Environment Solar best bet forward??

Puzzling "data". What is this "disqualified" shit? This contest metaphor allows the author to essentially disregard a lot of important data to push coal, which is not only an environmental disaster but ail be depleted at some point in the future. Hydro, wind and solar are always going to be players. Natural gas is going to be huge in the next 50 -100 years. Nuclear reactors are eventually going to power almost everything.

Nuclear may be gaining traction as its environmental impact is being addressed. There is a new reactor design that uses molten salt to dissolve existing nuclear fuel which reduces radioactivity and vastly reduce the amount of waste. Such a plant could produce about 20 KG of nuclear waste (about the size of a grapefruit) rather than the 20 metric tons produced by conventional reactors. And that waste is radioactive for just a few dozen years instead of hundreds of thousands of years. Moreover this design can be fueled by the 270,00 metric tons of nuclear waste sitting around the world right now. The new reactors could "eat" that waste and turn it into 72 years worth of power.

Even better in case of a Fukushima-type disaster . . . the plant uses liquid fuel rather than a solid fuel. So if it lost electricity, if the operators had to leave the site, the liquid fuel would drain out into an auxiliary tank, completely gravity-fed, just based on the inherent physics of the design. And it would freeze solid over the course of about two or three hours. So if it fails, it fails in a solid state rather than a meltdown liquid state or a gaseous state. It won't go anywhere.

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2...-concerns-is-that-that-wont-always-be-the-ca/

 

So do all generating plants. No matter what the heat source, they make steam which drives turbines. Steam is water. Water is renewable and there is plenty of it.

But there is no shortage of wind and there are many of these windy places, it is clean energy, and wind will never be depleted nor go away at night.

Coal is even more so. It doesn't occur everywhere, it is mined by strip mining instead of wells, it must be expensively transported in trains rather than pipelines, and is extremely dirty.

As can natural gas. It can even be compressed into a liquid and economically shipped overseas. Coal is bulky and limited in how far it can be economically shipped.

But it is only economically feasible on industrial scales in desert ares where there is little cloud cover. Humid areas like Louisiana will never make huge mirror farms.

In the long term, fossil fuels like coal and natural gas will simply no longer be available. Hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear will all play a part in future energy production. None add carbon or sulphur to the atmosphere.

 

Well, it is not rocket science.

Almost all cooling water is from surface water, not from aquifers. And since all power plants need water, the distinction is moot.

Yes, all plants need water.

Wind turbines are relatively cheap and easily built and installed and have little affect on surrounding areas other than being eyesores to many people. Far less infrastructure than a large power plant, no matter what the fuel.

It requires far less infrastructure, no overburden removal at all, fewer environmental impacts, far less manpower required, no restoration expenses, pipelines are far cheaper than rail transport, and wells can be installed and removed in relatively short time compared to strip mines. Detailed enough for you?

No solar does not work everywhere not on a power plant scale. They aren't like a few panels on your roof. And even they don't work well in humid climates with lots of clouds, like Louisiana compared to Arizona.

I quite agree, but we were comparing power plants on a commercial scale.

Same with any power generator . . . if you have enough batteries. But it is expensive and impractical. On industrial scales power is used as soon as it is generated. Much more efficient.