OK--but then the question becomes how to provide sufficient energy at a land
use factor that works. Japan's main problem is the high population density
and little land for most current 'green' technologies. The U.S. has the
same problem in given regions--North-East corridor for example. Even
somewhere like Chicago, if say a couple old coal (or because of age nuclear)
plants are near the end of their effective use, with what do you replace
them? Even if you are willing to inundate the countryside with wind
generators (and you need a 3 MW generator to average 1 MW yearly output--so
a couple thousand generators to equal one coal/nuclear plant), you still
have the problem of what to do when the wind doesn't blow--something that
happens often during the summer cooling season.
Basically the problem with CURRENT 'GREEN' TECHNOLOGY--is low density (large
land requirements) and it is often NOT energy on demand. The solution here
might include a new grid structure with low loss, long distance transmission
lines, but must almost certainly include some kind of storage
infrastructure. One possibility (maybe not economically viable yet) is
using wind and solar, on site, to produce hydrogen which would be piped
throughout the country as an energy on demand source. This does suffer from
requiring a very large infrastructure expense--upgrading pipelines--and the
losses involved in the conversion processes. What I can't see as viable is
expecting power companies to invest in vast wind/solar farms and then also
maintain a full array of coal/nuclear/natural gas plants that can be turned
on when the wind isn't blowing. Economically--if I have the plants, I'm
going to use them and (as now) supplement them wind a much smaller array of
wind and solar.
So yes, better not to have coal. I guess, in the long run, better not to
have nuclear. But where you really need high-density power production, what
are the alternatives?
Then of course, if we really get serious about eliminating CO2 and fossil
fuel usage, much of the current energy produced by oil and natural gas has
to be taken up by electrical production. This could double, even triple the
amount of electrical energy that would be needed (even factoring in
achievable goals of efficiency and conservation). This complicates the
picture even more.
[All this is the basis of my energy class yearly project--where we try to
design a system for providing U.S. energy a century from now. We include
some 'clean' coal (it will be very difficult for the U.S. to give up on
coal) and some nuclear (newer technologies) but we eliminate the use of oil
and natural gas and decrease per capita usage by 25%. The capital price tag
for the conversion to wind/solar/biomass for about 60% or our energy
regularly gets estimated at over $30 trillion.]
Rick
Richard W, Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, IN 46556
FREE PHYSICS SOFTWARE
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/SOFTWARE.html
(server is currently down --actually dead-- hope to resurrect it this week)
.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Denker
So we have one filthy and unsustainable industry competing against
another. A pox on both their houses. It's high time to choose a
different path.
==========
More generally, I'm not interested in debating whether we have too
much capitalism or not enough capitalism. It's not the right question.
Nowhere near the right question.
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l