Apple Touts Plans for Massive Solar Farm and Fuel Cell Facilities at North Carolina Data Center

[TMay]

I should have qualified my statement by locale....

I agree with California on this. Fresh water supplies are a critical resource; why take a chance when recycling mitigates toxicity issues in water supplies.

Cool factoid: Carson City which is a combined city/county has almost identical area in square miles to South Korea, within a couple of square miles, but 0.01% (1/1000th) the population. We have a landfill facility that encompasses less than 100 acres.

Makes me wonder how much more efficient S. Korea has be in waste management.

 

[farmboy]

A) Producing a solar cell is one of the most environmentally toxic things one can produce on the planet.

B) Solar cells are more like the Prius . . .those who are self-righteous purchase them to show how "environmentally friendly" they are.

C) Maybe you missed the oil discovery off the coast of Brazil, or the new find in Canada, or Siberia . . . . plus all the untapped oil fields in the United States . . . you and I will be long gone by the time the world runs out.

A1) The negative environmental impact of solar panels is primarily the extraction of silicon from sand using petroleum products--which you seem to think are not environmentally toxic. So choose one, either oil is dirty or it's not.

B1) I drive a Prius because I get 50-54 mpg at 70 mph on the interstate and I don't have to stop and fill the tank every 3 days like you do. Could not care less what others think.

C1) Reducing shale to oil is not toxic?! Is this Koch Bros. science? Besides, it's not just the supply of the oil (and the CIA thinks oil *shortages* are the greatest security threat to this country), it's the ability to extract that oil in an economically feasible manner, and then have enough transportation and refinery resources to process it.

Don't you find it curious that demand for gas is lower than it has been in 15 years yet fuel prices are inexplicably going up to $4/gallon?

By the way, your signature seems to suggest Apple, and environmentalists in general, are doing the right thing here:
"Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem"
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"

 

[pancakedrawer]

Lifespan = Sustainability

The single most effective method of reducing emissions is to increase the lifespan of the product. Unfortunately it's also one of the hardest things to measure.
I think it would be a good guess to say that apple products would easily outlast the lifespan of other manufacturers. Their superior build quality and high demand means that 5 year old macs are in popular demand on eBay.
I'd go as far to say that every 1 Mac = 2-3 PCs therefore making them more sustainable.
The same goes for most products & even buildings.

 

[Erasmus]

So, what about the cumulative impact of all the 'small' amounts of nuclear waste releases? Are they irrelevant because of their size? Or simply convenient to ignore?

They are irrelevant because nuclear is still far safer than coal. Even ignoring the whole global warming thing. And nuclear technology continues to progress, where as fossil fuel technologies do not. And other types of green energy are still too impractical to roll out mainstream in time to prevent serious global warming damage.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are prime examples of why nuclear will always be dangerous to humans. The reason being is that they are designed, built and operated by humans. There's no way to get around that.

So why can't reactors be designed, built and operated by computers and machines? I mean many things are now anyways.

The size of the Fukushima earthquake was hardly 'unprecedented'. There have been much larger earthquakes and there will continue to be larger earthquakes.

The reactor was not designed to be hit by such a large earthquake. It should have been. If it was, there would not have been any meltdown.

I highlighted the word will because it seems sort of idiotic to believe that we will when after more than 75 years, we still haven't come up with any truly safe and long term solution for nuclear waste storage.

As far as I am aware, present long term nuclear waste storage solutions are guaranteed for at least thousands of years. That seems pretty damn long term to me. And you should consider that computers have been around for less time than the nuclear age. Plenty of progress there. Because computers have public support, nuclear power does not.

 

[Glideslope]

Greenpeace... Aren't they the group up in arms about the imminent destruction of the Gulf after BPs incident? And the same thing off the coast of Italy last month? They keep proving what idiots they are over and over, and the media keeps publishing them. More idiots.

They pick there causes based on Political Exposure. Not Planetary Need.

So yes, idiots.

 

[Erasmus]

Let's see, you need to spend vast sums mining the ore which is incredibly destructive to the environment, then transport it to a processing facility, then to the power plant, then send it somewhere for storage. The problem is that there's no way that nuclear will ever be cost effective and it's mostly because of the future storage costs as well as the inevitable damage that the transportation and use will cause. Solar and fuel cells have clearly defined costs and lifespans. There's no question of how much it will cost 5,000 years from now to deal with solar panel waste. It's a no brainer. Nuclear has no future, simply because it will consume the future.

