Of course, chemists can also build liquid fuels directly, either via electricity or the application of high heat and pressure. For example, Bocarsly's lab has created an electrochemical cell that uses electricity to knit CO2 and hydrogen into methanol, the simplest liquid hydrocarbon. And chemist Nate Lewis of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DoE) Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis in Pasadena, Calif., is trying to create an entirely man-made version of a plant's food-making process. It remains to be seen whether bio-based systems like Liao's can deliver a more efficient method of storing electricity as liquid fuel. "If the authors had provided information on the currents used and the voltage dropped across the cell, one could calculate an energy-conversion efficiency," Bocarsly notes.
But the novel bioreactor and its electrofuel demonstrate a proof of principle—one that is also being demonstrated with microbes that can use electricity directly. "We now know it's going to work," says Eric Toone, deputy director of the DoE's Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, which funded the research in the hopes of displacing fossil fuels with such electrofuels. "Now we have to ask the harder question: Will it matter?" In fact, the electrofuel process will only matter if it can efficiently deliver liquid fuels from electricity on a large scale at low cost. As it stands, Liao's hybrid process breaks down after about 80 hours, perhaps due to R. eutropha's genetic instability, susceptibility to butanol poisoning or other factors. As to whether electrofuels will ultimately have an impact, Toone says, "We don't know the answer."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
37 Comments
Add CommentWe've been hearing about this stuff for decades now. One day in as little as a few decades long after the ice caps are melted, the permafrost is bubbling CO2 and the earth can no longer support life, a pale scientist in some underground bunker will have a EUREKA moment and it will all be solved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMeanwhile dirt cheap zero environmental cost nuke power can solve the problem within the decade. It is already far cheaper to make nuke diesel in Shell Qatar's GTL plant then it is to produce it from high cost sources like Tar Sands.
If I understand then, the process of combustion releases the fixed co2 back into the environment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Well, last time I checked, nuke power created lots of nuclear dirt, and no one knew what to do with that, except Al Quaida, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso last time I checked: Nuclear energy was only cheap, because the cost of the - still not existing - final disposal of nuclear waste is outside the responsibility of nuclear energy companies. If these companies would have to come up with a certified solution for waste disposal in the next ten years or so in order to go on with their business, they would be out of business long before this grace period were over.
Regarding zero environmental cost: May I recommend that you run a quick Google search on "Fukushima Daichi"?
It seems, this little event has slipped your attention.
Your fancy of "Zero environmental cost" is contradicted by apparent reality.
At last someone is using brains, go down to the most basic lifeforms, this reduce losses as we move up the food chain and harness the energy there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thought, especially to you guys with a physics bent. We all believe that at the quantum level elementary quanta (don't like to use the word particle) self generate in pairs that usually self obliterate in a short period of time. How about much larger such quanta doing exactly the same thing, and leaving behind one billionth of its energy as matter. It can also lend credence to multiple universes.
"...nuke power created lots of nuclear dirt, and no one knew what to do with that, except Al Quaida, of course..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn idiotic comment. Nuclear is the only source of Energy that actually CONTAINS its wastes. And Al Qaeda has concluded Nuclear Isotopes are a hopeless tool of Terrorism and has focused on the much more effective means of Aircraft, Giant Chemical Storage plants and extremely vulnerable Oil & Gas storage infrastructure and rail transport of deadly chemicals. Very easy to destroy the entire Gulf of Mexico by planting remote control anti-tank mines (Iran has lots) on Blow-out Preventers, with a run-of-the-mill submersible.
"...Nuclear energy was only cheap, because the cost of the - still not existing - final disposal of nuclear waste is outside the responsibility of nuclear energy companies..."
Wrong again. Why don't you take five minutes to learn a bit about a subject before you make stupid statements. Nuclear has paid $25B for Nuclear Waste Storage - money that has not been used due to anti-nukes blocking Yucca mountain. And it is increasing by $750B per yr in fees plus $1B in interest.
Nuclear waste amounts to a coke can for every American's lifetime Electricity consumption, vs 69 tons of deadly Coal solid waste. Extremophile has no problem with Coal, Oil & Gas dumping recklessly a million times more carcinogenic waste than Nuclear into the air, sea and land for us to eat, drink & breath, with virtually ZERO regulation.
"...zero environmental cost: May I recommend that you run a quick Google search on "Fukushima Daichi"..."
