Don't you need much flat land to have much manufacturing? Jamaica is pretty mountainous.
"These land-use issues are much more intense in Jamaica, which has 266 people per square kilometer versus 43 people per square kilometer in the contiguous United States."
And, worse, they are concentrated in the flat areas of the island.
"I mentioned desalination as an example of a technology that works perfectly well"
Works very poorly in some regards:
"For every litre of fresh water extracted from the sea or brackish waterways, a litre-and-a-half of salty slurry, called brine, is dumped directly back into the ocean or the ground.
"The super-salty substance is made even more toxic by the chemicals used in the desalination process, researchers reported in the journal Science of the Total Environment.
"Copper and chlorine, for example, are both commonly used."
"Waste chemicals 'accumulate in the environment and can have toxic effects in fish', said Edward Jones, the lead author at UNU-INWEH who also works at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
"Brine can cut levels of oxygen in seawater near desalination plants with 'profound impacts' on shellfish, crabs and other creatures on the seabed, leading to “ecological effects observable throughout the food chain', he said.
Hah, if you read the comments on that Noah Smith post, I made exactly the point you're making here, that they would need to develop energy first, to take advantage of their bauxite. Iceland does this with geothermal, Jamaica could with solar and wind.
First, how much uranium is in the world and how long before we run out of THAT if we switch all our energy needs to uranium (of course we'd need to ask the same questions for solar and wind as well...)
Second, with nuclear there is a serious risk of accidents and waste. Where will Jamaica put its nuclear waste, and how dangerous are tsunamis and earthquakes in the Caribbean?
Third, is tidal energy something we could explore?
I agree with Charlie P. Nuclear always runs over time and budget, has had tons of government funding and little to show for it. Even the well run French scheme is not cheap enough to make bauxite refining work. Just coating the existing Jamaican building stock with solar panels should be be able to give you close to 10 GW, plus you must be able to find some unproductive land to build another 10GW at say 2-3c/kWh. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. And wind can coexist with animal grazing and other forms of agriculture. Unlike nuclear which requires lots of water and will most likely have to be built on the coast, killing tourism.
It is interesting to note that Jamaica and Iceland have a lively trade. Iceland imports Bauxite and exports Aluminum. Turns out Iceland has a price per KwH of 0.047. One of the advantages of living on a volcanic hotspot is cheap geothermal power!
The case for nuclear power in Jamaica or anywhere else does not depend on being able to pre-identify big users of power. The issue is, what is (would be with a regulatory framework that did not hold nuclear power to a higher safety standard than is cost effective.) the return on investment including displacement of net CO2 emitting energy sources as a benefit.
Damn... late to the comment party as always. Random thoughts.
None of the gas turbines are Siemens Energy models. I only bring this up because it would be awesome to work there. Damn it. Actually the only Caribbean Island we work on is Trinidad and Tobago, and... it's not so nice. Actually one of the shittier places we work at.
Also... go Idaho National Laboratory! Not only is Idaho top of the charts on renewable energy... we have all dem smarty pants Nuke dudes.
One of the biggest resources needed for a Nuclear Plant is cooling water, and Jamaica's island status makes it ideal. So I fully support this idea. Hell, I would even slum it and work the Nuke / Steam side of the house to get a job there.
On the footnote. On population density.... it's the West that really changes things, above and beyond Alaska.
The site is on or in the non-tourist part of the island. And the people aren’t friendly. It was also a little dangerous. So when I say dangerous, that means something since I routinely work in Latin America. Also, hot as fuck to work
Possibly. But Rich doesn’t mean pleasant. The United States is the richest country in the world, and there’s still places here that I don’t like to work at. On the other hand, Colombia is fucking awesome.
The more I look into this but but 10,000 years! Objection the more annoyed I get.
First, concrete won't last 10,000 years buried in the desert. Hum...do we have very old concrete buildings still standing? Sure, the Pantheon is 2000 years old, still standing and still in use. And it's been out in the weather!
Ok...hum do we have objects that have been buried in the dessert for thousands of years? Well....we have King Tut's tomb contents. They were buried 3,300 years ago. How did they hold up?
I somehow don't think waste mixed with glass, inside a muti foot thick 17,000 psi concrete sarcophagus that is welded inside a 2 foot thick stainless steel vessel that wrapped in f_cking kevlar, is going to have a problem lasting 10,000 years.
Also, who honestly cares about people 10000, or even 1000, years in the future? If they don't have better tech by then to address whatever problems may develop, that's on them, not us.