WHAT?????

Everything has to be mined. You don't get solar panels out of the air, you know.

Open cut mining in a freaking desert is not "incredibly destructive". It is incredibly easy, and cheap to mine.

Nuclear is very cheap. Why else would so many countries be using it? It is also extremely low in carbon emissions, even when all the mining and transport is considered.

 

[AidenShaw]

If Apple were to rely on unstable, outside sources for its electricity, iCloud would be plagued by outages.

You do realize that Icloud services are provided by Microsoft and Amazon - not Apple's medium-sized data center in North Carolina???

Guess What: iCloud Uses Windows Azure Services For Hosting Data​

And, of course, the Icloud outages have not been due to problems at Microsoft and Amazon - but with Apple's software layers.

 

[hobo.hopkins]

Good work Apple. Despite real and concrete actions aimed at advancing environmental awareness and reducing impact, Apple gets almost exclusively criticism. It's really just sad. You can wish they did more, but you can't deny that their actions are good.

 

[ProVideo]

This shot makes it look like no one is there.

http://i.imgur.com/lJA00.jpg

 

[thaifood]

You didn't read the article.

...

IF the US has so much oil as you claim, why are we currently importing so much? Perhaps you could supply verifiable sources to back up your rather outrageous claims?



So, what about the cumulative impact of all the 'small' amounts of nuclear waste releases? Are they irrelevant because of their size? Or simply convenient to ignore?

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are prime examples of why nuclear will always be dangerous to humans. The reason being is that they are designed, built and operated by humans. There's no way to get around that.

The size of the Fukushima earthquake was hardly 'unprecedented'. There have been much larger earthquakes and there will continue to be larger earthquakes.

I highlighted the word will because it seems sort of idiotic to believe that we will when after more than 75 years, we still haven't come up with any truly safe and long term solution for nuclear waste storage.

----------



How many nuclear reactors will be under water from rising seawater or will have to shut down because of prolonged drought? You can't just up and move them, now can you?

Let's see, you need to spend vast sums mining the ore which is incredibly destructive to the environment, then transport it to a processing facility, then to the power plant, then send it somewhere for storage. The problem is that there's no way that nuclear will ever be cost effective and it's mostly because of the future storage costs as well as the inevitable damage that the transportation and use will cause. Solar and fuel cells have clearly defined costs and lifespans. There's no question of how much it will cost 5,000 years from now to deal with solar panel waste. It's a no brainer. Nuclear has no future, simply because it will consume the future.

The USA has significant "strategic reserves" of oil, upwards of about 700 million barrels, I think. These are held in facilities or underground in proven geologic traps. The reserves are primarily designed to be used in event of significant oil shortages if any disruptions were to occur to their imports. This equates to about a months supply at current capacity.

Further reserves are contained within several geologic formations throughout the USA. Notable ones include the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin, stretching over parts of Canada and northern USA (North Dakota being a primary state in that). The Bakken is considered a decent producer and source of oil in it's thermally mature parts. Estimated proven, unproven and non-recoverable reserves are nearly 20 billion barrels.

Skipping over to more unconventional oil and gas - Oil shales are finally coming into the limelight as a viable option for production. The rising cost of oil and the slowing of conventional oil field discoveries are pushing these frontier targets into more mainstream roles in the energy industry. The USA alone has up to 2.5 trillion barrels of technically recoverable reserves. This, coupled with the increasing importance of natural gas (figures of which I don't know off the top of my head), give a pretty robust technical reserve figure for the USA. Unconventional gas reserves such as coal seam gas and shale gas will further bolster this total.

Now, strategically, the USA is actually playing the game pretty well with oil consumption. Sitting on large potential reserves whilst still importing vast amounts of foreign oil for reasonable prices means that the country will not feel the bite as hard as others when the oil decline really ramps up prices. The re-examination of old coal seams for coal seam gas and generally improved technology means that it is economically viable to revisit a lot of previously explored basins and still make some money.

On to nuclear!!