Yep, and just what is the environmental cost of Fukushima Daiichi? Zero deaths - human or animal. Radiation levels anywhere outside of the actual Nuclear plant buildings that is lower than what exists in many natural paradise levels in Brazil, France and Iran. No, I REPEAT NO, indication whatsoever of ANY harm to plants, animals or humans. Unlike your deadly Asbestos, Chemical & Heavy Metal Toxins, Mutagens, Carcinogens, Teratogens, Neurotoxins, Embryotoxins and Endocrine Disruptors released into the land, sea, air & water by the earthquake & tsunami. Transformers filled with PCB's burnt in giant Oil Refinery Firestorms, like at Chiba - near Tokyo, are converted into some of the most deadly carcinogens human civilization has ever created, like Polychlorinated dibenzofurans, 0.1 gms is a fatal dose for an adult. No environmental hazard there though, according to you, and your buddies at Big Oil disinformation headquarters.
80 times 140mg is 11.2g or nearly 1%. That is very good use of solar energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the energy or cost required to separate it as fuel?
If they combined nuclear energy with their bioreactor or any other existing power generating source during off peak periods I would have the tiniest glimmer of hope that their research was worth while. Trying to couple it with hugely expensive alternative energy tells me it is just another joke on the research granting poor old taxpayer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow cynical is that? :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour argument is filled with strawmen. Nobody is comparing nuclear power to fossil fuels here, so any such comparison is really beside the point at the very least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nuclear waste disposal fund is highly inadequate to pay for the actual disposal costs as far as anyone knows. So clearly saying it has been paid for is rather inaccurate IMHO. You're not costing out decommissioning either, which is another cost that the reserved funds are wholly inadequate for (living in VT where we are debating VT Yankee decommissioning is highly educational on this subject, you might want to take a look). Most other plants decommissioning funds are also equally far from what will actually be required.
As for the idea that the radiation released by Fukushima Daiichi is 'harmless' is wholly unsupported. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a really good idea of what the ultimate impact will be. We also have no idea what the ultimate cleanup cost will be, but it is already clear it will be in the low 100's of billions of $, which I will note is close to the entire build cost of ALL THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ON EARTH TODAY. That ain't peanuts friend.
Nor are you guy's theories about the costs of nuclear power vs renewables even close to any number I've seen quoted, and I've read quite a bit on that subject. Wind power is already cheaper than coal, and coal is generally considered cheaper than nuclear. Solar isn't there today, but it is getting cheaper fast and has other advantages.
The final nail in the coffin of nuclear as a replacement for fossil fuels is the sheer up-front cost and the lead time. Renewables can be built incrementally, sited more flexibly, and share the big advantage of nuclear (no/low fuel costs).
Renewables aren't perfect, but their disadvantages are are generally far overstated and are also relatively well-understood. Honestly, I think this whole debate is rather irrelevant anyway. Nuclear has already lost to renewables and I think in 5 years this won't even be a debate anymore. Watch and see. I predict the nuclear industry will whither pretty quickly and become a footnote in history (aside from a few niche uses like submarines and in space where they're definitely useful).
"..Nobody is comparing nuclear power to fossil fuels.. beside the point at the very least.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo you're wrong. It is exactly to the point. Any critique of Nuclear Waste MUST compare to the Fossil Fuel waste that will be generated by an equivalent amount of energy. That's just common sense. The fact that you want to evade that VERY IMPORTANT comparison clearly shows bias on your part.
"..nuclear waste disposal fund is highly inadequate to pay for the actual disposal costs.."
Utter nonsense. It is actually WAY EXCESSIVE. It is simple-minded to store the Nuclear Spent fuel in Dry Cask storage at a central building or mickey mouse blasted out granite cavern. And at some point that Spent Fuel will be used to fuel GenIV reactors, like Bill Gates Travelling Wave, the IFR or Chloride Molten Salt Reactors. Other than that it is cheap safe & simple to use Deep Seabed burial or Subduction Trench burial.
"...decommissioning either, which is another cost that the reserved funds are wholly inadequate for (living in VT where we are debating VT Yankee decommissioning.."
I doubt that. And the fund is building still long before the plants will be decommissioned. And I have read about VT Yankee:
yesvy.blogspot.ca/2011/08/money-and-future-of-vermont-yankee.html
truenorthreports.com/decommissioning-vermont-yankee-the-governor-vs-the-facts
Interesting though that Wind Turbines and Solar Farms are not and do not have to pay for decommissioning and there are abandoned Wind Turbines by the thousands, left over from the failed binge in the 80's, nobody is willing to pay for decommissioning.
