SmartEnergy Designline Blog
Keep alternative energy engineering clean: from politics
Patrick Mannion
4/1/2010 3:14 PM EDT
That it's political is nothing new and the political affiliation of Al Gore, the poster boy for 'Green', doesn't help. However, I was struck just how politically charged the whole topic can quickly become even if you're addressing it from a purely engineering point of view.
For example, the topic is alternative energy. While alternative energy usually means solar, wind, hyrdo-electric (dams or waves), for the U.S. it's pretty much anything that isn't coal or oil derived, including, nuclear energy. The 'other' alternate energy source.
To even suggest writing about the state-of-the-art in nuclear energy engineering, I risk getting shunned as it would imply that I advocate the use of nuclear power. Maybe I do. Or maybe I don't. (Go to end of blog for my answer, if you're curious.) My point here is that I'm pretty sure that even writing about it is akin to beckoning hate mail.
I personally find the technology interesting and am looking forward to finding out two things: Where it's at with regard to safety and where are the opportunities for electronic engineers looking for an 'alternative' job.
Another option includes a look at a personal favorite of mine: energy harvesting. It's come a long way, but mostly thanks to the function/joule advances in processors that result from Moore's Law, instead of any really startling breakthroughs in solar, vibration or thermal conversion efficiency.
There are many other options for us to explore, from battery-powered vehicles to biofuels, from ultracapacitors to energy distribution and the smart-grid .
However, my question to you is: What do you want us to look at and examine? Where do your interests and concerns lie? Let us know by emailing our Digital Edition editor and ultimate decider, Nic Mokhoff at nicolas.mokhoff@ubm.com.
As for nuclear energy, politics aside, I definitely see it as a strong alternative to oil and coal, with a pretty stable track record. As for the waste, I wonder if anyone's done the calculation as to how much energy would be required to blast that waste into space and would nuclear still be profitable after that's factored in?
|
|
|
|
|
greenbarron
4/1/2010 8:30 PM EDT
With regards to nuclear energy I'd like to see a better assessment of France's and Japan's nuclear programs. They both rely heavily on nuclear energy, as does California. With 20% of the state's energy coming from Diablo Canyon and San Onofre, the only two nuclear plants in the state it already factors in heavily to our energy mix. But more than that I am very interested in minimizing environmental impact of clean energy. This can range from often overlooked manufacturing cleanliness through installation damages to local habitats at the installation points. These seam to me to be the most understudied impacts of clean energy, as I can fairly easily read about, and follow the rest of the advancements. Another interesting view to look at is how this may effect the layout of the distribution grid, getting power from the Desert Southwest to New England (as presented by some members of congress), seams like a foolish plan without superconductive transmission capabilities, so what are we doing to upgrade our "third world" transmission grid? This is especially pertinent because where my parent's live the wall socket is an abysmal 18% efficient.
Sign in to Reply
AlexKovnat
4/2/2010 7:57 AM EDT
I am very much in favor of nuclear energy, including recycling of plutonium and breeder reactors. I cannot emphasize enough how silly it is to proclaim that reducing CO2 is so important as to justify draconian 35 mile per gallon fuel economy requirements, yet at the same time oppose nuclear energy. As for solar power: Sure, you could put solar cells on the roofs of every building, including the one I'm sitting in right now. But how much energy in kilowatt-hours per year, can we realistically hope to harvest in proportion to the investment in labor and materials?
Sign in to Reply
nrb_jpk
4/2/2010 9:03 AM EDT
The issue with "blasting that waste into space" is the risk of malfunction and the need to destroy the vehicle. When the cargo is a couple of satellite, the only danger is debris. When the cargo is radioactive material, this is the same effect as a theoretical dirty bomb (another touchy subject).
Sign in to Reply
Work to Ride comma Ride to Work
4/2/2010 3:17 PM EDT
First, we need to understand the basic inefficiencies of taking distributed energy sources(sun, wind, waves) combining them for distribution out to distributed loads. Bad idea all around. Distributed energy ought to be used directly at the distributed loads. Let's start with something simple and efficient, like heating (or at least pre-heating) our domestic hot water. Our pal Sol can do that very well. It's not terribly expensive, can be done with some decidely low-tech equipment and has the best chance of pay-back for any of the the alternative energy sources for the typical family. Forget PV's. Waste of money, unless the expense of hooking into the grid is exhorbitant (applicable to remote areas only). Wind turbines are another bad solution. Too many maintenance issues given the current state of affairs. One drive through Altamont Pass should drive that point home. I believe nukes are an important part of the solution. Like our investments, our energy portfolios need to be diversified as well. These things will be refined over time, but let's not throw good money after bad on concepts not ready-for-prime-time. Ultimately, energy costs will drive the market for alternative energy sources, not the subsidies of governments or the hordes of green shirts.
Sign in to Reply
c_c_dumas
4/4/2010 7:23 AM EDT
Oh good, something to disagree on. I don't believe the free-market forces will drive alternative energy, or at least environmentally sound alternative energy. What we'll see is increased use of coal. Nukes are still mining, and processing which aren't sustainable. Really, fision probably isn't sustainable either with it's dirty by-products. That means then that the subsidies and "green shirts" serve a purpose!
Sign in to Reply
Work to Ride comma Ride to Work
4/5/2010 10:21 AM EDT
Great ideals, lousy reality. Only those things that are economically feasible are viable. Period. Fee market forces have been the catalyst for progress since the dawn of history. I doubt you're going to change that anytime soon. Sorry.
Sign in to Reply