Nuclear power does have a very bad, and somewhat unjustified, stigma associated with it. Obviously, Chernobyl, the recent Fukushima incident and of course the nuclear bomb, all tug at the public's opinion of nuclear power. In essence though, nuclear power is an emission free technology which has enormous potential for supplementing current fossil fuel based energy demands. As with any fuel, careful management and engineering is required to ensure environmental impacts are kept to a minimum (or negated entirely). The removal of nuclear waste ranges from short lived isotopes (hours and weeks) up to high level waste which will last millennia. Careful storage is required and it requires a thorough amount of research to ensure that something so potentially threatening is handled correctly. There are several methods of disposal available; such as geologic disposal, transmutation techniques or even sealing in concrete with inert gas (I think). I'm not going to go into these processes but look them up if you are interested.

Also, as a FYI: Nuclear power stations are completely safe to be in and to work around. The amount of precautions and construction of the facilities are mind-boggling. I always have a laugh when I hear about Greenpeace having a whine about nuclear power. Their headquarters is constructed out of granite, which is a naturally (and mildly) radioactive rock. One would receive more radiation sitting in their office than you would in a nuclear power station.

You are making pretty sweeping comments about how destructive mining is to the environment. I am an Australian, and the legislation in place for environment rehabilitation of mine sites in Australia is extensive. A general scenario for open cut mines covers everything from water consumption, septic systems, dust control and habitat preservation. An example is the Cadia gold mine near Orange. The top soil of the whole site has been removed and stored. Once the open cut phase is completed, the area is back-filled and the top soil is redistributed along with the relevant vegetation. After several years the sites look like just any other part of the bush.

 

[John.B]

Also, as a FYI: Nuclear power stations are completely safe to be in and to work around. The amount of precautions and construction of the facilities are mind-boggling.

Engineers who "have thought of everything" are the epitome, almost the definition, of hubris.

• An earthquake and resulting tsunami caused nuclear meltdowns (plural) resulting in releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
• The Las Conchas wildfire in New Mexico shut down the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
• Floods on the Missouri River in Nebraska came within a few feet of topping temporary levies at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant.

What to these have in common? All were 2011 natural disasters that are not uncommon in their locales, which affected the operation of nuclear power plants and facilities. "Completely safe"? I don't think so. "Mind-boggling"? Absolutely.

 

[thaifood]

Engineers who "have thought of everything" are the epitome, almost the definition, of hubris.

• An earthquake and resulting tsunami caused nuclear meltdowns (plural) resulting in releases of radioactive materials at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.
• The Las Conchas wildfire in New Mexico shut down the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
• Floods on the Missouri River in Nebraska came within a few feet of topping temporary levies at the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant.

What to these have in common? All were 2011 natural disasters that are not uncommon in their locales, which affected the operation of nuclear power plants and facilities. "Completely safe"? I don't think so. "Mind-boggling"? Absolutely.

I never said that engineers have thought of everything. I stated that careful engineering is required during design and construction of any facility. This rings true from anything ranging from a power station to a garden shed.

The above list of disasters are potentially very dangerous, however, painting a doomsday picture of nuclear facilities being death-traps without regarding the knowledge that goes into their design and maintenance is being short-sighted. If anything, the Fukushima incident could have been much worse if the plant was not built so well. Also, the Missouri floods demonstrated how good engineering can avoid potentially worse destruction.

Consider this rhetorical question: What would have happened to our species if we shunned fire when the first man was burnt?

Extend that to electricity, the car, flight, fossil fuels, space travel and so on...

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these events in 2011. I'm simply of the opinion that nuclear energy has a great deal of potential, especially over lower yield technologies such as solar, wind and hydro. Green energy is starting to emerge, but it is nowhere near as powerful as fossil fuels or nuclear.

 

[BobbyRond]

I believe Apple has long been better. From reduced packgaging to the shift toward downloads to actually DOING things in stead of merely talking about them.

High quality products that are highly recyclable and have a higher second hand value than other manufacturers, tiny packaging compared to their peers, the lowest possible energy consumption in their products - they all save energy by default which no others do - and an iPad uses only 2.5 watts of energy. Best customer satisfaction, stores that are gorgeous and don't look like stores, and on.

I agree with your posts, but mind you that Apple packaging may be less reduced than the final product in the store may suggest...

The Magic Mouse is one of the few products that use foam to protect the product packaging, but every single Apple product has that much air inside the box, just to make sure the final product arrives at the store in pristine condition.