"..As for the idea that the radiation released by Fukushima Daiichi is 'harmless.."
Nobody said it is harmless. It is dangerous in certain areas close to & inside the buildings. Outside the site, it IS Harmless, most everywhere, and NOT ONE PERSON has died as a result of the radiation, vs 19,000 died, mostly needlessly due to bad preparation for the Tsunami. Greenies don't care about that.
"..guy's theories about the costs of nuclear power vs renewables even close to any number I've seen quoted, and I've read quite a bit on that subject.."
Wrong again. I know a lot about that subject and Renewables don't even come close to Nuclear. Your statement Wind is cheaper than coal is pure garbage. Wind is a joke, virtually a worthless form of energy. Renewables have been a dismal failure everywhere they have been tried, your Renewables Germany has one of the highest emissions in Europe per kwh of generated power.
These are, as always, such interesting debates about future energy production technological options. However, IMO the future will be determined by the amount of additional capital that can be generated for capitalized interests and the moronic masses of the consumer marketplace. I can rest easily, knowing that the future of the planet is in good hands...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat'd be nice, I guess!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat kind of 4 wheel drive do you drive? Don't you live in the City? Last time I checked ppl that live in the city don't need 4 wheel drive and I pass plenty of wannabe fuel safe hummers and 4 wheel drives causing more pollution than nuclear. Unless you ride your bicycle that was created with pollution factory's or your shoes that were created making more pollution from factory's. Go barefoot and walk to work... then complain about nukes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSave the planet? Eat less Beef. Huge total carbon emission load if you go from feed to table.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill you guys stop talking trash about various technologies that could power this? There are a million threads where people go on and on about this stuff - this piece is not the place to do that. You're not going to convince anyone against their will. Talk about the article or nothing at all, please. What we need is ton's of energy, and fast, and there will be more than enough demand that everyone with a good technology will get a bigger bite then on which they can chew. Right now though all of them have bugs to work out, and ignoring that fact is doing nobody good - especially for yourselves .. so shut it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the piece ... 9% from 15% ... that's a 60% conversion ... exceptional. I find that notable because the bulk of Solar in the future will be at 20% or higher (and will be grid competitive in 30% of US locations, without subsidies), meaning you can make fuel from sunlight at a rate of 12%, which I believe is competitive with fossil fuel.
This type of article would have more credibility if it was critically written and not just more cheerleading. Perhaps it has merit...perhaps not. However, no 'other side' is given to these 'saviour' technologies that appear a few times a week...for the past 50 years and go nowwhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople use strong language like "idiotic" or "stupid" when they have actually nothing to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nuclear is the only source of Energy that actually CONTAINS its wastes."
The world has more and more nuclear waste which needs to be disposed of, and no one really knows, how to do that.
"Al Qaeda has concluded Nuclear Isotopes are a hopeless tool of Terrorism and has focused on the much more effective means of Aircraft, Giant Chemical Storage plants and extremely vulnerable Oil & Gas storage infrastructure and rail transport of deadly chemicals."
I am surprised how good you contacts with Al Quaida are. As far as I know are terrorist organizations and countries (Iran, North Korea) still very much interested in radiating materials.
"Why don't you take five minutes to learn a bit about a subject before you make stupid statements. Nuclear has paid $25B for Nuclear Waste Storage - money that has not been used due to anti-nukes blocking Yucca mountain. And it is increasing by $750B per yr in fees plus $1B in interest."
Another straw man. Nuclear energy is not in charge of disposal of nuclear waste. They may pay a fee for that, but they are not in charge.
Your bad manners make it hard for you to simply read and understand what others say.
"Nuclear waste amounts to a coke can for every American's lifetime Electricity consumption, vs 69 tons of deadly Coal solid waste."
Yes. But the Coke can his highly dangerous.
"Extremophile has no problem with Coal, Oil & Gas dumping recklessly a million times more carcinogenic waste than Nuclear into the air, sea and land for us to eat, drink & breath, with virtually ZERO regulation."
Where have I said that?
"Yep, and just what is the environmental cost of Fukushima Daiichi? Zero deaths - human or animal. Radiation levels anywhere outside of the actual Nuclear plant buildings that is lower than what exists in many natural paradise levels in Brazil, France and Iran. "
Japan has been very lucky with the direction of the wind. If life hasn't told you that, simply believe me: Sheer luck is very hard to repeat.
