Inhabitat's Week in Green: solar surpasses nuclear, sewage-fueled rockets and the world's largest turbine
Each week our friends at Inhabitat recap the week's most interesting green developments and clean tech news for us -- it's the Week in Green.
It was an exciting week for renewable energy, as Inhabitat reported the news that solar energy has trumped nuclear power in terms of cost for the first time! We also looked at two innovative new wind turbine designs - the supermassive Aerogenerator, which at 10MW stands to be the world's largest, and the diminutive home-focused Honeywell turbine, which will be hitting store shelves next month.
Green transportation also received a big boost this week as Stanford researchers revealed a way to transform raw sewage into rocket fuel. Meanwhile, Santiago Calatrava heralded a new era for efficient transportation as he unveiled his awe-inspiring new rail station for the Denver International Airport. And with the summer heat embroiling cities across the states, we're daydreaming of slipping away to sea aboard this sleek solar Delta yacht.
In other news, wearable technology is changing the way we change our underwear -- odor-absorbing astronaut undies have finally hit the shelves. We were also impressed by a new breed of 3d-printed textiles that may one day make needles and threads obsolete. Finally, in the spirit of summer this week we showcased 6 innovative designs that harness the power of play - from energy generating soccer balls to water-pumping merry go-rounds.
Green transportation also received a big boost this week as Stanford researchers revealed a way to transform raw sewage into rocket fuel. Meanwhile, Santiago Calatrava heralded a new era for efficient transportation as he unveiled his awe-inspiring new rail station for the Denver International Airport. And with the summer heat embroiling cities across the states, we're daydreaming of slipping away to sea aboard this sleek solar Delta yacht.
In other news, wearable technology is changing the way we change our underwear -- odor-absorbing astronaut undies have finally hit the shelves. We were also impressed by a new breed of 3d-printed textiles that may one day make needles and threads obsolete. Finally, in the spirit of summer this week we showcased 6 innovative designs that harness the power of play - from energy generating soccer balls to water-pumping merry go-rounds.
I'm for nuclear power, it's Now it's Wow!
@VanNorden
Thorium reactors FTW. I know solar is the same price, and I'm not saying that we need to stop solar rollout, but we need to increase nuclear power and decommission some coal-fired plants.
@Mike10010100 Yeah, the coal industry would love to let that happen, lol.
It's a lot easier said than done, lobbyists aside. Thousands of workers suddenly don't have a job, and if they're older than being retrained is silly.
@VanNorden
as long as not catastrophes come out of it, im all in.
@VanNorden And plus nuclear power is cheaper in terms of square miles. Power plants take up a lot less space than huge arrays of solar cells.
@deliteguy
The only catastrophe was Chernobyl, and the Ukrainians had that coming once they shut off the failsafes. Three Mile Island was not good by any means, but it demonstrated that we properly design our reactors; if it had been built like Chernobyl, we would've had a major spill in Pennsylvania, and nuclear power would've disappeared forever.
@Ambient80
Life is nothing BUT constant retraining!
@bravokiloromeo
not to mention, nuclear catastrophes, should they happen, don't destroy large ecosystems like oil spills
@VanNorden
I'm disputing this announcement about solar being cheaper, solar gets a lot of subsidies from the government and lots of strong support from research. The nuclear industry on the other hand have a lot of red tape to go through since 3-mile island, and we are running on mostly 30+ year old plants that are more costly to maintain and less efficient than Gen 3 reactors
@bravokiloromeo
Oh for fuck's sake. Comparing modern nuclear plants with Chernobyl is like comparing a TI-83 to Maximum PC's Dream Machine. We've come such a long way, and with Thorium reactors, there's little to no chance of meltdown + no radioactive waste due to re-firing methods (some exclusive to Thorium reactors).
Chernobyl was someone saying "Gosh, I wonder what happens when I smash this mirror with this hammer?" and then becoming dismayed when it crashes to bits and hurts someone.