Exactly, and even if they find it what's the worst that could happen? They cut and burn and burrow and blast through the feet of cladding* and finally they are able to crack one open, what then? They get sick and die. And everyone says, we better fill that hole in again and be on our way. Vs. how many will die from global warming. It doesn't seem like an honest serious concern.
*With Victorian era technology if they haven't rediscovered radiation!
Or the radioactive hole becomes the inspiration for a new world religion - such powerful spirits that react that way to being disturbed will need to be placated, no doubt.
I always regret American conservatives missing the boat on this issue - if they'd admitted climate change was real but insisted that nuclear power was the only solution they'd annoy the libs just as much as they do now but the world would be a better place.
I assume the future of this technology lies with France and / or China - developed countries that really have the political will to get behind next-gen nuclear and to make a national export industry out of it.
Of all the places I have worked in the world in the course of an engineering career Jamaica was the most fascinating. It is the only place I have ever seen, for example, where electrical generation was accomplished by dragging the ass end of a large ship onto land. And hooking up its marine diesel to a generator. That was an impressive hack.
Jamaica being Jamaica it took weeks to get the permits and water supply to do the tests I was there to evaluate and demonstrate so I had a lot of time on my hands and a guide to show me around. And that was nine months after the equipment necessary had been shipped to Jamaica. I learned a lot. For example I learned that cultural status depends on the lightness of your skin. Hence dense crowds of all Jamaicans walk on the shaded side of a street be it never so crowded, while the sunny side is largely unoccupied. Even in the coolest times. I also learned that if you are ascending the heights surrounding Kingston and you have space in your pickup then you stop and let anybody climb on. Two classes of people live on those heights. The relatively rich who have cars and masses of poor people who daily trudge up and down. They line the roads. So if you don't want to be on the receiving end of a brick you give everybody you can a ride.
Also Red Stripe is a pretty good beer and makes an excellent bribe.
The implicit narrative that high prices are caused by, and supportive of, greedy international oil companies is a bit lazy and I think leans towards intellectual dishonesty. Strive for lower energy prices bc it's good for families and communities? Actionable, useful. Strive for lower energy prices to stop "lining the pockets of foreign oil producers"? Unproductive, base populism.
A quibble first with that line about coal fired generation being replaced with wind and solar generation and natural gas as an adjunct. I don't think you can can that when 90 percent of the coal replacement is being done with natural gas and the other 10 with alternative sources like wind and solar. You seem to have a very good grasp for a non-science guy of the nature of the problems associated with integrating large wind and solar generation but you did overlook one of the key problems. Yes you would have to massively overbuild wind and solar generation in order to have a hope of matching supply and demand. And yes this would also require a massive amount of energy storage in order for wind or solar to become primary energy sources. But it also, as you point out, would require that continent spanning grid in order to distribute such power from where it is generated to where it is needed. Batteries, btw, are the least efficient way of storing energy. The costs of creating such a grid as well as the energy storage problem make wind and solar very expensive indeed. And this is a fact that its advocates like to surround with a Somebody Else's Problem Field. But it will still show up on your electricity bill.
The question in my mind is could you even build that grid. There are numerous technical issues and frightening vulnerabilities inherent in putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak with that integrated grid. But I fear that the advocates for wind and solar are going to fight it tooth and nail. One need only look at what happened in Maine. Which voted down a transmission line that would wheel Quebec hydropower though Maine to Massachusetts where it is needed. Who fought against it hardest? The same people who tell you we need to rely on wind and solar. Even though the only way to scale up wind and solar is to build exactly such infrastructure.
Sometimes the stupidity of environmental activists makes me want to weep. After I am done laughing.
Don't you need much flat land to have much manufacturing? Jamaica is pretty mountainous.
"These land-use issues are much more intense in Jamaica, which has 266 people per square kilometer versus 43 people per square kilometer in the contiguous United States."
And, worse, they are concentrated in the flat areas of the island.
"I mentioned desalination as an example of a technology that works perfectly well"
Works very poorly in some regards:
"For every litre of fresh water extracted from the sea or brackish waterways, a litre-and-a-half of salty slurry, called brine, is dumped directly back into the ocean or the ground.
"The super-salty substance is made even more toxic by the chemicals used in the desalination process, researchers reported in the journal Science of the Total Environment.
"Copper and chlorine, for example, are both commonly used."
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-brine-highlights-toxic-problem.html
"Waste chemicals 'accumulate in the environment and can have toxic effects in fish', said Edward Jones, the lead author at UNU-INWEH who also works at Wageningen University in the Netherlands.
