiving centers... such as Tehran...

Call it Operation: Huge Magnifying Glass.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 12:49 PM

The difference being that people are actually working on it. There is not, to my knowledge, any substantial "space solar" project beyond the assertion that it's theoretically feasible.

Okay, so this is about 'big gov't' projects vs not?

I'll argue, then, that space solar is different in kind from fusion. Space solar is dependent on a collection of technologies, each of which has some 'proof of concept' out there. Development of heavy lifters, for example, is being done for entirely different applications, but could potentially be re-tasked for space solar.

OTOH, what is under study in ITER is a single core technology. Advances in other areas cannot as significantly impact this scheme.

Neither is a viable near-term strategy, but just because space solar projects don't look the same on the surface, I can't really argue that fusion is far ahead.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 01:31 PM

Okay, so this is about 'big gov't' projects vs not?

Wait--what? Who's talking about "big government?"

Neither is a viable near-term strategy, but just because space solar projects don't look the same on the surface, I can't really argue that fusion is far ahead.

No, it's much simpler than that. People are actually working on fusion. It's really that simple.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 01:54 PM

No, it's much simpler than that. People are actually working on fusion. It's really that simple.

That simple? Silly me. :rolleyes:

You're not following me. Fusion is a small set of big projects aimed at 1 core technology.

Space solar is a big set of small projects aimed at differing critical path technologies. This article is a good popular introduction to some of the technologies for space solar:

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/solar.asp

Non-technical hurdle: I didn't know that beaming power via a laser was prohibited by treaty!

Rob Lister

3rd May 2006, 02:17 PM

Interesting. The word Nuclear was only mentioned in six of the 41 posts thus far. (excluding someones sig-line)

Go figure.

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 02:19 PM

Interesting. The word Nuclear was only mentioned in six of the 41 posts thus far. (excluding someones sig-line)

Go figure.

Does Fusion count?

:D

Rob Lister

3rd May 2006, 02:22 PM

nope. Something needs to reasonably exist and be technologically practical for it to count. Sure, they're working on it. It's just 50 years away from being another fifty years away.

Solar, Wind, same problem. It works but is not technologically pratical. Possible, certainly, especially on windy or sunny days.

Nuclear, coal, natural gas, oil, ...those are our current practical options. You can add hydro and geothermal where applicable.

Nuclear rocks. Store the waste in antartica. Hell, you don't even have to bury it...it will bury itself; or at least the warm stuff will.

When the Antartic Treaty comes back up for negotiation sometimes soon, I'll suggest this.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 02:23 PM

That simple? Silly me. :rolleyes:

Yep.

You're not following me. Fusion is a small set of big projects aimed at 1 core technology.

Space solar is a big set of small projects aimed at differing critical path technologies.

Which still doesn't contradict the fact that people are still actually working on fusion, unlike the Great Big Solar Collector. A technology is only viable if it's actually developed.

Rob Lister

3rd May 2006, 02:37 PM

A technology is only viable if it's actually developed.

So why discuss fusion as a nuclear option? It isn't. Not this decade (or the next, or the next, or the next, or likely the next)

Jimbo07

3rd May 2006, 02:45 PM

Which still doesn't contradict the fact that people are still actually working on fusion, unlike the Great Big Solar Collector. A technology is only viable if it's actually developed.

Do you seriously expect me to accept that this (ITER) (http://www.iter.org/index.htm), and especially the quote, "if the ITER Organisation is established in 2006, the first plasma should be possible in ITER by the end of 2016," means that fusion power is much more imminent than space solar?

Mark my prediction... neither option will be producing commercially available power on a societal scale within 2 decades. Beyond that, all bets are off, because I lack the interest in predicting which will be first-past-the-post.

luchog

3rd May 2006, 04:17 PM

The dead birds can be made into biodiesel.
No, they can't.

But they can be made into TDP petrol.

luchog

3rd May 2006, 04:20 PM

Pstt, pinguins can't fly. Also it's a well known fact that only radiation and mad scientists can cause mutations, so our upcoming overlords the sparrows would most definetly NOT be mutated.
I, for one, welcome our avian overlords.

luchog

3rd May 2006, 04:25 PM

Solar collection in space beamed down as microwaves to receiving centres and super-conducting cables to distribute the power.

But Pournelle may be right and we will leave the real solutions until it is too late...
Unfortunately, the room-temperature superconductors necessary to this scheme so far seem to be unachievable.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 04:56 PM

Do you seriously expect me to accept that this (ITER) (http://www.iter.org/index.htm), and especially the quote, "if the ITER Organisation is established in 2006, the first plasma should be possible in ITER by the end of 2016," means that fusion power is much more imminent than space solar?

Yes. For a very simple reason. You can have a bus, a van, a motorcycle, and a Delorean. None of them will get you where you're going unless you get in and drive! Fusion might be a moped at this point, but at least someone's driving.

Cleon

3rd May 2006, 04:57 PM

I, for one, welcome our avian overlords.
luchog wins this thread. :D

Darat

3rd May 2006, 11:57 PM

...snip...

Darat - Superconducting distribution would be cool in many industries, but if you wanted to integrate easily with the grid, you'd probably go with pre-existing high voltage lines, eliminating that development step, so this isn't a critical-path technology, I suspect.

...snip...

I was thinking that the receivers would have to be in very sparsely populated areas (perhaps the Antarctic - after all there is already a hole there ;) ). Therefore the power would need to be distributed all other the world, at the national level the power could just be fed into the existing power grids.

