SENATE BILL: Clean Energy Research Act of 2014 (Law'd)

[Frodo]

Another question you all should be considering (if you haven't already) is whether renewables are more reliable sources of power and electricity than nuclear energy. Especially for megacity metropolises.

Based on several cost estimates I did last year, I recall that solar power in Atlasia is quite a bit cheaper than nuclear power. Hell, in real life, solar construction on a massive scale is already on-par with nuclear, when you consider all of the red tape and costs associated with waste disposal and safety.

Why do we insist upon advocating an "all of the above" approach, when most of those options are inherently inferior? We should be shutting down nuclear facilities and replacing them with federally-owned solar and hydrogen projects (with natural gas as a distant third option), not increasing the amount of subsidies given to the nuclear industry.

Germany did that not too long ago, as I recall.  Apparently the renewable sector wasn't quite up to par so they turned to coal to serve as a backup.  And isn't coal more radioactive than nuclear waste?    

I doubt the climate change activists will be too pleased with that.  

[Frodo]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

I believe this bill dealt with that issue.

And here is an explanation of the process.

[Frodo]

What about the wastes of nuclear plants though?

I believe this bill dealt with that issue.

And here is an explanation of the process.

That greatly reduces the volume of waste, but doesn't eliminate it completely.   Also if there is a need to transport the waste to a reprocessing facility as is often the case, that creates its own risks.

Of course there will still be leftover nuclear waste -that's what permanent geologic storage facilities are for.  And it is worth bearing in mind that nuclear waste is less radioactive than coal ash, and there are much stricter procedures in dealing with it.  And once it is safely transported via train and/or road to Yucca Mountain, that place in RL has the legal capacity to handle up over 70,000 metric tons of the stuff.  And in our alternate Atlasian reality, there is more than enough room.  

[Frodo]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

I am assuming that by 'nuclear power', you are referring primarily to fission power.  At least I hope so.  It would be a shame to toss nuclear fusion power to the side when research is making great strides on making this potentially potent source of power marketable.  

[Frodo]

It's worth keeping in mind that guaranteeing sufficient baseload generation capacity (as opposed to peak generation capacity) requires that we rely on energy sources other than renewables at this point.

Solar and wind don't generate electricity through every hour of the day and every day of the year, and we have very little control over when they do. So until we make significant advances in energy storage technology, we will remain reliant on other sources of energy.

Averroes is right, and this kind of argument is pretty much what drove me to focus on Nuclear Power as a temporary replacement until more progress is made on the area of solar energy. I discussed this with Superique back in January, and it seemed to me that some areas of solar energy are still in need for further research and development, thus why I chose to focus on research instead of a massive building program that might or might not be in need of reform after a couple of years of functioning. Nuclear plants are often attacked as not being safe, but all the nuclear accidents we've seen are due to bad planning (Fukushima) and mistakes in terms of budget and maintenance (Three Miles Island and Chernobyl), the latter of which is already covered by two or three pieces of legislation that ensure the plants are properly regulated by the government.

Of course, this is just a start to a more comprehensive approach (instead of the long term plan that Griffin suggests, which would be the ideal). Now, if there's actual interest in transforming this bill into something more in line with a long term policy involving solar power plants as well, we could certainly start working with that (and I would love to see the Senate taking that approach).

I am assuming that by 'nuclear power', you are referring primarily to fission power.  At least I hope so.  It would be a shame to toss nuclear fusion power to the side when research is making great strides on making this potentially potent source of power marketable.  

Indeed. I tend to ignore fusion power since it was not as developed as fission power (and what we need is the immediate capability of producing the energy we need). Perhaps we should allocate another billion or a similar sum to fusion research as well?

Fusion research seems to be making plenty of progress on the money already allocated to it, though perhaps it could be accelerated if we put more funding behind it...  

[Frodo]

I still haven't gotten to the links yet (take forever to load), but is there a tentative date when fusion, "goes nuclear"? How many years are we wlooked at, at this point?

You mean when energy providers here could begin constructing nuclear fusion power plants -replacing the older fission power plants- to the benefit of US/Atlasian energy consumers?  

That would be a matter of decades.  Though given this is a research-oriented bill, I'm assuming (and hoping) you are looking at the long-term, and not just seeking immediate results.  

An ideal energy research bill (in real life) would be looking at natural gas, clean coal, renewables, and nuclear fission in the short to medium term, with investments into nuclear fusion and hydrogen power over the longer term.  With expanded tax credits for energy efficiency to smooth the way forward.   

At least that's how I would construct it.  

[Frodo]

I still haven't gotten to the links yet (take forever to load), but is there a tentative date when fusion, "goes nuclear"? How many years are we wlooked at, at this point?

You mean when energy providers here could begin constructing nuclear fusion power plants -replacing the older fission power plants- to the benefit of US/Atlasian energy consumers?  

That would be a matter of decades.  Though given this is a research-oriented bill, I'm assuming (and hoping) you are looking at the long-term, and not just seeking immediate results.  

An ideal energy research bill (in real life) would be looking at natural gas, clean coal, renewables, and nuclear fission in the short to medium term, with investments into nuclear fusion and hydrogen power over the longer term.  With expanded tax credits for energy efficiency to smooth the way forward.    

At least that's how I would construct it.  

Do you have any specific ideas on tax breaks? I might as well include them here to speed up the process.

The tax breaks provided under the stimulus package passed in President Obama's first year in office would be an excellent starting point.

For individuals.

And for businesses.

[Frodo]

What is the advantage of non-uranium nuclear power?

1. Provides more energy from a given weight of fuel than any other source, and that fuel (deuterium) can be found naturally and abundantly in the world's oceans.

2. Provides the benefits of renewable energy sources (long-term energy supply, no greenhouse gas emissions), without their shortcomings (uninterrupted power supply).  So it is very reliable.

3. Half-life of radioactive waste from fusion power plants is less than that from traditional fission power plants, and far less of it is produced.  The radioactive material in the core of a fusion power plant would be dangerous for about fifty years -low level waste remains dangerous for another one hundred years.

Waste from fission power plants, on the hand, can last for thousands of years.
----------------------------------

And these are just some of the ones that immediately come to mind.