Question 1: Energy
Pages
| Author | Topic: Question 1: Energy |
|---|---|
|
Master
Member # 5977
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 02:46
Profile
Homepage
Sorry to intrude in this discussion with such a drastically different thing, but somewhere I read an idea (it might even have been Simcity 3000), where they would use a big satelite, which would collect energy from the sun, like a normal solar panel. However, this solar panel would be extremely big, and wouldn't have any problems due to clouds or the ozone layer, which stops a percantage of sun rays to reach the earth. The sattelite will compres this energy (don't ask me about this compressing, as I myself don't know how they want to do this) and send it to an enormous receptor, in the form of a satalite dish, from were it will be brought to a reservoir of some sort, where the power will be stored. How does that sound to you guys? -------------------- Play and rate my scenarios: Where the rivers meet View my upcoming scenario: The Nephil Search: Escape. Give us your drek! Posts: 3029 | Registered: Saturday, June 18 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 3441
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 02:48
Profile
Homepage
I've heard the idea before. I think it was in Discover or Popular Science at some point, in an article on future energy sources. -------------------- "As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it." --Albert Einstein -------------------- Posts: 536 | Registered: Sunday, September 7 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 03:03
Profile
Homepage
The main problem with that idea is that building very large satellites isn't currently very cost-efficient. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 04:31
Profile
*I, I was interested in your perspective (without giving mine) on my source as he is an environmentalist and not a nuclear engineer. Personally, I belong to the philosophy that mineral resources are fundamentally different than fossil fuels. your quote: quote:can be replayed with aluminum, copper and other metals. In fact, the historical trend for all of these elements is for them to become cheaper with time, suggesting expanding reserves, more efficient use, more efficient extraction technology and the like. The "scarcity" for all of these minerals is likely being driven by the rate of return on investment for new sources. What was interesting to me was his limitation on use of alternative sources (eg seawater). I haven't read his source book (never heard of it till now) and am wondering if that statement, true in 1975?, still applies, that the energy return from extraction from low grade sources such as seawater is negative. [ Friday, April 28, 2006 04:33: Message edited by: Strontium ] -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 04:34
Profile
The origins of the idea can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately, sheer economics limit the practicality of the idea. Launch costs would need to come down by at least a factor of 10 for this to be feasible. Perhaps if we get a space elevator, but not a current solution to our current problems. Also, as far as the diaphram idea, I suggest you do an actual energy analysis for said idea. In order to drive a piston you need to set up a pressure differential, how do you propose to do this? quote:Unfortunately, the best I can do for you is say that likely we don't know. The energy balance depends highly on the method we use to extract it. If we can develop a method that largely uses evaporation from sunlight, then yeah, chances are it would be positive. The only people who have really looked into it is Japan, and their efforts have been minimal. The reasons are understandable as the problem is one that would have to be solved far into the future (in many centuries or millennia), or possibly never (if fusion could be economical). [ Friday, April 28, 2006 04:49: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 05:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:It may be that the energy distributed over quite some spectrum including UV (absorbed by ozone) and blue light (scattered into the blue of the sky) is collected and reemitted at an IR wavelength that is scattered/absorbed much less. Nice idea but how much would you gain with respect to collecting the radiation from the sun without such satellite? How often would you need service missions? How about strategic dependency? I would require an immense scale to be economical. The most secure energy source are decentralized solar collectors. Just think about an adequate insurance coverage for Tschernobyl type events. It just will never happen because the risk is only perceived after the milk is spilled any crying does not help. BTW, for tose of you who have heard about the accident at Parexel/London , the unethical catch was similar to the one inherent in the political decisions on nuclear reactors. The risk incurred is outside the experience of the electorate while the benefits can be well quantified to the effect of the devil putting the best foot forward. [ Friday, April 28, 2006 05:05: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 06:22
Profile
Homepage
The energy problem has been solved. Hah. -------------------- Encyclopaedia Ermariana • Forum Archives • Forum Statistics • RSS [Topic / Forum] My Blog • Polaris • I eat novels for breakfast. Polaris is dead, long live Polaris. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 07:51
Profile
