Poll: What energy source do you prefer?

[Tsmuktengan]

In France, the demand in energy increases slightly every year, with big peaks in winter due to massive use of heating systems, and so despite the recent application of the governmental program to help people making their home more temperature efficient.

There are also two other issues specific to France : nuclear power produces more than 70% of the state's energy, with some exported in some periods. If nuclear power is brought to a stop in France, you'll have to replace most of them. This brings another issue : no other power plant offers as much efficiency as nuclear ones, especially the recent ones. Among the most efficient ones nuclear aside are... thermal plants (sadly). It will also cost billions of euros to replace the huge nuclear plants park by not so friendly plants. Energy would not longer be exported in summer as well, resulting in yet another loss in money. French equipments also use more electricity than other resources, resulting in a higher demand than in other states eventually.

I however think the part of resource-friendly plants should be increased in some way. At least, solar panels should first be made much more efficient and less polluting, and then it could help reducing the use of any other source of power. Wind power in France is very unpopular due to landscape view damaging, loud noise and lack of effectiveness.

All this makes the abandoning of Nuclear energy impossible for France without harsh consequences in many aspects.

[auroraglacialis]

I agree that France is a special case as they have managed to get themselves so massively into a dependence of nuclear power that it will take a larger effort to get out of that. Still - France has a huge potential to save energy by implementing more efficient use of energy. And solar thermal plants are not really that bad in efficiency. In fact, nuclear power has an efficiency of about 30-40%, solar thermal power is in the same range. In both cases some special pioneering technologies exist that try to improve on that, but essentially because they are both thermal power plants, they use the same kind of technology once the heat is generated. However, with nuclear power one has to consider the demand of energy and resources for mining and processing the fuel (and later the waste) - with both technologies, the construction of the plant and deconstruction of it is a factor, too.

Still, imagine WWII happening again with France and Germany - just as an example and just in theory - the power stations in that case become a liability rather than a benefit very quickly. Can we in Europe exclude that there will be another war? With the economy behaving as it does now and already states in Europe beginning to fail and threaten with secession? And with the decreasing democratic tendencies all over Europe? I dont wish it on anyone, especially living in the heart of it, but I would also not exclude that the past 60 years of peace and stability are not eternal... the last big recession led to Germany turning NAZI and later WWII...

This will not be something to change in a year or two - it will take a while to move away from fossil and nuclear power, but it makes sense to at least try to make that step as fast as possible, i think because time is running out.

@Ningey - looking at your sig, I think you may like this: http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2010/07/weekend_diversion_hey_baby_let/PBF248-Transmission.jpeg

[Txur’Itan]

I would like to see more R&D placed into finding, clean, safe, renewable and powerful sources of energy.

Solar energy providing electricity is still predominantly dependent on consumption of petrochemicals to at a minimum construct a solar plant. While not ideal, it is effective. It is also possible to install individual home by home instead of centralized plants. However, the batteries to store and save up the excess for night time needs, are still potentially highly toxic pollution when they expire.

Geothermal energy is interesting, but probably impractical on the scales we need.

Coal & Natural Gas has the same limiting supply factors as petrochemicals. They are also extremely hazardous to transport/mine/extract.

Nuclear is fine, as long as natural disasters or maintenance errors don't cause a melt down. That never happens...   

I am really liking wind power, but it still requires the use of petrochemicals to build them, and wind is an inconsistent supply of energy.

Geomagnetically induced currents might be exploitable at some point to make energy, reduce interference, and limit the need to dig, process, or manufacture anything except capacitors. However, tantalum mining is kind of an issue.

If we could engineer a tree that provides a source of light and bio-electricity, I think we'd be set.

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/14/orbital-solar-power-plants-touted-for-energy-needs.html

[Kamean]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/14/orbital-solar-power-plants-touted-for-energy-needs.html

Interesting idea.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

If we could engineer a tree that provides a source of light and bio-electricity, I think we'd be set.

Not...quite. Trees if you plant too much of them generate carbon dioxide and deplete the soil. And that would be simply equivalent to an extremely inefficient form of solar power.