"Unlike your deadly Asbestos, Chemical & Heavy Metal Toxins, Mutagens, Carcinogens, Teratogens, Neurotoxins, Embryotoxins and Endocrine Disruptors released into the land, sea, air & water by the earthquake & tsunami."
All the makers and promoters of Asbestos, Chemical and Heavy Metal, Toxins etc. have always argued exactly like you do here. ignore all risks and replace argumentation with insults.
I hope that you feel well in this community.
"..eople use strong language like "idiotic"..when they have actually nothing to say.."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeak for yourself. I call an argument idiotic or stupid when it IS Idiotic or Stupid.
"..world has more and more nuclear waste which needs to be disposed of, and no one really knows, how to do that.."
BS. The presidential panel on Nuclear Waste concluded there is no hurry to dispose of Nuclear Waste and on-site or off-site central dry cask storage is quite acceptable for a long time. The only problem with disposing of Nuclear Waste is Vested Interests blocking any method, in order to use Nuclear Waste as whipping boy to prevent Nuclear replacing Fossil Fuels. On top of that, it just doesn't make sense to bury it when it is worth 100's of $trillions in the clean, green energy it can produce, already being considered in the UK and China is burning spent fuel in CANDU's which could also be done in the USA.
Good example elucidates the double standard against Nuclear Waste. Canada is going to freeze in place, right on the shores of Great Slave Lake - 240,000 tonnes of carcinogenic, poisonous Arsenic Trioxide, which will have to be maintained FOREVER. CANDU nuclear waste has the same radiation level as natural Uranium after 500 yrs. And that spent fuel replaced 2.4 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions, so 6X the total Spent Fuel in Canada, just for some residue from one mickey-mouse Gold Mine. No Greenpeace or Sierra Club protests or lawsuits over that. But several lawsuits over shipping a couple old steam generators, with less radioactivity than one shale gas pond, to Sweden for recycling.
"..Where have I said that?.."
Your opposition to Nuclear inevitably implies acquiescence to the only alternative = fossil fuels and their consequent million times greater emissions. You may not like it when the inescapable implication of your stance is shown to you, but that's just what I will do.
"..Japan has been very lucky with the direction of the wind.."
Nonsense. The Wind blew radionuclides largely to the Northwest, look at the map, and levels there are still safe right up to and inside the Daiichi site. If the Wind was a big savior the entire site would be contaminated to dangerous levels - it ain't.
depletedcranium.com/evacuation-policy-versus-radiation-level-measurements-in-japan/
"..All the ..promoters of Asbestos, Chemical and Heavy Metal, Toxins etc. have argued exactly like you do here. ignore all risks.."
You forgot to include Coal, Oil and NG. Big difference. They get away with it and got a get-out-of-jail-free-card, post tsunami.
"People use strong language like "idiotic" or "stupid" when they have actually nothing to say."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn your case idiotic or stupid is damning with faint praise. You actually have nothing to say and just demonstrated it.
Actually Finland and Sweden are quite happy with their method of disposing the tiny amount of nuke waste they produce. The Yucca solution is just peachy except for politics. GE is so confident in their solution - turning the waste into energy - that they offered to eat the cost of building the plant if it doesn't work.
" .As far as I know .." This is an infinitesimally small distance apparently. Iran and NKorea are quite skilled at making their own nuke materials - they don't need our waste.
"Another straw man. Nuclear energy is not in charge of disposal of nuclear waste. They may pay a fee for that, but they are not in charge."
Once again you prove my first point beyond a shadow of doubt.
" Yes. But the Coke can his highly dangerous "
Yes but much less so the tons of chemical and bacteria agents insecurely stored all around the world and a lot easier to put out of harms way.
"Where have I said that?"
All antinuclear people must love the idea of the 3 million folks that die every year from fossil air pollution while they delay a nuke to fossil conversion in favor of a silly dream of a renewable energy future a hundred years from now. They love the idea of gambling with the death of billions in a fast approaching runaway warming crisis because the workable nuke solution is so nasty and their "renewables" so warm and fuzzy. In effect they are ghouls.
"Japan has been very lucky with the direction of the wind.
This compensates for the very bad luck of having a nuke under the control of criminals accepting bribes from Big Oil to make sure all those engineering requests to at least put backup power out of harms way hit the old circular file.
"All the makers and promoters of Asbestos, Chemical and Heavy Metal, Toxins etc. have always argued exactly like you do here. ignore all risks and replace argumentation with insults."
