Impossibility of a 100% "Green" Electricity Country

The reason why I've not written anything new on my blog for so long is because I simply can't think of what else to write. I've already stated almost all there is to state. I've proven in what is one of my favorite posts that Nuclear Energy is cost effective (here). I've also supported my own idea of utilizing both Reprocessing and Vitrification as an effective method of waste management (here). And to cap it off, I've offered rebuttals to all of the opposition throughout the course of my posts.



The only thing I can think of writing more than I have already done so, is the following message:

Many green energy advocates believe that the entire electricity of the United States could be sustained through the use of both solar panels and wind-farms.

This is completely false.

There is no possible way that our country's energy could be supplied with just those two energy resources. Allow me to explain.

As I've mentioned in the past, it's impossible to store electricity for later use. There is no giant battery the size of Texas hiding anywhere! The energy we use must be created when we need it. You can't choose when you produce electricity with solar or wind electricity. It's there, when it's there!

This means that if electricity due to wind or solar means is ever hindered, there would be no way to meet current needs if those were the only methods of production. Even if the overall electricity output in a year is equal to (or greater than) what is needed, there will be times when electricity isn't being produced abundantly enough. There will also be times when excess will be produced, but there's no way to store this excess. It disperses and is wasted.

If there isn't enough electricity being produced at any time, some areas will necessarily be cut off from electricity in order to have enough for other places. I would assume that on the new grid they would make certain buildings (such as hospitals) priorities. One thing you can bet on, though, is that the elected officials who would have implemented this idea would have electricity, even if you were shivering in the dark in the dead of winter.

So you see, there would have to be back-up power plants  in a supposedly complete "green" electricity system to supply additional energy in such time periods. To catch the slack of the "green" energy. Since we don't want to use coal or oil due to eventual demand and loss of use as the resources are used, we would have to use Nuclear Energy. It's either that, or risk state-wide blackouts.

Thus, it's impossible for a country's electricity to be "green."

That's all I can think of at the moment. Thank you once again for reading, and hopefully understanding and incorporating in yourself my rambles.

I'm sorry that I'm not posting sources today, but all of my ideas are available throughout my other blogs, so it's nothing new. The rest of it is fairly common knowledge in the correct spheres and basic reasoning skills.

Acquisition of Energy Solutions by Energy Capital Partners

Energy Solutions announced on May 24th that they were closing their merger with Energy Capital Partners. Energy Solutions withdrew its common stock from the NYSE and and has not arranged to release common stock under any other securities exchange.

Unfortunately, I was not able to determine if the information available from the Energy Solutions news site article (available here) was stating whether the two corporate entities were ending discussions of merging with either the intent of going their separate ways or with the intent of actually merging. I believe that they are merging, but I wasn't able to tell for sure. If any of you who read this knows I would appreciate a comment about it below.

Once again, I think that the acquisition is an interesting development with the possibility to open up more options for Nuclear Energy in Utah.

I apologize for the lateness of this post. Thank you for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.energysolutions.com/media-center/current-press-releases?viewID=184
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Energy Facts Review

It is obvious that Nuclear Energy is perfectly safe when the twin processes of Vitrification and Reprocessing are used together, and, from my previous article (Nuclear Energy Total Costs) regarding Nuclear Energy Costs, Nuclear Energy is perfectly capable of making money. It is apparent, therefore, that two of the biggest concerns of Nuclear Energy are completely invalid. These two now irrelevant concerns are the concerns over the Nuclear Waste and Revenue.

Also, when Nuclear Energy is used with Reprocessing and Vitrification it quickly becomes one of the most environmentally safe methods of energy production.

There are many Nuclear Disasters which have caused an irrational fear of Nuclear Energy, but almost all of these could have been easily prevented and most of those had some design flaw which has since been fixed or could be fixed. In Fukushima it was a too small sea-wall as opposed to the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant where the only major difference was the size of the sea-wall. In Chernobyl there were many design flaws not to mention that the disaster occurred while the operators attempted to run an unapproved test the parameters of which were left almost as soon as the experiment began. The list goes on but the fear is irrational.