 

[KingJosh]

As far as I am aware, there have only been three instances of "large amounts" of nuclear waste being released into the environment.

Chernobyl was caused by the Russians FORCING their reactor to melt down by physically disabling the safety systems.

Three mile island again was caused by human factors that would not have resulted with anything like a modern fully automatic, fully redundant system.

Fukushima (or however it is spelled) was caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami.

The idea that a suicide bomber could damage a nuclear reactor AT ALL is ill-conceived. A few pounds of explosive, or even a few tonnes of car-bomb explosive detonating near a reactor would likely barely breach the outer containment shielding, and only put the reactor out of commission for a few months for repairs. Nuclear waste is similarly transported in shielded canisters that any bomb would have a hard time breaching.

Finally, yes Nuclear waste tends to have extremely long life, and can be dangerous for tens of thousands of years. But it seems safe to me that our world scientists and engineers will come up with a solution to this problem within a few tens of years, let alone the thousands of years that today's long term storage solutions are guaranteed for.

Suicide bomber doesn't have to be just a bomb strapped to their waist. Remember the twin towers? Are you also saying that earthquakes and tsunamis will never happen ever again?

By the way three times is three times too many. No one can live in those huge areas for 20,000 years now. I think people should have learnt after the first time that nuclear is too dangerous ESPECIALLY!! when there is FOUR other INFINITE SUPPLY alternatives which cause ZERO!!! POLLUTION.

----------

I never said that engineers have thought of everything. I stated that careful engineering is required during design and construction of any facility. This rings true from anything ranging from a power station to a garden shed.

The above list of disasters are potentially very dangerous, however, painting a doomsday picture of nuclear facilities being death-traps without regarding the knowledge that goes into their design and maintenance is being short-sighted. If anything, the Fukushima incident could have been much worse if the plant was not built so well. Also, the Missouri floods demonstrated how good engineering can avoid potentially worse destruction.

Consider this rhetorical question: What would have happened to our species if we shunned fire when the first man was burnt?

Extend that to electricity, the car, flight, fossil fuels, space travel and so on...

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these events in 2011. I'm simply of the opinion that nuclear energy has a great deal of potential, especially over lower yield technologies such as solar, wind and hydro. Green energy is starting to emerge, but it is nowhere near as powerful as fossil fuels or nuclear.

by more powerful do you mean in limited supply and more destructive?

 

[lvlarkkoenen]

But even with the rapid growth in carbon footprint, Apple touts that greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of revenue have decreased by 15.4 percent since 2008.

Ok when I first read through the article I read 'per dollar of profit' and that's by no means interesting. Per dollar of revenue, still, isn't optimal. Apple products are expensive. A substantial part of Apple's income goes to shareholders, designers, developers etc. For, say, Dell/HP/Nokia, a larger fraction of their revenue goes to production and materials, stuff that generally produces more greenhouse gas. So I would hope Apple can boast relatively low greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of revenue. But that's implicit in their way of making trade.

Also, to the whole solar panel discussion: Solar cells do NOT have the future. Solar cells have fairly low yields, converting only about 20-25% of the incoming energy to electricity. Microbiofuel experiments, such as the bacterial one in Canada (can't find the company anymore) or the Algae one in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlgaePARC), will likely produce much higher efficiency. Additionally, these organisms don't require the materials that one has to mine in order to make solar cells. Even if you can get rid of all toxic/biohazardous materials in solar cells, you'll still need silicon.

 

[thaifood]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

As far as I am aware, there have only been three instances of "large amounts" of nuclear waste being released into the environment.

Chernobyl was caused by the Russians FORCING their reactor to melt down by physically disabling the safety systems.

Three mile island again was caused by human factors that would not have resulted with anything like a modern fully automatic, fully redundant system.

Fukushima (or however it is spelled) was caused by an unprecedented earthquake and tsunami.

The idea that a suicide bomber could damage a nuclear reactor AT ALL is ill-conceived. A few pounds of explosive, or even a few tonnes of car-bomb explosive detonating near a reactor would likely barely breach the outer containment shielding, and only put the reactor out of commission for a few months for repairs. Nuclear waste is similarly transported in shielded canisters that any bomb would have a hard time breaching.

