Potential Problems with Green Energy Reliability in a Disaster-Prone World

[Eco-Author]

Don't get me wrong. I'm all about solar and wind energy and any others we can get our hands on but I see some potential pitfalls mainly around the continued use of the existing vulnerable grid and the FARM mentality putting all eggs in one basket.  Not at all a fan of nuclear, but perhaps ultra safe Micro Nuclear reactors that don't put so much at risk and can be trucked-away not unlike that used on nuclear subs perhaps will be needed?!  The second photo is of most possible forms of energy... burning trash can also be a way...  If our society was 90% more efficient, than we help make whatever we get from solar and wind enough. 

P.S. is this the best forum for such a post?

[blumenkraft]

but I see some potential pitfalls

And you think some screenshots from a denier site are suitable to make that point?

[kassy]

It is the science subforum. Consequences would probably be better.

Also write up the actual points you want to make don´t go with some vague claim and then post some collages below them (like in the earlier house thread) . That is not discussion.

ultra safe Micro Nuclear reactors

They probably don´t exist or maybe you are thinking about the type they put in space probes/satellites. Not sure how much energy they produce but it is probably inferior to a green grid.

burning trash can also be a way
 
Well if you want to be efficient you want to get rid of as much trash as possible.

All plastic packaging needs to be 100% recycled. Many types are not like the black plastic trays they put under takeaway food because it looks better.

Food waste needs to be eliminated.

Then there is probably a ton of useless gadgets that can be eliminated with realistic carbon prizing.

[Sebastian Jones]

It is hard to think of a more reliable source of energy than the sun through photovoltaic panels. PV panels have no moving parts, and while they have not been around very long, compared to thermal, thus far they have not worn out. There is no other energy source that can withstand zero maintenance for decades and that still runs almost as new. They may not be the most energy dense, and are relatively difficult to make huge ongoing profits in the way that an oil field does, but they ARE reliable.

[Aluminium]

Especially in winter.

[blumenkraft]

Yes, there is sun and wind for 99.9% of mankind even in winter.

[Aluminium]

Maybe. But my calculations gave me astronomical cost for more than 0.1% of mankind. Wind energy reduces very fast with wind speed.

[blumenkraft]

There are cables.

[etienne]

Well, each energy has its limits, and renewables are regarding resilience much better than fossil fuels.  No missiles on supply chain, no pipes freezing, no lack of cooling fluid, no major breakdown because it is mainly produced in "small" decentralized units.
There are many issues with renewable energy, but this really isn't one.

[etienne]

 Hydro is also renewable energy excepted for pumped hydro which is storage.

[etienne]

Maybe we will see in Tokio what is the easiest to restart and who has the most problems.

[Eco-Author]

but I see some potential pitfalls

And you think some screenshots from a denier site are suitable to make that point?

actually, I LOVE solar and wind... always have.  To be prepared however, we have to take into account other inevitable, even likely events that would require different solutions at least as backup.  By micro reactors I'm thinking of something that can be trucked away if it breaks down... isn't so large as to be such a problem and embrace all those new self shutdown features on a small scale.  If a sub can do it... we certainly should be able to.  Plasma trash incineration is said to be able to break down everything into their elemental components??  I thought this also produced its own energy needs and then some?  I definitely should have explenations of the collage but it is all the energy options I think we have. 

[KiwiGriff]

No such thing as ultra safe nuclear .
Imagine if a nutbar got hold of one of your small ultra safe nuclear devices and dumped it into the local drinking water source . Or blew one up with diesel and chicken shite.
Nuclear is inherently unsafe to life.
https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/biological-effects-of-radiation/effects-of-ionizing-radiation-on-dna/
The more nuclear proliferation the more unsafe it becomes .
Because Mankind can not be trusted.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

[Eco-Author]

No such thing as ultra safe nuclear .
Imagine if a nutbar got hold of one of your small ultra safe nuclear devices and dumped it into the local drinking water source . Or blew one up with diesel and chicken shite.
Nuclear is inherently unsafe to life.
https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/biological-effects-of-radiation/effects-of-ionizing-radiation-on-dna/
The more nuclear proliferation the more unsafe it becomes .
Because Mankind can not be trusted.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

been against nuclear power for the longest time... even have a note against it.  The fallout from fission fires should be enough to clearly stress how bad things are... Yet, as I add it up... in the heat of collapse needing to smelt iron an aluminum or to produce the vital eq we need to en-tomb these reactors....  We are looking at an all hands on deck situation where all these other energies and then some still could not garentee our survival and do all we need to do to clean up this world over 300yrs. to come.  Fukushima proved nuclear power could not be shut down without constant cooling and we will certainly not shut down and decommition all plants before the SHIF. 

I'd have to argue that a reactor 1/50th the size of your A-typical power plant (a much smaller event obviously should one take place...) as a garentee failsafe backup would be unwise to ignor given this planets long history of horific sun-blocking events not to mention 1930s mid-west dust storms, Sahara dust storms... TRUST ME I WANT ALL THE SOLAR I CAN GET AND THEN SOME... Warehouses full of unused batteries....  but we are talking last ditch/bitter end survival with the world falling apart around us... We have to clean it up and to clean up the world we will need a lot of energy... 

[Eco-Author]

...geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

With such extreme rain events i'm very worried that one of the worst side effects will be the collapse of major dams due to overrun..  Two collapsed this past year a small one in tx and a mid-sized one in Nebraska... another was hit by two bargest that floated away in a flood...  the largest oldest one in the country in Montana is a slurry dam... the worst kind... Sea power is awesome and I've often posted videos on the dozen ways you can produce it... Whatever you do here also has to withstand Dorian long-duration winds and will need a vulnerable grid distribution from there of course.

I too was all for Geothermal... Having watched the eruption last year and to learn they frack the ground and inject chemicals, not water was a surprise

[NeilT]

If you have any interest, NASA is working on just this type of power for space.  It is called Kilopower. Small non refillable reactors which directly drive Stirling engines instead of steam turbines.

It is an innovation anyway.

Not quite as maintenance free as solar, but more available and totally reliable in terms of power delivery.  No matter the weather.

[Eco-Author]

Wow... it does look cool !  By working at home in sub-industrial scale CNC/3D shops of tomorrow and in much larger facilities that lower surface area by 95% (the most important element for getting all we want and yet save so much more) we won't need all that much power unless we want to mine and smelt.  A million truck batteries and motors/fuel can be lifted after a full on collapse to provide warehouses full of batteries and generators for MUST HAVE times!

[Eco-Author]

The goal, I'd have to think, is to recycle all of society after it's been abandoned... every guard-rail, stop sign, bill-board, rail car, building.... capturing all the household chemicals... taking a house down to its nails basically... We clean up and leave 95% less footprint away from all water.

I would think we could up-scale something as basic as this, of course.  maybe ten times - something the size of a semi-trailer not a Stadium?

[Eco-Author]

No such thing as ultra safe nuclear .
Imagine if a nutbar got hold of one of your small ultra safe nuclear devices and dumped it into the local drinking water source . … The more nuclear proliferation the more unsafe it becomes .
Because Mankind can not be trusted.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

Even potentially just as bad as a meltdown is leakages from any number of rail cars, chemical tank farms, underground gas tanks, fooded out superfund sites.... Even just the raw mercury extracted from the clean coal process is something to definitely fear!!!  Multiple/separated sources of water will be necessary.

[edit]: I've heard just like a quart of oil will kill off a pond. 

[blumenkraft]

Sorry, but are you implying a drop of oil in the pond is equally dangerous than radioactive stuff?