@Mike10010100
You people have no clue. Nuclear is the worst of all the power generation options by far; it's inefficient, it's extremely costly (figures given always omit cleanup costs), it produces extremely hazardous waste with a half life of thousands of years, it has a short life span and it opens the possibility for catastrophe. I don't want to hear the Chernobyl hand waving bullshit, the Chernobyl meltdown was caused by human error during a testing exercise as was three mile island. Take a look at the Palo Verde nuclear plant in Arizona, the largest in the country. It has had multiple problems within the last few years, cost 5.9 billion to build over a 12 year span back in the mid 1980s and costs about 2.73 cents per kW/h factoring in the initial costs and based on a 60 year life span, that's worse than coal fired stations. That doesn't even include the massive costs that will be required to clean and decommission it properly. Then there's the many tons of spent rods being stored on its premises as well as irradiated water.
Most nuclear reactors are Generation II with a few of the newer being Gen III, which aren't a great deal better. Gen IV aren't scheduled until 2030 at the earliest and are still in the testing phase. Breeder reactors for nuclear reprocessing do not exist at this point either.
Supporting nuclear is asking for trouble, at the very least until Gen IV reactors become feasible and even they don't solve all the problems.
@Shooter McGavin
Please cite your sources. Numerous journals have done articles involving safe/effective nuclear power, Popular Science and Popular Mechanics being two of them. (July edition of Popular Mechanics and the July edition of Popular Science to be specific)
@Shooter McGavin
The main cost with nuclear involves finding and approving a site, as it can take decades thanks for fear-mongers getting projects shut down every time they are approved, as its a "not in my back yard" thing.
Its a similar story to the death penalty. Euthanization is very cheap, but the twenty five years of appeals are not.
Your comment on waste is also complete nonsense when you look at the great success of the nuclear waste recycling program in France. If the lazy mildly intoxicated and eccentric French can do it, we can do it.
You are also completely ignoring that modern reactor designs involve passive safeties. They can be made extremely compact and safe for even extremely close contact. Just look at our nuclear navy fleet, where they churn along day in and day out under harsh sea storms and battle conditions in close proximity to thousands without incident.
@VanNorden
It's only if they account for subsidies. The last line makes the claim "solar will be cheaper than nuclear in a decade".
A decade? what went into calculating that? Expectation that a new solar material will be invented?
Also, nuclear is so expensive because of all the regulation and fear that goes with it so you have to pay people in the industry more.
This is disingenuous.
Solar power has not trumped nuclear in terms of cost. Solar power has enough subsidies to trump nuclear in terms of cost right now. Saying that "solar has beaten nuclear for the first time lololol" really isn't a fair assessment at all given that we the people pay for all subsidies through our taxes.
@VanNorden Nuclear plants require a lot of government startup money just for the safety aspect. We don't want anyone stealing radioactive material, right?
@VanNorden
"solar energy has trumped nuclear power in terms of cost for the first time! "
Could be due to the last 25yrs, where the majority of the world effort for R&D into alternative energy has been solely into solar power and practically nothing for nuclear.
If we channeled as much brain power and R&D into nuclear (to make it safety & efficient), we'd have Mr. Fusion running our cars by now instead of figuring out how to run power lines and lay out solar panels on a 10 sq mile patch of desert.
Hindsight is 20/20.
@VanNorden
You guys are silly, Shooter McGavin isn't somebody you listen to in regard to nuclear power.
Eating shit for breakfast though, he's an authority.
@ytilanigiroon
Like I said, bunch of clueless shit for brains. Obviously facts aren't enough of an incentive. I know, the truth hurts sometimes doesn't it. France recycles a mere 26% of their stock pile.
Do the world a favor and go clean the inside of a reactor that's apparently so 'completely harmless'. We can store the spent rods in your back yard.
@Ambient80
Well, humanity's coming full circle. Industrialization pushed the need for more people to industrialize more, but the technologization of the world has supplanted the need for those people. Now, global society doesn't need as many people as it has. We drastically need some kind of population adjustment to put us to where we need to be.
That terminal for Denver looks amazing.
It's WITH subsidies...
@LeJay No shit...and the Chevy Volt is the best car EVAH!
Where would we put all of the solar plants? They take up a lot of space to put enough cells/mirrors to generate a decent amount of power.
I'd also like to know how they are calculating cost, because maintaining those solar cells/mirrors does cost a lot, and nuclear costs are primarily initial capital investment.