Many people disregard the overwhelming evidence which supports Nuclear Energy. Their eyes need to be opened to the vast, safe, and substantial power that Nuclear Energy can produce effectively both financially and environmentally. I urge you, the reader, to help others to come to the awareness of this wonderful energy production method. Especially the waste management processes of Vitrification and Reprocessing so that these wonderful ideas may be implemented. Thank you once again for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reprocessing and Vitrification and Public Fear of Nuclear Energy

I am very happy with the possible prospects that Reprocessing and Vitrification combined would bring to Nuclear Energy. However, these methods are so little known that it is necessary for those few of us who do care and do research to make sure that everyone else who doesn't share our enthusiasm is aware of these great possibilities.

It is time for this country to step up to the plate and start producing cheap, affordable, safe, and reliant energy. We can do this easily through Nuclear Energy. I have previously shown that financially Nuclear Energy is plausible, I have shown that Waste Management is not an issue, anyone who has done much research in Nuclear Energy safety recently and in particular the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant knows that Nuclear Energy is safe.

Why then is the progression and use of this great energy source being held back? Ignorance and fear.

These tend to be major reasons for why people are so often afraid of things. It isn't that they don't make sense, it isn't that they are particularly dangerous, it is that people believe they are because they've been told over and over again.

These people act like a child told that a stove is hot and can very well burn you. However, these people carry this childhood masquerade just a little too far in adopting the "if it can hurt me then I'm going to stay completely away approach" that a 3 or 4 year old might have of that stove that might, if handled improperly, burn you while completely disregarding or not being able to comprehend the many benefits afforded by this great technology.

This is due to the ignorance factor. Just as children are afraid of the dark because of the unknown dangers so are people afraid of Nuclear Energy because they are simply unaware of what it actually entails.

It is necessary to make the general populace of the United States so well-versed in facts on Nuclear Energy that they will be able to understand what is meant by such scary, obscure, and unknown terms such as "Reprocessing" and "Vitrification."

Until the populace understands the true benefits and short-comings of Nuclear Energy we will be stuck as a society and civilization in a perpetual childhood in regards to Energy production in general. Head under the covers, afraid to consider any possibility relating to the unknown.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2013/03/reprocessing-and-vitrification-nuclear.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Reprocessing and Vitrification: Nuclear Waste Management

Many people in the Nuclear Energy knowledge-sphere have heard of Reprocessing which is a way to extract energy from Nuclear Waste by reusing dangerous elements, and a few people out there may have heard of Vitrification where it is possible to solidify Nuclear Waste as a glass so as to reduce spread of radioactive material in case of accidents. But, I have never seen it proposed that we should use BOTH!

That doesn't mean someone hasn't suggested the possibility, but despite my research into the topic I have never seen it. I have seen questions alluding to it and people suggesting one or the other, but never both.

Reprocessing is necessary because it reduces waste in a way that also produces electricity and gets rid of many elements that can be extracted from current Nuclear Waste to create Nuclear Weapons. Vitrification is then necessary because it increases the safety of True Nuclear Waste. These two processes effectively neutralize all problems associated with Nuclear Waste Management. 

We could then move the Government Subsidies that are currently being used to fund the management of almost-pure Nuclear Waste left on-site at many Nuclear Power Plants across the country to instead fund these far more useful processes. We could also use the funds that have been collected by the National Government for Yucca Mountain in Nevada to help fund the storage of the Vitrified Waste probably underground. These subsidies should be able to fund both processes, but even if they didn't directly fund both, they would fund both at least indirectly by increasing consumer confidence in Nuclear Energy by solving the problem of Waste Management. 