Once again proving my first point.
Frankly I'm not sure what community you would feel well in.
e bulk of Solar in the future will be at 20% or higher (and will be grid competitive in 30% of US locations, without subsidies), meaning you can make fuel from sunlight at a rate of 12%, which I believe is competitive with fossil fuel."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince the current all in cost of the solar/gas backup scam getting almost 100% of its energy from the gas including gas and 8 times fossil/nuke sized transmission lines is over 85 cents a kwh under a market dominated by Chinese dumping, the "competitive with fossil fuel" is another greenie religious raving that kills so many many folks worldwide.
The article doesn't say how to economically extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 is a trace gas with concentration of 390 parts per million. That's the problem with technologies that convert CO2 into fuel. You may have to go to the smokestack of a coal plant to get high concentration of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsidering that 70 to 90 percent of all the oceans sea life is already depleted, what the heck we might as well just make it a nuclear dump as well. Just ask any troll who works for GE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The genetically engineered R. eutropha then consumes the formate, yielding butanols, plus more CO2 as a waste product—the latter of which is recycled back through the biochemical process."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article indicated that a net amount of surplus CO2 is produced, but that it was recycled in the next batch. Say what? It is either a surplus or it is not. Something tells me we are not getting the big picture here. Which is it? The article also says the algae or organic life it can be made from dies out in time. Does that mean it releases more CO2 or other toxins when it does? When butanol is burned, does it breakdown to the same amount of CO2 as was used to make it, thus creating a truly pollution free reaction? The article needs a lot of help to make sense and it sounds to me like the researchers have a long way to go. Perhaps we need to turn our attention away from the internal combustion engine and come up with a better idea.
Methanol is not a hydrocarbon, it is an alcohol. You are probably thinking of methane, the simplest hydrocarbon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I call an argument idiotic or stupid when it IS Idiotic or Stupid."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProblem is, you apparently don't realize that it is YOUR arguments that are the most idiotic and stupid of them all, AS IF problems with coal and oil and other energy sources somehow make nuclear a good thing, AS IF the nuke waste problem was somehow insignificant because you imagine in a perfect world it could be, AS IF you aren't already aware that there are TONS of radwaste already lost to the environment that can never be recovered and will be dangerous for close to a quarter million years, AS IF you actually don't understand that cancer, birth defects, life shortening, and other harmful effects of radiation can take YEARS to manifest, AS IF you know what's in the minds of Al Qaeda and other terrorists, AS IF you were unaware that nuclear power exists only for the benefit of corporate psychopaths getting rich at everyone else's expense for THOUSANDS OF GENERATIONS afterward, AS IF you think behaving like a fatmouth rightwing bully is going to win you any converts, AS IF you actually imagine nuclear has a viable future when it is clearly in decline and destined to shrink down to a few niche applications like medicine and space power systems, AS IF you seriously think renewable energy sources are impossible scams and you've never heard of Brazil, AS IF you think the nuclear industry's lies and deceptions will somehow acquire validity by you repeating them, AS IF you actually cared about climate change, AS IF you don't realize that the history of nuclear power has proven the industry irresponsible and negligent in multiple instances with ZERO expectation of that ever changing, AS IF nuclear power and nuclear weapons weren't inextricably linked through their technologies and the continuing proliferation of nuclear power means the continuing proliferation of nuclear weapons, AS IF you actually knew what you were even frigging talking about. But you don't. You just echo the lies and disinfo put forth by the corporate psychopaths of the nuclear industry and both they and you aren't fooling us anymore. Got that?
"What kind of 4 wheel drive do you drive? Don't you live in the City?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure what links the number of driven axles of my car with the risks and the waste of nuclear energy.
But, to please you, my car is as 2-wheel-driven Diesel which consumes about 25% of the amount of gas a Hummer does.
And runs twice as fast, if this is necessary.
"Speak for yourself. I call an argument idiotic or stupid when it IS Idiotic or Stupid."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy statement was that nuclear energy do not have to take responsibility and are not in charge for the removal of their waste.
My second point was that if they would have to do that, they would be bankrupt in short time.
An intelligent answer would have been to falsify that. No one has done that yet.
""Japan has been very lucky with the direction of the wind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis compensates for the very bad luck of having a nuke under the control of criminals accepting bribes from Big Oil to make sure all those engineering requests to at least put backup power out of harms way hit the old circular file."
This is a very interesting statement.