@bravokiloromeo
Always assume that people are at least as smart as you. Of course it is the cost of the complete operational period.
@bravokiloromeo
No.
@bravokiloromeo
Worst part is they don't work during night -_-. So there is NO WAY that solar power could win over nuclear power, because it uses less space and works DAY AND NIGHT.
Thorium reactors ftw.
@Ceyran
No.
Whos for Fusion
@MoonWalkerCTE
The sun god?
@ LeJay
Agreed my Father in law is a sys-admin for a power company in Georgia. He says the only way to truly test a product is to take away the subsidies and see if it stands.
Also Nuclear power is taxed out of its rear.
Someone tell Obama that we need to invest in solar research not in production subsidies. R&D drives prices down due to new and better ways to develop a product.
You don't need to make a sub par product affordable The USA is what it is because of our ability to develop technology not socializing everything.
P.S. Someone tell the Rep to shut up about the danges of Nuclear power they've been pushing it for 20 years and suddenly when a Dem pushes it they change views.
@andromeda05
To be fair, subsidies are known to drive additional innovation.
@LeJay
Government Grants for R&D do a better job
@andromeda05
I honestly don't know what's best. You'd have should examine previous examples and compare. Unless you've done that (or read papers by people who have) I'd be careful about such strong claims.
@LeJay What supports that statement? Some links please.
@LeJay
Here's the simplest one the arm's race against Russia.
R&D gives 2 major benefits 1st we have the latest tech and we usually develop the first few generations of tech in the USA so that includes jobs.
It's worked for generations what go against the rule if it aint broke...
@teky
Well, I'm from denmark and it's pretty obvious to us what subsidizing windpower has meant. I know that's not concrete, I'll try to find some figures.
@andromeda05
I have no idea how that should prove that direct funding R&D is betting than subsidizing .
@LeJay
R&D is a thrust towards innovation new tech which drops the price and improves performance of the technology.
Subsidies usually drive down cost but rarely improve the product in question because the manufactures are interested in one thing money.
Also R&D in comparison is much cheaper for a govt to persue
The study factors in governmental subsidies for both power sources, but found that even if all subsidies were removed, solar power would still be cheaper within a decade.
So in other words, nuclear is cheaper than solar, and will remain so for at least a few years more. Even in sunny North Carolina. According to the numbers commissioned by pro-solar, anti-nuclear activists.
That first paragraph should be blockquoted - it's a quote from the inhabitat.com article.
@Leo Richard Comerford
That is if Nuclear doesn't become more efficient in 10 years and or they don't eliminate the high taxes involved
@andromeda05 Sure - I did say at least a few years more. Actually, that paper predicted that the cost of nuclear is going to keep rising, which seems a bit strange to me. On the other hand, I do wonder about the value of the liability caps that nuclear has. As Deepwater Horizon illustrates, free insurance from the government isn't always free for the government or for third parties.
@Leo Richard Comerford: If nuclear had the kind of attention and funding solar has had for the last couple of decades, it'd be far cheaper. And cleaner. And more efficient.
@Leo Richard Comerford
Unfortunately it isn't that strange the Eco hippies who wan't us eating nuts and bark don't like nuclear but don't want to leave coal and oil behind so they get legislation passed to make it more expensive. They need to make a choice either allow nuclear to become a reality and severely reduce carbon emission or or shut-up.
Yes I make bold claims but I think before I type
@macserv France, getting around 80% of their power from nuclear plants, has shown that it is already very cost effective.
The only problems with nuclear in the US today are not technological, but social and government.
Solar has its place, and is very convenient in certain niches, but for big city large scale power production, nuclear is king and deserves real backing.
Nuclear research takes us closer to fusion power. While solar panels try to catch the energy from the sun, fusion technology brings the power of the sun home
@JeremyBenthem
Don't be absurd, nuclear power is fission and extremely inefficient. It has nothing to do with fusion. There are independent lab tests being conducted towards cold fusion.
@Shooter McGavin He didn't say a single thing about fission.
@Shooter McGavin "nuclear power is fission and extremely inefficient."
Compared to what?