"Brine can cut levels of oxygen in seawater near desalination plants with 'profound impacts' on shellfish, crabs and other creatures on the seabed, leading to “ecological effects observable throughout the food chain', he said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-environment-brine/too-much-salt-water-desalination-plants-harm-environment-u-n-idUSKCN1P81PX
Hah, if you read the comments on that Noah Smith post, I made exactly the point you're making here, that they would need to develop energy first, to take advantage of their bauxite. Iceland does this with geothermal, Jamaica could with solar and wind.
(Or, as you say, with next-gen nuclear. I certainly would applaud the kind of regulatory move you're suggesting.)
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/jamaica-is-doing-ok/comment/4109966
Three questions:
First, how much uranium is in the world and how long before we run out of THAT if we switch all our energy needs to uranium (of course we'd need to ask the same questions for solar and wind as well...)
Second, with nuclear there is a serious risk of accidents and waste. Where will Jamaica put its nuclear waste, and how dangerous are tsunamis and earthquakes in the Caribbean?
Third, is tidal energy something we could explore?
I agree with Charlie P. Nuclear always runs over time and budget, has had tons of government funding and little to show for it. Even the well run French scheme is not cheap enough to make bauxite refining work. Just coating the existing Jamaican building stock with solar panels should be be able to give you close to 10 GW, plus you must be able to find some unproductive land to build another 10GW at say 2-3c/kWh. There’s a lot of ruin in a nation. And wind can coexist with animal grazing and other forms of agriculture. Unlike nuclear which requires lots of water and will most likely have to be built on the coast, killing tourism.
Yes - its all gotten much more expensive. Due to over-regulation and too many veto points. That's why other countries can do it cheaper than we can.
But they still can't do it for less than coal or gas and they still can't do coal or gas for less than solar or wind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg
That chart says nothing of the kind.
Nope, solar and wind currently being half the lowest price that Nuclear has ever been doesn't say that at all.... \s
I don't see any country comparisons on that chart - do you?
LOL
It is interesting to note that Jamaica and Iceland have a lively trade. Iceland imports Bauxite and exports Aluminum. Turns out Iceland has a price per KwH of 0.047. One of the advantages of living on a volcanic hotspot is cheap geothermal power!
The case for nuclear power in Jamaica or anywhere else does not depend on being able to pre-identify big users of power. The issue is, what is (would be with a regulatory framework that did not hold nuclear power to a higher safety standard than is cost effective.) the return on investment including displacement of net CO2 emitting energy sources as a benefit.
This is a pretty good write up on the inherent safety of liquid salt reactors. It's so interesting!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1687850713000101#:~:text=MSRs%20are%20safer%20and%20more,therefore%20do%20not%20require%20expensive
Damn... late to the comment party as always. Random thoughts.
None of the gas turbines are Siemens Energy models. I only bring this up because it would be awesome to work there. Damn it. Actually the only Caribbean Island we work on is Trinidad and Tobago, and... it's not so nice. Actually one of the shittier places we work at.
Also... go Idaho National Laboratory! Not only is Idaho top of the charts on renewable energy... we have all dem smarty pants Nuke dudes.
One of the biggest resources needed for a Nuclear Plant is cooling water, and Jamaica's island status makes it ideal. So I fully support this idea. Hell, I would even slum it and work the Nuke / Steam side of the house to get a job there.
On the footnote. On population density.... it's the West that really changes things, above and beyond Alaska.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-population-density-dot-town/
On a completely semi-not related subject. Wow Yellowstone was a great show. Explains why Montana's murder rate is higher than Idaho.
If you'd be willing to elaborate on Trinidad and Tobago, I'd be curious to learn more.
The site is on or in the non-tourist part of the island. And the people aren’t friendly. It was also a little dangerous. So when I say dangerous, that means something since I routinely work in Latin America. Also, hot as fuck to work
Possibly. But Rich doesn’t mean pleasant. The United States is the richest country in the world, and there’s still places here that I don’t like to work at. On the other hand, Colombia is fucking awesome.
Bahamas are the richest, but Trinidad is up there.
and yet it used to be dramatically cheaper than it is today.
The more I look into this but but 10,000 years! Objection the more annoyed I get.
First, concrete won't last 10,000 years buried in the desert. Hum...do we have very old concrete buildings still standing? Sure, the Pantheon is 2000 years old, still standing and still in use. And it's been out in the weather!