[Human No More]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/14/orbital-solar-power-plants-touted-for-energy-needs.html

Great. Got 40 billion or so for them?

...

[Tsmuktengan]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/14/orbital-solar-power-plants-touted-for-energy-needs.html

Great. Got 40 billion or so for them?

...

Hrrrh! 

[Tsyal Maktoyu]

Tsk, Tsk. How cynical you all are.

That's why they said it would be a global effort with both government and private investment. Nobody said energy revolution would be cheap, but we can do it if we all work together. I trust the scientists in their general concensus on the economic viability of the idea, and even if there is no specific price tag now, the fact that there is even a glimmer of hope for an energy source that could have nearly zero impact on the Earth at all should be enough for governments to get the ball rolling now.

[Txur’Itan]

Tsk, Tsk. How cynical you all are.

That's why they said it would be a global effort with both government and private investment. Nobody said energy revolution would be cheap, but we can do it if we all work together. I trust the scientists in their general concensus on the economic viability of the idea, and even if there is no specific price tag now, the fact that there is even a glimmer of hope for an energy source that could have nearly zero impact on the Earth at all should be enough for governments to get the ball rolling now.

Tax the wealthy, paid for quickly.

[Seze Mune]

Tsk, Tsk. How cynical you all are.

That's why they said it would be a global effort with both government and private investment. Nobody said energy revolution would be cheap, but we can do it if we all work together. I trust the scientists in their general concensus on the economic viability of the idea, and even if there is no specific price tag now, the fact that there is even a glimmer of hope for an energy source that could have nearly zero impact on the Earth at all should be enough for governments to get the ball rolling now.

Tax the wealthy, paid for quickly.

Sran, and that would probably mean you.  Check this out:

"The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. But what happens when you expand that and look at the 1% richest of the entire world? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.

"In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

"$34,000.

"That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.

"Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.

"The global distribution figures may seem incomprehensibly low, but consider a couple of statistics you're likely familiar with: According to the U.N., "Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day." According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day.

"Those numbers are so shocking that you might only think about them in the abstract. But when you consider them in the context of the entire globe, including yourself, the skewing effects they have on the distribution of income is simply massive. It means that Americans we consider poor are among some of the world's most well-off. As Milanovic notes, "the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population." Furthermore, "only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile."

Source: Attention, Protesters, You're Probably Part of the 1%

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

I, though, think that the problem is that the US dollar is WAY WAY WAY WAY overvalued. For example, according to current exchange rates:

A standard 600mL Coca-Cola costs $0.47
A McDonalds meal costs from $2 to $4
A pair of low-quality shoes costs $0.78
A typical restaurant meal for 3: $15.69
Very expensive clothes: $78
Run-of-the-mill clothes: $15
Counterfeit brand clothes (like "Abibas"): $3 to $12
Generic brand clothes: $2.35
Generic brand clothes: Less than $1

You get the idea...

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

BTW:

Ms. Frakes is now unemployed, living on $330 a week of unemployment benefits and odd jobs

That is very VERY well-off in China! Wow! That translates into 2,102 CNY a week, which is 8,408 CNY a month! Which is a very good job - about 1.5 times the usual whitecollar wage, 3 times the bluecollar wage, and around 8 times the minimum wage.

[Tsmuktengan]

Cautious, you're slipping into off-topic again. 

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Oheru txoa livuyeiu. 

OT: To those who want something on the lines of "hamster power" or "human power", please remember that organisms are one the the most epicly inefficient heat engines of the world. Just to put it in perspective, if humans were 100% efficient, a brownie will provide you with enough energy to climb up Mount Everest 3 times over.

[Txärem te Parìk Tina'ite]

Nuclear power is a great energy source, but it can be extremely dangerous and harmful to the environment when not controlled properly. Two good examples of that would be the Fukushima Daiichi Disaster that affected the nuclear power plant to a point where it was harmful to the people around it and one of the most famous incidents, the Chernobyl Disaster. This is why I prefer things like solar energy and wind-powered energy. The safety issue isn't very large compared to a power plant, and both are very good sources of renewable energy.