Finally, yes Nuclear waste tends to have extremely long life, and can be dangerous for tens of thousands of years. But it seems safe to me that our world scientists and engineers will come up with a solution to this problem within a few tens of years, let alone the thousands of years that today's long term storage solutions are guaranteed for.

Suicide bomber doesn't have to be just a bomb strapped to their waist. Remember the twin towers? Are you also saying that earthquakes and tsunamis will never happen ever again?

By the way three times is three times too many. No one can live in those huge areas for 20,000 years now. I think people should have learnt after the first time that nuclear is too dangerous ESPECIALLY!! when there is FOUR other INFINITE SUPPLY alternatives which cause ZERO!!! POLLUTION.

----------

I never said that engineers have thought of everything. I stated that careful engineering is required during design and construction of any facility. This rings true from anything ranging from a power station to a garden shed.

The above list of disasters are potentially very dangerous, however, painting a doomsday picture of nuclear facilities being death-traps without regarding the knowledge that goes into their design and maintenance is being short-sighted. If anything, the Fukushima incident could have been much worse if the plant was not built so well. Also, the Missouri floods demonstrated how good engineering can avoid potentially worse destruction.

Consider this rhetorical question: What would have happened to our species if we shunned fire when the first man was burnt?

Extend that to electricity, the car, flight, fossil fuels, space travel and so on...

I'm not trying to downplay the significance of these events in 2011. I'm simply of the opinion that nuclear energy has a great deal of potential, especially over lower yield technologies such as solar, wind and hydro. Green energy is starting to emerge, but it is nowhere near as powerful as fossil fuels or nuclear.

by more powerful do you mean in limited supply and more destructive?

No, I mean that the energy potential of fossil fuels and nuclear far exceeds solar, wind or hydrodynamic methods. This is the very reason why coal, gas, oil and nuclear power generation is used - they are economically better investments and yield far greater energy output that similar sized "green" power generators.

Even electric powered (ie: battery stored energy) is only just emerging now as a supplement for fossil fuels in cars. The idea of an electric passenger jet, or a solar powered car that even matches the average car you see on the roads today is far-fetched with our current (and affordable) technology.

In Australia there are several environmental movements that target the fossil fuel industry and tout how destructive coal and gas fired generation is without understanding the science behind these facilities - and the measures in place to minimise emissions. These same movements call for the shutting down of fossil fuel power stations without fully understanding the massive energy deficit that would result. Australia doesn't have harsh winters by any comparison to parts of Asia, the USA, Europe or Canada. The thought of immediately ceasing fossil fuel consumption because it's "destructive" would result in the death of countless people and effectively send us backwards.

 

[goosnarrggh]

Suicide bomber doesn't have to be just a bomb strapped to their waist. Remember the twin towers? Are you also saying that earthquakes and tsunamis will never happen ever again?

By the way three times is three times too many. No one can live in those huge areas for 20,000 years now.

Some people, going against government demands, never left the Chernobyl exclusion zone, and still live there today. An official program of controlled re-population of certain parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone is now underway.

Certainly some portions of the exclusion zone will remain contaminated with alpha emitters, and will have to be off-limits to the general population (who wouldn't know the appropriate precautions to take) for a very long time, but not "huge areas".

Gamma emitters inside Reactor Four (the unit where the accident actually occurred) will return to background levels within 300 years, at which time it will be safe for trained personnel to start disassembling that reactor.

The remaining reactors at the Chernobyl plant remained on-line for years to decades following the accident, and the plant is still staffed to this day as workers go through the steps of a controlled decommissioning and disassembly of the other three reactors.

Three Mile Island is still staffed, and the other reactor remains online to this day. People still live and work on the mainland right next door.

 

[TMay]

Ok when I first read through the article I read 'per dollar of profit' and that's by no means interesting. Per dollar of revenue, still, isn't optimal. Apple products are expensive. A substantial part of Apple's income goes to shareholders, designers, developers etc. For, say, Dell/HP/Nokia, a larger fraction of their revenue goes to production and materials, stuff that generally produces more greenhouse gas. So I would hope Apple can boast relatively low greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of revenue. But that's implicit in their way of making trade.

