Japan Poll: Switch to Renewables, But Take It Slow

I'm sure that the only reason everyone there doesn't say they want to be rid of the nukes tomorrow is due to the fact that every propaganda organ in the country is grinding the nuke industries tune that as bad as things might be, the japanese people will be unemployed and in the dark without them.

Even in Japan, where everyone was remarking how cooperative they are, people are not willing to pay more taxes. Selfishness or what?

Between the valuable real estate lost to radioactive contamination and the increased health costs of those affected, the Japanese people are going to end up footing one hell of a bill for their nuclear experiment, that's for sure.

My heart goes out to the Japanese people. But, like they need more trouble, this issue is going to be a huge load to carry. It is obvious that the 'experts' on nuclear energy science are anything but competent. It is also obvious that Japans ground stability means that setting a huge glass full of poison on the land is not a wise thing to do. They need a real alternative to energy and wind turbines are not going to fill the bill. And an attempt to do so may cause severe damage to the avian population. They need something new ...

Their location on the ring of fire should be able to provide them with a lot of potential geothermal energy. Talk about turning a liability into an asset. That and a good mix of solar and wind could easily wean them off of nuclear power as soon as they are willing to commit the resources.

I recently read that here in the states we are now producing more renewable energy than nuke. Thank god. Wind,solar,geothermal and biomass are all charging forward while there hasn't been a nuke plant started in years. And less likely to happen all the time. Hopefully we can close our nukes down one at a time without a similar disaster.

I agree Steve, unfortunately with the depletion of oil and gas reserves I am afraid we will continue our nuclear deeds in desperation, because once you begin replacing oil with natural gas, our huge natural gas reserves will be gobbled up in less than 20 years ... then what?

Concidering that the nuke industry is doing its best to get long term licence renewals on all their ageing plants at the same time they also drive them far beyond their original ratings, I fear there will be another Fukushima scale disaster or two before humanity manages to wean itself from this industrial scale insanity.

... not if I have any say about it ...

tim gard,
look at all the estimates of solar and wind growth, look at the drop in their prices, and I hope that the world will be out of nukes and coal within a few decades. AND I guess we (the world)will soon look at fossil fuels a lot differently

The estimates you speak of Steve conveniently leave transportation energies out of their formulas ... the crack sadly in that theory ...

Take notice of Japan, not just for its desire to transition to something better for wholesale electricity but also transportation. This is the main testing ground for hydrogen/electric hybrids and infrastructure to support it. The Japanese are doing more than those speaking.

tim gard,
yesterday in eV WORLD it was estimated that 5% of all cars sold in 5 years will be electric. And in another 10 years 25% of all cars will be electric. VW is already packaging PV arrays with their eV's, a trend that will catch on no doubt.Combine that with the advance in Hybrids and we should be using 1/2 as much oil in a few decades. The Chinese, Indians and Brazilians are not replacing big old 8 cylinder monsters. They have a lot more first time vehicle (lots of eBikes & scooters) owners, and that population is much more 'green' out of economic necessity.
If you want to do something positive ; suggest to your state and local representatives to 1)buy eV's for their fleet vehicles 2)install charging stations 3)add a HEAVY VEHICLE fee to all registrations (and lower that weight frequently)

and walk more

... and where does all that electricity come from Steve?? Coal plants? Nuclear? Fuel oil? Heavy vehicle fee? More taxes to goons? Doesn't sound very good to me.

Including you charnelh ... what have you done besides chastize the rest of us? Anything?

Hey Tim, just in case you missed it, humananity is actively working on generating more of our electricity from renewable resources, so in time those vehicles will be able to get cleaner electricity to run on. Not to mention the thermodynamic advantages, more energy will be going into propulsion than waste heat as compared to how we currently transport ourselves around with IC engines. I would think that as a commenter on this site you would know some of this already.

just so you know, I'm starting up a hydrogen production facility for vehicles and it's with wind, flood water, and my own business. Real skin in the game.

So much emotion expressed Tim! I just joined the conversation and can contribute more than an attitude. I will not however discuss my business further and Steve, there is hope.

By the way Tim, what do you "have to say about it" as an official? of what? with whom? You do not even have any biographical information for me to judge your field of expertise.

charnelh,
at my age hope for the future is more rare these days. but with the GREEN movement in full swing and a new generation of computer literate kids taking the reins i hope for better all the time. i really wish the conservative party would want to conserve energy and the progressive party would make some progress....but ya know...we'll get younger blood there as well.

The so called 'conservatives' we are presented with nowadays should be more correctly called the reactionary regressives.