Ok...hum do we have objects that have been buried in the dessert for thousands of years? Well....we have King Tut's tomb contents. They were buried 3,300 years ago. How did they hold up?
https://www.arabnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/n_670_395/public/main-image/2018/05/05/1178196-1318541902.jpg
It's made of f_king wood! A skinny guy might still be able to ride it.
And
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Tutankhamun_tomb_photographs_2_057.jpg
Reeds! It's a basket made of reeds!
I somehow don't think waste mixed with glass, inside a muti foot thick 17,000 psi concrete sarcophagus that is welded inside a 2 foot thick stainless steel vessel that wrapped in f_cking kevlar, is going to have a problem lasting 10,000 years.
Also, who honestly cares about people 10000, or even 1000, years in the future? If they don't have better tech by then to address whatever problems may develop, that's on them, not us.
Exactly, and even if they find it what's the worst that could happen? They cut and burn and burrow and blast through the feet of cladding* and finally they are able to crack one open, what then? They get sick and die. And everyone says, we better fill that hole in again and be on our way. Vs. how many will die from global warming. It doesn't seem like an honest serious concern.
*With Victorian era technology if they haven't rediscovered radiation!
Or the radioactive hole becomes the inspiration for a new world religion - such powerful spirits that react that way to being disturbed will need to be placated, no doubt.
I always regret American conservatives missing the boat on this issue - if they'd admitted climate change was real but insisted that nuclear power was the only solution they'd annoy the libs just as much as they do now but the world would be a better place.
Macron is basically building reactors to own the greener-than-thou Germans and it is hilarious, the libs are being well and truly owned.
I assume the future of this technology lies with France and / or China - developed countries that really have the political will to get behind next-gen nuclear and to make a national export industry out of it.
Of all the places I have worked in the world in the course of an engineering career Jamaica was the most fascinating. It is the only place I have ever seen, for example, where electrical generation was accomplished by dragging the ass end of a large ship onto land. And hooking up its marine diesel to a generator. That was an impressive hack.
Jamaica being Jamaica it took weeks to get the permits and water supply to do the tests I was there to evaluate and demonstrate so I had a lot of time on my hands and a guide to show me around. And that was nine months after the equipment necessary had been shipped to Jamaica. I learned a lot. For example I learned that cultural status depends on the lightness of your skin. Hence dense crowds of all Jamaicans walk on the shaded side of a street be it never so crowded, while the sunny side is largely unoccupied. Even in the coolest times. I also learned that if you are ascending the heights surrounding Kingston and you have space in your pickup then you stop and let anybody climb on. Two classes of people live on those heights. The relatively rich who have cars and masses of poor people who daily trudge up and down. They line the roads. So if you don't want to be on the receiving end of a brick you give everybody you can a ride.
Also Red Stripe is a pretty good beer and makes an excellent bribe.
The implicit narrative that high prices are caused by, and supportive of, greedy international oil companies is a bit lazy and I think leans towards intellectual dishonesty. Strive for lower energy prices bc it's good for families and communities? Actionable, useful. Strive for lower energy prices to stop "lining the pockets of foreign oil producers"? Unproductive, base populism.
A quibble first with that line about coal fired generation being replaced with wind and solar generation and natural gas as an adjunct. I don't think you can can that when 90 percent of the coal replacement is being done with natural gas and the other 10 with alternative sources like wind and solar. You seem to have a very good grasp for a non-science guy of the nature of the problems associated with integrating large wind and solar generation but you did overlook one of the key problems. Yes you would have to massively overbuild wind and solar generation in order to have a hope of matching supply and demand. And yes this would also require a massive amount of energy storage in order for wind or solar to become primary energy sources. But it also, as you point out, would require that continent spanning grid in order to distribute such power from where it is generated to where it is needed. Batteries, btw, are the least efficient way of storing energy. The costs of creating such a grid as well as the energy storage problem make wind and solar very expensive indeed. And this is a fact that its advocates like to surround with a Somebody Else's Problem Field. But it will still show up on your electricity bill.
The question in my mind is could you even build that grid. There are numerous technical issues and frightening vulnerabilities inherent in putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak with that integrated grid. But I fear that the advocates for wind and solar are going to fight it tooth and nail. One need only look at what happened in Maine. Which voted down a transmission line that would wheel Quebec hydropower though Maine to Massachusetts where it is needed. Who fought against it hardest? The same people who tell you we need to rely on wind and solar. Even though the only way to scale up wind and solar is to build exactly such infrastructure.
Sometimes the stupidity of environmental activists makes me want to weep. After I am done laughing.