Also, to the whole solar panel discussion: Solar cells do NOT have the future. Solar cells have fairly low yields, converting only about 20-25% of the incoming energy to electricity. Microbiofuel experiments, such as the bacterial one in Canada (can't find the company anymore) or the Algae one in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlgaePARC), will likely produce much higher efficiency. Additionally, these organisms don't require the materials that one has to mine in order to make solar cells. Even if you can get rid of all toxic/biohazardous materials in solar cells, you'll still need silicon.

Maybe I'm misreading your citation, but it sounds like it is creating biofuels, whereas Solar PV outputs electricity. From my way of thinking, these would be complementary rather than competing technologies.

Also, if my recollection is correct, 20%-25% efficiency is pretty high indicating traditional silicon wafer technology, but there are other organic films that while less efficient, are much less costly.

The big problem with solar is that it has isn't base power so storage or connection schemes would have to be included increasing the cost.

Here's some statistics on Solar PV usage:

http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C47

 

[TMay]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)



No, I mean that the energy potential of fossil fuels and nuclear far exceeds solar, wind or hydrodynamic methods. This is the very reason why coal, gas, oil and nuclear power generation is used - they are economically better investments and yield far greater energy output that similar sized "green" power generators.

Even electric powered (ie: battery stored energy) is only just emerging now as a supplement for fossil fuels in cars. The idea of an electric passenger jet, or a solar powered car that even matches the average car you see on the roads today is far-fetched with our current (and affordable) technology.

In Australia there are several environmental movements that target the fossil fuel industry and tout how destructive coal and gas fired generation is without understanding the science behind these facilities - and the measures in place to minimise emissions. These same movements call for the shutting down of fossil fuel power stations without fully understanding the massive energy deficit that would result. Australia doesn't have harsh winters by any comparison to parts of Asia, the USA, Europe or Canada. The thought of immediately ceasing fossil fuel consumption because it's "destructive" would result in the death of countless people and effectively send us backwards.

Technology doesn't exist today to easily mitigate creation of CO2 when burning fossil fuels, though many studies are investigating processing CO2 gas into stable solids. People that agree with the scientific community about Global Warming and Climate Change, and that it is accelerated by humans consumption of fossil fuels, accept that appropriate steps need to be taken to stabilize and then reduce atmospheric CO2. Otherwise, expect disruptions in the world's food supplies, and increased risk of extreme weather conditions, not to mention social instability. I happen to agree with the scientific community.

Of course, plenty of people worldwide do not agree with the scientists and believe that there is no significant risk to inaction on Global Warming. For those people, transitioning to alternative energy solutions is pointless considering all of the fossil fuels that can still be cheaply had.

 

[uknowimright]

Wasn't 1977 the last time a reactor was built in the US? I'm sure they have come up with much better reactor designs in these 30+ years and learning from the mistakes of the past

 

[John.B]

Wasn't 1977 the last time a reactor was built in the US? I'm sure they have come up with much better reactor designs in these 30+ years and learning from the mistakes of the past

Southern is building two new reactors in Georgia. According to the head of the NRC, the design doesn't incorporate changes based on lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown. Specifically, there are no upgrades in their design to account for prolonged electric power outages in the event of a natural disaster.

 

[crepuscular]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
No, I mean that the energy potential of fossil fuels and nuclear far exceeds solar, wind or hydrodynamic methods.

Please provide evidence to substantiate this assertion.

Fossil fuels are by definition a limited resource. There are also limits to the amount of fissile material available. Sunshine and wind, in contrast, are in effect limitless. Moreover, sunshine and wind provide orders of magnitude more power than we need.

The sun provides us with 86,000 terawatts per year; currently we (world population) use 15 terawatts per year.

This is the very reason why coal, gas, oil and nuclear power generation is used - they are economically better investments and yield far greater energy output that similar sized "green" power generators.

What has size to do with it?

The amount of land required to provide the world's energy needs solely using solar is comparatively small, see http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

Solar certainly has been more expensive up until now, but part of the reason it's becoming more interesting to many people is precisely because its cost has been coming down while the cost of other power sources such as oil has been increasing. If you factor in the costs of pollution of fossil fuels, costs are probably at least at parity.

The significant advantage that solar brings at a business level is that you can predict energy costs for a long time into the future. If you build a solar array to meet your needs, you amortize the cost of the array over the next few decades and that's how much your electricity costs. If you depend on other sources, who knows...?

