_kt75 | mirror

-- a _kt75 | reprint supporting information: [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ], [ 5 ]   Tweet The global energy map is changing, with potentially far-reaching consequences for energy markets and trade. It is being redrawn by the resurgence in oil and gas production in the United States and could be further reshaped by a retreat from nuclear power in some countries, continued rapid growth in the use of wind and solar technologies and by the global spread of unconventional gas production. Perspectives for international oil markets hinge on Iraq’s success in revitalising its oil sector. If new policy initiatives are broadened and implemented in a concerted effort to improve global energy efficiency, this could likewise be a game-changer. On the basis of global scenarios and multiple case studies, this World Energy Outlook assesses how these new developments might affect global energy and climate trends over the coming decades. It examines their impact on the critical c...

-- a _kt75 | reprint compilation   Tweet Intro Nuclear Power? Today considered risky, dirty, dangerous - in other words: nuclear power per se cannot be considered sustainable. But imagine the following scenery: i) the danger of nuclear accidents is minimised and if an accident happens, the consequences can be handled in a reasonable way; ii) the issue of nuclear waste is solved, i.e. life cycle of the raw materials (uranium) is closed. - Would, under the above conditions, nuclear power still be considered a non-sustainable energy alternative? A number of articles reflected on this topic and come to the following conclusions: Paper 1 : Nuclear Power is the most practical, sustainable, and environmentally friendly energy generation option available to the United States in the near future. It is “green,”—it does not endanger the environment. It is sustainable—enough fuel to meet U.S. needs for well over a hundred years is readily available. With further te...

-- a _kt75 | reprint   Tweet   Renewable energy sources, at least wind and solar, are variable — the wind isn’t always blowing, the sun isn’t always shining. This is something every glib pundit on the internet cites as a reason we’ll need fossil-fuel or nuclear “baseload” power plants for the foreseeable future. It’s a frustrating topic, since people who actually study the subject (like NREL) have shown that there are all sorts of ways to handle variability without disrupting the grid. One of those ways is transmission : building power lines to take renewable energy from where it is abundant (often remote areas) to where it is needed (mainly big cities). More specifically, the idea is to build high-voltage direct-current (HVDC) lines that would carry energy over long distances from remote sites and feed it into the alternating-current (AC) lines that serve urban areas. (The DC vs. AC question is interesting, but not particularly essential...