May I strongly recommend that you submit all the evidence you have on that immediately to the Japanese legal authorities? They will be very interested in further investigating them and bringing the responsible "criminals" in jail.
I hope you have evidence, do you?
"Speak for yourself. I call an argument idiotic or stupid when it IS Idiotic or Stupid." and a number of (other) comments (on both sides) -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI accept insulting/derogatory comments happen but they don't help me on a site like this. What one person thinks idiotic another thinks reasonable, no need to insult people expressing their views, especailly with the various info links.
Usually such comments are just dismissing views as of no use, or ridiculing the opponent (admittedly a common 'political' debating trick) - but they result in time/space wasted swapping insults on a valuable site like this, instead of just concentrating on the case and leaving others to make their minds up.
Some very interesting points have been raised here, which I find thought provoking, especially being a little 'on the fence' at the moment. It's a great shame that they can lose their impact in heated and polarising exchanges, rather than directly challenging specific arguments on points of fact.
We all read the same journal, after all, so I take it we are all actually reasonably bright!
And safe inexhaustable fusion power is only 20-years down the pike. I think I heard that for the first time in 1952.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing arrogant doesn't make you right....the disposal MYTH is only kept alive by the anti-nuke lobby, but is not, and has not been an issue for DECADES. The only issue here is anti-nuke extremists abusing funds to boycot the implementation, Like eg. Friends of the earth makeing a very very substantial donation to Clinton to destroy the IFR project.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI really think people that not only use outdated arguments to be against something, but also actively try to prevent a solution from being built should do some serious soul searching.
Sick and tired of seeing "would be" ecologist violating the scientific truth over and over, while using the same techniques for manipulating public oppinion as eg. the nazi's.
Replace "jew" by "nuclear energy" and it reads the same, replace the N-work by 'nuclear energy" in KKK propaganda, and again it reads the same...
Grow a consciense is my advice.
Fukushima: 0 deaths, tsunami: 20k+, meanwhile energy production in japan has soaring CO2 exhaust due to more fossil plants (which effectively kill a number of people each year...Vs "selling" scenarios as likely as a repeat of the yucatan impact is a certainty for nukes).
This type of ideological blind, extremist ecologist is PART of the problem, as anywhere they have success, fossil fuel use for energy production SOARS (see denmark, germany, belgium etc).
Maybe change friends of the earth to assasins of the earth?
On thing is sure: nu nuclear industry means you effectively choose for NOT solving the waste issue, NOT doing anyting with retired warheads, and getting rid of nuclear medecine...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile ALL of the above can be solved with a tech readily AVAILABLE for decades, but not implemented due to extremists lobby-ing: the IFR
I would like to suggest the anti-nuke crew would put their money where their mouth is, and already opt-out from ALL forms of nuclear medicine....But I'm pretty sure that hypocrisy runs strong in that crowd, after all they've been ignoring research and developped techs for decades as they expose their silly mantra's for the lies they are
This Sounds very promising but the fact is there's only a small amount of solar energy per sq.ft at sea level available. And solar panels are, at the best, only 15% efficient and the bio-process is probably less efficient. So with an overall efficiency of, say, 2.5% it will require huge arrays to produce the fuel we need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut never-the-less it's a step forward.
In the interest of this site and the readers of SciAm I would welcome a style of debate which is more scientifically sound and less populistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the subject: What often gets sidelined in "energy" debates is the topic of energy consumption. Increasing energy efficiency in consumption has a huge potential for reducing dependency on non-renewables in the future. Getting a technology edge (be it in production of renewables or in innovating efficiency of using energy), I am convinced, will provide a competitive advantage in the future. That is where research funds should be allocated.
It is obvious there is lots of different opinions related to nuclear waste, renewable sources of energy by wind mills, solar panels, and bioreactor sources, and others, of energy. It would be interesting for an expert on "energy sources" to make a definitive summary of what the status quo is of energy available to communities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you should tour Fukushima to see the low impact of nuclear power and notice the $300 billion in liability costs and the 8% of Japan that is now contaminated. Consider the effects on people's lives to be driven from their homes, farms and neighborhoods, for generations, knowing that they will also suffer more birth defects, cancer and reduced immune response resulting in greater disease rates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen consider that the high cost of new reactors has made nuclear power unable to be financed , except by public subsidy. The public should consider providing liability insurance for an industry where on e accident can cost hundreds of billions, just in the short term.
Get back to us when you awake from that dream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this