Of course there are many other ways of distributing the power - for instance use it to separate hydrogen from water and then transport the hydrogen but since I was suggesting a very much pie-in-the-sky idea I though I might as well go the whole hog.

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 05:23 AM

Kerberos

4th May 2006, 05:50 AM

What's going on here?

Thirty votes as of this writing. Twenty-seven in favor of nuclear technology. I probably couldn't get that much unanimity in a poll regarding the advisablility of strangling puppies.

This can't possibly be the view of the entire country, can it? If it is, why aren't there about fifty reactors being built right now?

Or is there a problem with the wording of the question?
Well there kind of is, it asks whether you support Nuclear energy using "current or better technology" which is a bit unclear. Still I doubt that is responsible for the anormallity, as much as the fact that this forum just isn't representative of either the US or the world in general.

Rob Lister

4th May 2006, 05:55 AM

Well there kind of is, it asks whether you support Nuclear energy using "current or better technology" which is a bit unclear. Still I doubt that is responsible for the anormallity, as much as the fact that this forum just isn't representative of either the US or the world in general.

That's true. It was a bit unclear. I should have just said "current" technology.

I suspect had I done that, the numbers might be opposite.

Cleon

4th May 2006, 06:17 AM

I haven't voted, because I think it's a bit more complex than a "yes, nuclear power" versus "no under any circumstances."

Jimbo07

4th May 2006, 07:40 AM

That's true. It was a bit unclear. I should have just said "current" technology.

I suspect had I done that, the numbers might be opposite.

If you'd said 'using the Chernobyl reactor design, the numbers might also have been different. :p

I think the word 'current' is sufficient for most critically-thinking individuals.

BPSCG

4th May 2006, 07:55 AM

I think the word 'current' is sufficient for most critically-thinking individuals.Problem is, he threw in, "or better," which fuzzes up the question.

I am opposed to nuclear power today, because the technology is not good enough yet. When we get better technology, that can generate nuclear power with zero risk to the population or the environment, and with effective, 100% safe disposal of atomic waste, then I will support the building of nuclear power plants to address our energy needs.

That (imaginary) speaker could also have answered "Yes."

Rob Lister

4th May 2006, 08:40 AM

Indeed.

I'm a strong proponent of the helium-cooled pebble-bed design.

No system is perfect but this one is as close to perfect as we are ever likely to get. To say it is failsafe is only a very slight mistatement.

The cost/benefit ratio seems to be so heavily weighed in favor or benefit that cost barely enters the equation -- especially if politics is removed from the equation (but, alas, it can never be).

These reactors could flip-flop the U.S. energy market (currently 20% nuke, 80% other) within a decade or two. Cheaper, more reliable, Safer than coal.

But that would put WV (as a stereotype) out of business.

Crossbow

4th May 2006, 08:49 AM

I've often thought about this, although, without the slavery. Why cant we use human powered energy? I'm thinking of a giant wharehouse full of thousands of people (making say, $10 an hour) riding exercise bikes with power generators. Why wouldn't that work?

Quick answer:

Assuming that a human can produce 200 watts of power continuously for an eight hour period (rather optimistic, I know),
Then that human would generate 1.600 kw-hrs of energy for cost of $80.00.
Or, put another way, human produced electricity costs about $50.00/kw-hr.

However, fossil fuel produced electricity costs about $0.07/kw-hr.

Soooooo,
the human produced electricity costs about 714 times more than fossil fuel produced electricity, therefore human produced electricity is impractical at the present time.

I hope this helps!

luchog

4th May 2006, 01:04 PM

Well there kind of is, it asks whether you support Nuclear energy using "current or better technology" which is a bit unclear. Still I doubt that is responsible for the anormallity, as much as the fact that this forum just isn't representative of either the US or the world in general.
Despite widespread ignorance of the safety of Nuclear energy technology, i think overall support is possibly a bit higher than we would assume. However, even among supporters, there's an overwhelming thread of NIMBYism that effectively amounts the the same as the ignorant opposition.

Tony

4th May 2006, 07:09 PM

Quick answer:

Assuming that a human can produce 200 watts of power continuously for an eight hour period (rather optimistic, I know),
Then that human would generate 1.600 kw-hrs of energy for cost of $80.00.
Or, put another way, human produced electricity costs about $50.00/kw-hr.

However, fossil fuel produced electricity costs about $0.07/kw-hr.

Soooooo,
the human produced electricity costs about 714 times more than fossil fuel produced electricity, therefore human produced electricity is impractical at the present time.

I hope this helps!

It does, thanks.

Is there no way to increase a human's energy production? What about a system of pulleys to make the generators turn faster/easier?

gnome

5th May 2006, 05:21 AM

It does, thanks.

Is there no way to increase a human's energy production? What about a system of pulleys to make the generators turn faster/easier?

Well, you could always hook them up like a battery... and pay them in pleasure impulses instead of money. They'd use the money to make themselves happy anyway, wouldn't they? :)

BPSCG

5th May 2006, 05:27 AM

Or, put another way, human produced electricity costs about $50.00/kw-hr.

However, fossil fuel produced electricity costs about $0.07/kw-hr.

Soooooo,
the human produced electricity costs about 714 times more than fossil fuel produced electricity, therefore human produced electricity is impractical at the present time.On the other hand, a natural gas pipeline connected to the United States Capitol Building would provide enough hot air to heat every building on the planet. You'd have to burn off the noxious byproducts, of course...