Know this you say?? You had better do some math there sarge. You have apparently no idea how much enery is represented in the burning of fossil fuels for transportation. To give you a standard, Dr. Youngquist, an engineer from the University of California at Berkley estimated that if you covered the entire continent of North America with a standard 15% efficient solar panel, we would get enough electricity to power our cars, trucks, and trains in the US. No more sunlight, but transportation. Do you really expect to pick up that much load with a bunch of windmills, trash incinerators, and solar panels? You people had better do some math befor you step in something based on your passion. Do the math ... if you can.

The extent of energy useage is known (there are accepted charts) for transportation and electrical utilities. What is your problem? Lack of imagination or just stubborness?

"windmills, trash incenerators, and solar panels"...add 100 years, the comparable money spent on the "dirty" vested systems...the global politics...There must be a better reason for taking such a non-renewable position on a renewable energy website. What is really going on with you?

You can not do the math, can you ...

Let's do some quick mental work. Remember exponents were invented help us with things very big and very small, Newton did a great job of helping us other humans communicate. If I write you equations, that costs money. So we'll go with the formula values: Carbon emitted beyond the buffering capacity of the earth (known dimensions), this shows how civiliation is living on energy the globe/Earth unsustainably, actions cannot sustain without consequence (climate change). Hmmm...keep doing the same thing equals disaster for everyone/everything, changing means harm for vested interests (meaningless to those without vested interests), changing means previously unvested interests will rise, harming the smallest population possible and saving everyone. The smart vested interests join forces with mitigating technologies, all parties survive to fight over something else and everyone lives better anyway. What side of such an equation to you fall into? I'm only interested in those mitigating climate change. And I hope you take this bait, I am wondering if you are just a schill for a vested interest trying to discourage those in solving the problems. You still have not stated where your field of expertise lies. The discussion was becoming so one-sided it should be obvious that your position is practically irrelevant in this blog space.

"Dr. Youngquist, an engineer from the University of California at Berkley estimated that if you covered the entire continent of North America with a standard 15% efficient solar panel, we would get enough electricity to power our cars, trucks, and trains in the US."

I have to call BS on the above statement unless you can back it up with some valid references. I'm familiar with a Dr Youngquist who is a petroleum engineer from Oregon who has done a great deal of work and publications about peak oil and the difficulty involved in weaning us off of it, but I've never heard such an absurd statement as the one you make above attributed to him.

As an aerospace engineer I can say for sure that the US continent completely covered in PV is more than enough to cover our transportation needs and then some.

If you don't believe me I'm sure you can google how many square meters that is and do the math yourself.

Hi:

WHAT???? Cover all of NA with a 15% PV panel and you get how much????
Lets see:

5280*2 = 27.878 million sqft
Just the USA, ~1000 miles X ~3000 Miles = 3 million square miles.
3 million square miles X 27.878 million square feet in a square mile = 8.36**13 sqft in the USA.
Using a very, very conservative 40% yearly sun percentage across all the USA, at an average 32 deg Lat for a surface tilted at 32 degs that is 2226 BTU's per sqft per day X .4 = 890 BTU's per sqft per day. Continuing, 890 X 8.36**13 = 7.44**16 BTU's per day, convert to KWH = 2.18**13KWH X .15 (panel eff) = 3.27**12 KWH per day for the whole USA. That's 327 trillion KWH per day. Now, lets apply that to electric transportation (80% eff) VS fossil fuel transportation (15% eff) and see where we end up.

.....Bill

tim gard,
if you lie loud enough, or long enough it still isn't true

(Adapted)(http://www.telegraph.co.uk-Pritchard) There is Thorium for nuclear, which does not produce Plutonium by product for weapons. Scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster. 'The reactor has an amazing safety feature,' said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert. The earth's crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country's next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years. 'If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,' he said.'They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don't have the sort of hydrogen explosions we've seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.'
Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own 'issues' but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima.
Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be the fission process. 'There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it to continue of its own accord,' he said.
FYI: New CPV being developed has 1000 times the power generation of PV panels, and costs much less than PV. New Wave tech can generate 500 MW per turbine. There's still hope.

Even with the tragedy that struck japan, making a drastic move away from nuclear power is not the right decision. I understand that they want and probably need to move away from nuclear power, however a slower more gradual move where they can build a renewable energy infrastructure is the better decision.

The building of a renewable energy infrastructure, is why the transition to renewable energy is taking such a long time around the globe. Making the switch without said infrastructure could be asking for a complete disaster.

http://ecovized.com

Thank you for joining the discussion. Thorium, this is very interesting and your company is doing a great deal for sustaining civilization on the planet with an electrical generation alternative to traditional nuclear systems. My only question right now is "Is this considered a renewable energy technology according to US Federal standards?" Probably not, but it is refreshing to consider.