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Wind energy is really dangerous.
http://wind-works.org/articles/ASummaryofFatalAccidentsinWindEnergy.html

Wind turbines are big and they spin. When big things spin, bad things happen. For example, failures can electrocute people, falling turbines could crush cars, and spinning blades easily kill birds. Wind turbines crushing people alone has killed and injured much more people than radiation from meltdowns have.

As for solar energy, well the factories that make them run on fossil fuels, and solar panels have a short operating lifetime. Efficiency must be increased through intensive R&D, but the world can't wait that long.

By the way, Fukushima Dai'ichi is NOT a very serious accident. It did make a small area of Fukushima uninhabitable, but the effects to other places are negligible. For example, in Tokyo the peak radiation level was 2 times normal, which sounds like a lot, but it takes something like 10000 times normal radiation or even much more to be called "dangerous" or "uninhabitable."

[Tsmuktengan]

By the way, Fukushima Dai'ichi is NOT a very serious accident. It did make a small area of Fukushima uninhabitable, but the effects to other places are negligible. For example, in Tokyo the peak radiation level was 2 times normal, which sounds like a lot, but it takes something like 10000 times normal radiation or even much more to be called "dangerous" or "uninhabitable."

Hmm, you know I am not against Nuclear power, but I think you under estimate the Fukushima incident here, and I think it is more serious than this. Figures show there are currently thousands of people that are affected, and that there is quite a big part of the land around the plant that has been contaminated. Without being Tchernobyl (there is no comparison actually), I think it cannot be that reduced to a simple incident.

I don't think you meant that in your mind, but your paragraph may transmit this message. 

[Irtaviš Ačankif]

Yeah. I'm just saying that the hype is undeserved. Some people I know are so hyped-out about this that they believe Japan as a whole is contaminated and refuse to travel to anywhere in Japan.

[Ningey]

Still, imagine WWII happening again with France and Germany - just as an example and just in theory - the power stations in that case become a liability rather than a benefit very quickly. Can we in Europe exclude that there will be another war? With the economy behaving as it does now and already states in Europe beginning to fail and threaten with secession? And with the decreasing democratic tendencies all over Europe? I dont wish it on anyone, especially living in the heart of it, but I would also not exclude that the past 60 years of peace and stability are not eternal... the last big recession led to Germany turning NAZI and later WWII...

Kehe, ma 'eylan. Oe ke tsun mivllte.

By 1933, when Hitler actually assumed position as chancellor, there have been some more prerequisites than just a recession.
Keep in mind that a few years before the Weimar Republic had been suffering from a hyperinflation (with US-$ 1 being worth 4.2 billion(!!!) RM that's not funny at all), had to deal with extreme unemployment (as a result of a worldwide depression) and also with the aftermath of WW1.
All that boosted the NSDAP to 33.1% in the elections on the 6th November in 1932 and then to 43.9% on the 5th of March 1933.
Furthermore, the president had a lot of power back then (similar to those of the French president), and with some trickery Hitler was able to subvert them to his own malicious ends, and once Hindenburg died in 1935, he managed to seize even that bit of power that had previously remained outside his reach.

Today the neonazis (REP, DVU, etc.) are normally well below the 5% necessary to get into parliament (occasionally they do, but then they debunk themselves for what they really are). Also, in contrast to WW1 after which Germany had rather been left to its own devices (no, I don't want to instigate any resentments here - I want that to remain neutral, so, please, no discussions on that issue here!), something that Woodrow Wilson initially had planned a lot differently, things had turned out a lot differently after WW2 with the West German economy having been rebuilt quickly, and also many people had actually been happy that the Nazi horror was finally gone.
Plus that I believe that the vast majority of Germans is fed up with wars of any kind.

And no matter what, I cannot see any belligerent tendencies in Europe (yet only time will tell what is going to happen), but what actually worries me is that there are governments that have already become unstable or are on their way of becoming so, and with politics increasingly becoming a failure, other avenues must be taken to get the problem resolved - and that actually means that everybody needs to get involved. Laisser-faire on behalf of the population (that's what's currently happening) is eventually leading to disaster.