quote:Your logic does not make any sense: 1) First of all, it's spelled Chernobyl in English, not Tschernobyl. Secondly, no Chernobyl like plants are built today. The design flaws with Chernobyl were well documented before the incident. In order to make your point valid, you need to link it to modern reactors that would be built today. 2) I argue just the opposite for the risk perceived from nuclear power after Chernobyl. Anything with nuclear in it is typically held to a much higher standard than things equally far more deadly: car crashes, smoking, chemical plants, fossil fuel emissions, etc. It's just that radiation is something we are not as familiar with. Also, the human perception of risk is more dramatic event based than on accurred risk over time. I find it ironic that an industrial accident in India killed tens of thousands of people and devastated the area, yet no one remembers or really knows about it despite the fact that many more people died than in Chernobyl and that the chance of a repeat incident is far higher. 3) Your point about ethics makes no sense. You point to a highly unethical incident to something totally unrelated and somehow try to say it is inherent in nuclear reactors. This is probably one of the most non-sequitor arguments I've seen in a while. Care to establish that link better? 4) Your closing statement is meaningless rhetoric. I agree there are risks and benefits, but this is true with everything. I could have said this about driving as well and been just as accurate. How is it any different? -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 11:03
Profile
Homepage
About nuclear power, the ironic thing is that current coal plants cause much greater environmental damage and more deaths than would be cause by any possible nuclear accidents if they were completely replaced by nuclear plants. quote:I am not sure about satellite solar collectors, but I've heard that Russia launched a large mirror to create an artificial day/night cycle during arctic night for a Siberian town. The satellite directs sunlight to light up the town during the day and turns out towards space during the night. (Beyond arctic circle, there are several months in a year when son doesn't come up over the horizon.) It's not quite the same thing, but it's another example of satellites using sunlight to benefit cities below them. quote:lol When people say that they are praying for gas prices to come down, I didn't realize they mean it so literally. :) -------------------- Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword, For it too has the power to kill. However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword, Can also have the power to heal. Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 11:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:In fact, in a fit of heightened irony, coal plants produce MORE radiation. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 4506
|
written Friday, April 28 2006 11:31
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote:And if the Russians can do it, with a smaller space-program than say the US and UK together, then we can do it better. I'm sure the sattelite idea could work, there would just need to be a point to it. Anyone can launch a hunk of metal nd fibreglass into space, but whether it would work viably is another matter. - Archmagus Micael [ Friday, April 28, 2006 11:33: Message edited by: Archmagus Micael ] -------------------- "You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage -------------------- My Scenarios: Undead Valley : A small Undead problem, what could possibly go wrong? -------------------- Richard Black - PROOF of his existance (the Infernal one's website). -------------------- MY FORUM! Randomosity at it's highest! :) Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 1092
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 01:21
Profile
Homepage
Have maybe a space station that charges up large batteries via solar power, and then either have a shuttle pick them up or drop them down to earth. Anyway, there's a thing I'm watching an article on nuclear energy. For some reason Australia isn't supporting nuclear power because of the nuclear waste, but we're mining it and sending it overseas. There's one politician that hates it because of waste and possibilty to make weapons, and there is one ex-Greenpeace member supporting it because of its extreme benefits over current methods, such as it's safety and it's enrgy output. -------------------- When you think you can't get any lower in life and hit rock bottom, God hands you a shovel. Why should I say somthin intelligent when idiots like you make me look intelligent in the first place. Posts: 615 | Registered: Friday, May 3 2002 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 02:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:What you mention is a typical feature of grand scale new technology and not unique to Chernobyl. In the Challenger desaster, it was well known that the O-rings became brittle a low temperatures. In New Orleans it was well known that the levees were not up to a major hurricane and in San Francisco the risk of the Big One to come is handled as indequately, I presume. The problem is that decisions are made under the pressure of ignorant public opinion - or even under pressure to keep up misleading appearances and by dudes. As a consequence, the government does not insure its risks or require the energy companies to do so. In small scale projects you can fail and survive to learn from the failure. quote:True, only I do not see how the decision process has changed in the building of modern reactors. quote:True. However, car