There are good carbon footprint alternatives and Mr. Tim-Guard is wasting our time. Let's start that equation again with the US having 3.79 million square miles or 9.83 million km2 much of which is zoned and in use. Let's let this distraction go for a minute. The idea of making a renewable market for transportation fuels and electrical power only has to tip the scale for renewable profits to be in favor. Check out the article here about democratizing the electrical grid too.

The way I heard it; Average PV panels 1/10 the size of New Mexico would replace all of the electric generation in the US. The same panels at the full size of N.M. would also power all the vehicles (if they were eV's) in the US,Mexico, and Canada.

KenChan, I did some reading or Thorium. Never been a nuke fan, but I'm reading more about this topic.

The rapid growth of better batteries is upon us. Think of your first cell phone for a moment.We still have some Nickle Cadmium out there.Lithium Ion is presently all the rage. Expect that some new and cheaper technology is around the corner. It is.FINANCIAL TIMES just put out an article this week predicting 5% of all cars will be eV's by 2017, and 35% by 2030. This amount of better batteries and a two way smart grid, will help stabilize our grid even with expected growth. I hope if you read this you too will consider to buy an eV next time around. I will.

I must join in with the rebuke of Tim's assertions, which are unsupported by any references. I have read analysis that state 7% of land surface covered in today's available solar power would create our full use of electricity. I have seen analysis that state wind power can provide at least 17 times more power than we use. We have not even added wave, tidal geothermal biomass, hydro, and hydrogen. Last year renewable energy out performed nuclear power in the US. Solar and wind power has just begun to be utilized, and already you claim it cannot do the job. Spain just set a new record of over 50% of their power from wind over a blustery weekend, and their grid did not self destruct. http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/spain-sets-wind-power-generation-record/

Solar and wind power continues to decline in price as more suppliers and greater innovation scales up. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/139

May we start with some common facts? check out http://www.cleanenergystates.org/projects/cesa-national-clean-energy-database/cesa-database-resources/resource/state-clean-energy-fund-support-for-renewable-energy-projects-key-findings-from-the-2009-cesa-national-database to see the installed PV and wind by states.

The subject of thorium reactors is an interesting one. On paper thorium seems to have many advantages over uranium reactors. There is more thorium available, so it will not run out, the waste products are not as long lived as uranium waste, there is no plutonium produced, existing mine tailings from uranium mining may be used for thorium extraction without additional mining. The design seems to be safe from run away meltdowns, and less chance of radioactive emissions. We wonder why it has not been utilized, since it was invented many years ago, so it is still considered unproven technology. I will not fall into the illogical trap of saying it's lack of use indicates a lack of value, which is an argument used against renewable energy, but is lacking in logic, when one considers there are many reasons why one technology may be favored over another. I have read that China is building a 4th generation thorium reactor, and I am curious to see how it works out, but the secrecy and lies from the nuclear industry in the past has rendered them with an untrustworthy label, deservedly so. In the meanwhile, as we wait for the results of the China thorium experiment, we have renewable energy systems proven to be safe, economical, reliable, and quick to install, and I think the sensible thing to do is to install those renewable systems now. As renewable energy comes online we can make an orderly and thoughtful transition away from the 2nd generation nuclear power, starting with old reactors, and those near heavily populated areas.

dear aligator,
I agree we should rush to build as many wind,solar and other systems as you say ....renewable energy systems proven to be safe, economical, reliable, and quick to install, and allow the Thorium industry to evolve.

From my own understanding and research, the primary reason why thorium reactors have been avoided all this time is because the large governments that back nuclear power see it as slowly leading to the destruction of their stockpiles of plutonium and other weapons grade material.

I must admit it seems like great technology since it avoids the criticality, meltdown and long lived isotopes issues of our current designs of reactors. Even better that it slowly transmutes many of the radioactive toxins that mankind has created over the last half a century into less harmful ones.

But lets not forget that even thorium reactors will still emit radioactivity and the plants and fuel processing facilities will present the continued risk of leaks and being potential targets of terrorists and foriegn governments.

That being said, as a pragmatist I could live with thorium reactors being set up in remote, low risk locations as a means of eliminating our current stockpile of radioactive waste while at the same time they generate much needed carbon free power in the process.

I have enjoyed your conversations. They have been quite educative. Unfortunately, I am not well versed on the nuclear issue to make comments but I am proud to have learned some things from your comments.For example, I did not know that thorium reactors were safer than uranium reactors until now. Thank you all.