This would 1. decrease the worry felt by much of the population due to Nuclear Waste and 2. lead to more investments in the Nuclear Power Industry by the population who would no longer be worried about one of the largest problems currently perceived to be facing the industry.

I believe it is an absolute imperative to use these two processes, and as they are somewhat obscure it is also necessary to advocate their use and practicality to the public who are, for the most part, unaware of these ways to deal with Nuclear Waste effectively.

Thank you for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

_________________________________________________________________________________

Cost of Nuclear Energy Comparative to Wind Energy

It has been projected by the national government and several renewable/green energy companies that by 2030 wind energy's levelized costs will be less than coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Levelized costs are a method of determining the cost per MWh of an energy source, and it tends to work well when comparing similar energy production mechanisms. There are, however, certain problems that have been glossed over.

The main problem with this determined method of energy production cost analysis is that it doesn't take into account the time period of the day when the energy is produced. A major point is that there is no effective way to store energy for a period of time. This means, that the electricity has to be produced as it is needed. Other energy sources (e.g. fossil fuel and nuclear power plants) simply have their current electrical output increased to meet hourly demands through various mechanisms. Solar and Wind energies do not have this option. Wind energy often produces its electricity during off-peak times of the day. In other words, when the energy is lower demand and therefore worth significantly less. This means that it has to produce even more for the electricity to make a profit. Solar energy is slightly better because it works with the sun and tends to produce more energy during larger demand periods, but it can still be affected by cloudy weather and similar problems making it harder for it to produce electricity when the electricity is worth the most.

In other words, levelized costs do not accurately measure the ability of wind or solar energies comparative to nuclear or fossil fuels. Wind is generally over-valued while solar is generally under-valued, but neither one can really be compared. It's apples and oranges; it doesn't work.

This was basically a summary of an article by Paul L. Joskow titled Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies, however, I don't know how many people have access to this article as I only found it using UVU's online library service. It explains this far better than I do, but like I said, you may not be able to access it.

Thank you for reading.
________________________________________________________________
Sources:

Joskow, Paul L. "Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies." American Economic Review101.3 (2011): 238-241. Business Source Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
_________________________________________________________________________________

Green River Reactors Revisited

I still stand by my original position on the Green River Reactors, but there have been recent developments in both my knowledge and politics since I have written last. My original article may be accessed by clicking here or by finding it in the site webpages list to the right under Utah Green River Reactors.

Many opponents of the Green River Reactors in Utah have pointed to a recent law that has been written up as grounds for why these reactors are ludicrous. The law is SB199.

Many opponents state that it is ridiculous as it proposes charging the taxpayers for the construction of the plant long before the plant is actually built. They also say that this is necessary for Nuclear Power Plants to be created because too few investors are willing to dish out billions of dollars in an investment that might fail.

They opponents then go on to say that while Nuclear Energy is Carbon Emission Free, it contains waste which we currently don't know how to deal with.

I will agree that it is ridicules to charge tax-payers for a service that isn't even present yet, however, the reason why people are too afraid to invest is because of opponents like these making these projects potentially risky investments. If the investors could be sure that it would actually be possible for the plant to be created, they would be more than happy to invest in it. It is only because of these environmentalist groups that people are too afraid to place any real investments in these companies.

It is completely true that Nuclear Energy Carbon Emission Free, and as for the claim that we don't know how to deal with Nuclear Energy: it is utterly ridicules. There are two process which would completely eradicate our Nuclear Energy problem: first, Reprocessing which would reuse many of the more dangerous and longer lasting elements and second, Vitrification which would transform the remaining radioactive elements into a much safer glass form. This glass could be stored underground for thousands of years while the remaining radioactive isotopes decomposed.

The twin process of Reprocessing and Vitrification could effectively eliminate all of our current problems with Nuclear Waste and many of the complaints about the energy source in general.

Thank you once again for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitrification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://healutah.org/news/nuclearspeculation/02/21/13
_________________________________________________________________________________