Even electric powered (ie: battery stored energy) is only just emerging now as a supplement for fossil fuels in cars. The idea of an electric passenger jet, or a solar powered car that even matches the average car you see on the roads today is far-fetched with our current (and affordable) technology.

Actually, electric cars came first. If the Victorians had had batteries like we have today, it's quote possible there would never have been a significant market for internal combustion engine vehicles.

It remains to be seen how viable electric planes are, but progress is certainly being made. Electric cars are now comparatively commonplace, and many are indeed solar-powered. You don't put solar panels on the car, though (at least not to provide significant motive power); you put the solar panels on your house and bank with the grid. An increasing number of people are now powering both their homes and their cars with solar.

In Australia there are several environmental movements that target the fossil fuel industry and tout how destructive coal and gas fired generation is without understanding the science behind these facilities - and the measures in place to minimise emissions.

There really is little to understand. And emissions are not the only consideration.

These same movements call for the shutting down of fossil fuel power stations without fully understanding the massive energy deficit that would result. Australia doesn't have harsh winters by any comparison to parts of Asia, the USA, Europe or Canada. The thought of immediately ceasing fossil fuel consumption because it's "destructive" would result in the death of countless people and effectively send us backwards.

I just thought of immediately ceasing fossil fuel consumption and as far as I'm aware no-one died as a result.
Australia has huge potential for solar energy; the main problem would be storage. This is not an insurmountable problem -- technologies exist. All it takes is the political will.

On the subject of political will, finally consider this National Geographic study. If the US really wanted, it could switch to 100% renewable energy -- not even including bio fuels.

 

[8281]

I ride a bike, sold the car. I only buy recyclable products. I am a major sponsor of the WWF organization. I profit from my power bill through my 10 solar panels on the roof (even through winter), I have 3 massive rain water tanks for filling the pool and gardening. All of my appliances have 3-5 star energy ratings. I have a big back yard full of trees and plants.

I do respect what you do though.

----------



Nuclear station would be a great target for a suicide bomber and an extremely easy way to wipe out america in a couple of hours. Fault line or not. Earth quakes are not the only natural disaster than can occur. Nuclear is too risky. Plus you get nuclear wastage that has a half life of around 20,000 years.

If you want to evolve into a toad if not die be my guest but please go to another planet to do it

Only fission produces nuclear fallout, which is simply the unstable fragments of the splitting of either Uranium-235, or Plutonium-239. Nuclear fusion does not result in the creation of large amounts of unstable large elements. However as the fusion process in a thermonuclear bomb is triggered by a traditional fission explosion, the result is much the same.



Only U-235 and Pu-239 are fissile. I don't think fissionable is a real scientific word. A dirty bomb is just a wad of explosive with some normal radioactive material, like would be found in any hospital, or in smoke alarms, or the by-product of nuclear fission in a reactor, or collected from a wide number of natural sources.



Very true. Anyways, if a terrorist's goal is just to kill as many people as possible, there are far easier and more effective ways. Like toxic chemical bombs.



Fast breeder nuclear reactors use fissile U-235 and Pu-239, and the large number of neutrons released to turn the most common isotope of Uranium, U-238, otherwise known as "depleted uranium" into Pu-239. This is a much more difficult process than a normal nuclear reactor.

How many people die from coal mine accidents? How many people will die from increasingly hostile weather and rising seawater caused by global warming? How long until mid to high range radiation exposure is easily treatable in hospitals? I've got to say, I'm sick of the negative campaigning nuclear power gets. Especially when the fuel can be safely open-cut mined out in the desert of Oz. Which also doubles as probably the safest place in the world to store the radioactive waste generated.

Thanks for the info — here are deaths per terawatt compiled by the world health organization.

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,00

 

[KingJosh]

Erasmus. Are you insane?

Do you know how many under water rivers go through Australia? You hardly know a thing about my country and probably like most Americans cannot even pinpoint it on a map.

Oh yeah lets just store nuclear waste in the middle of Australia because Erasmus says so. Ever thought about people living there? Ever thought about animals living there (a lot longer than humans have been on Earth). Ever thought about growing a brain? Ever thought about moving planets? I wish.

----------

Thanks for the info — here are deaths per terawatt compiled by the world health organization.

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,00

no surprise there.

 

[SBlue1]

nice