aka 5 things that Bill Gates gets right on energy.
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-a...right-on-energy
http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/oil-a...right-on-energy
Commentary on Gate's Commentary on Electricity.
- Thread starter Shannow
- Start date
- Status
Totally agree.
Especially with #1. I'm all for exploring alternative energy, but the thing that annoys me SO much about the "green" movement is that so many see conventional power sources as "the enemy," rather than a tired ally that can carry us across the finish line before slipping into history.
The other thing not mentioned is the irrational bent against nuclear power. All of the reasons that nuclear power is undesirable are completely man-made. We CHOSE to build large-scale PWR and BWR reactors that are heavily dependent on complex cooling systems and have "positive void coefficients" that accelerate the reaction when coolant boils and vent hydrogen when things go wrong (TMI and Fukushima). There's a reason Navy reactors have such a safe record: they're on a small scale and can cool waste heat by convection after shutdown, so its safer to build many small reactors than few large, but economics and even the red tape of the permitting process made it easer to build a few giant reactors instead of lots of small ones. Other people CHOSE to use water-cooled graphite reactors that have an even bigger positive void coefficient, and archaic designs that further accelerate when the act of control rod insertion briefly displaces neutron absorber (Chernobyl). Economics, fear, and politics continue to CHOOSE to store un-separated waste fuel resulting in having to store 50 to 100 times the actual volume of dangerous waste- separation and recycling could reduce the volume of hazardous waste of enough nuclear power to run the world to less than the volume of garbage a city block of homes produce in a year, but instead we leave all the harmless U238 mixed with the dangerous nuclides and stick it in ponds, hoping it doesn't escape. People CHOSE to build plants like Fukushima (and San Onofre, by the way) on shorelines subject to tidal waves. Dumb.
ALL that is solvable, but we've shied away from the hard problems, hoping that a magic genie of renewable energy will bail us out (half-heartedly at that, not funding alternative research nearly enough).... all the while still burning carbon by the megaton.
We (as a population) are stupid by choice. No two ways about it. Maybe its time to add some very basic engineering to primary education so a bigger percentage of the population can understand little things like conservation of energy, instead of teaching more art-history.
Especially with #1. I'm all for exploring alternative energy, but the thing that annoys me SO much about the "green" movement is that so many see conventional power sources as "the enemy," rather than a tired ally that can carry us across the finish line before slipping into history.
The other thing not mentioned is the irrational bent against nuclear power. All of the reasons that nuclear power is undesirable are completely man-made. We CHOSE to build large-scale PWR and BWR reactors that are heavily dependent on complex cooling systems and have "positive void coefficients" that accelerate the reaction when coolant boils and vent hydrogen when things go wrong (TMI and Fukushima). There's a reason Navy reactors have such a safe record: they're on a small scale and can cool waste heat by convection after shutdown, so its safer to build many small reactors than few large, but economics and even the red tape of the permitting process made it easer to build a few giant reactors instead of lots of small ones. Other people CHOSE to use water-cooled graphite reactors that have an even bigger positive void coefficient, and archaic designs that further accelerate when the act of control rod insertion briefly displaces neutron absorber (Chernobyl). Economics, fear, and politics continue to CHOOSE to store un-separated waste fuel resulting in having to store 50 to 100 times the actual volume of dangerous waste- separation and recycling could reduce the volume of hazardous waste of enough nuclear power to run the world to less than the volume of garbage a city block of homes produce in a year, but instead we leave all the harmless U238 mixed with the dangerous nuclides and stick it in ponds, hoping it doesn't escape. People CHOSE to build plants like Fukushima (and San Onofre, by the way) on shorelines subject to tidal waves. Dumb.
ALL that is solvable, but we've shied away from the hard problems, hoping that a magic genie of renewable energy will bail us out (half-heartedly at that, not funding alternative research nearly enough).... all the while still burning carbon by the megaton.
We (as a population) are stupid by choice. No two ways about it. Maybe its time to add some very basic engineering to primary education so a bigger percentage of the population can understand little things like conservation of energy, instead of teaching more art-history.
Yeah, that's a good synopsis
Welcome to the wonderful world of NIMBY's and Liberals.
I hope this doesn't shock you any.
I hope this doesn't shock you any.
Money does the talking, as long as fuel oil stays at least as cheap and as convenient, there will be a drag on the development of alternatives.
Once fuel oil really does become precious, then the ball will start to really roll on the others. Necessity is the mother of our best inventions.
Once fuel oil really does become precious, then the ball will start to really roll on the others. Necessity is the mother of our best inventions.
- Status