crashes and smoking result largely from risks taken at the individual level and people know these risks. There appears even to be some morbid need for risk taking by people who cannot stand the boredom of their lifes but fail to come up with anything more creative. The risks involved in nuclear reactors do not give the same morbid thrill and will not be a substitute for smoking etc. BTW, I do smoke <10 cigarettes a year and I do not drive for fun. quote:These risks are of the same sort as with nuclear reactors and just look at what an effort is has taken to teach the public. There are whole nations who rather turn a blind eye on the risks and stifle their scientists rather than risk an educated debate based on facts. The current US-Iran conflict is just the latest example. Claiming the right to build nuclear reactors in the US and denying this right to developping countries just generates global tension that will unload in terrorism and war fought with the means that are at the disposal of the people who feel as the underdogs. The developed world needs to use and perfect energy technology that can be used on a global scale. quote:How does that strengthen your argument. Where I live, eating game or wild-grown mushrooms is still associated with a radiation exposure. In comparison to a tanker oil spill thie time scale is huge. If you are right about risk perception, people just cannot protect themselves gainst such risk. In addition, how long are your reactors going to run? 20 years 30 years? How long are you going to store the waste? 100years? quote:The Bhopal desaster occurred due to outsourcing of industrial risks by Dow Chemical to a developing country and how the aftermath has not been taken care of shows how US companies care about the desasterous consequences.I am not going to argue about the ranking of past horrors. The main difference between Bhopal and Chernobyl was not nuclear vs. chemical but that Chernobyl affected western ecomomies. As soon as the risks suffered by poor people the political process ignores them. So who is going to bias the decision process about nuclear reactors? quote:So what are you arguing for? Equal rights for nuclear reactor construction? Chernobyl for Bhopal. An eye for an eye? I agree that money spent for risk avoidance should commensurate with the risk. However, when we take the risk of proliferation, waste disposal and susceptibility to sabotage and terror attacks into account a nonnuclear decentralized energy source is preferable from a global perspective. It may not be in the short terminterest of corporate US. quote:I realize that the ethics discussion around the Parexel incident is not common knowledge. However, in pharmaceutical research, ethical considerations have been discussed on a broad base for decades by independent ethical review boards and ethical standards have been established. The phenomenon of extremely high risk standards in comparison to smoking etc. is very familiar to me. I just mentioned this example because the scientific discussion of ethics issues in this sector should be trend-setting for nuclear reactors, imho, even if the obligatory insurance of test subjects covers no more than the funeral costs in case of death, afaik. I will take that up in another thread when I find time. -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Sunday, April 30 2006 07:48
Profile
quote:In the US with nuclear, actually the government does. This is a major role of the NRC, to calculate these risks and ensure they are below a threshold -- before and during plant operation. In fact, if the risk of an accident goes above a certain threshold, the plant is shut down. Other industries do not have this, nuclear is unique in that respect. quote:I'm sorry you do not see this, but I do every time new reactors are talked about, at least in the US and western Europe. The focus of newer designs is safety above all else. One of the key starting points of the designing a modern reactor is to ensure a high level of safety. First of all, designs have been standardized such that there will be no unique (except where safety necessitates) plants of a series. This repeatability reduces overall risk of the fleet. Building is similar as parts and components are frequently analyzed during construction to reduce risk that something could go wrong. Is it perfect? No, because no human enterprise will be. However, the multiple layers of protection are designed that even in the worst case scenario, no release will be done into the environment. This tries to go toward your point of the small component failing. The standards are so much higher since TMI in the US and western Europe. Chernobyl would not have satisfed even pre-TMI requirements. Not to say the situation is rosy, Davis-Bessie is a bad example, but one that was caught in time and is being fixed. Fortunately, our best analysis says that even had things went wrong, there would have been no unplanned release. quote:The point is that the risk from nuclear reactor is minimal compared to these other things that we inflict upon ourselves or we do not and are more familiar with. In fact, if you asked polled 100 people, I bet they would drastically underestimate their risk from driving and drastically overestimate their risk from a nuclear accident (many studies have shown this). So what about the morbid thrill? If the risk is hardly a blip compared to other things why should it matter? quote:In the US at least, the risks have been relayed, largely by the media as is their job to do. Unfortunately, they have been dramatically overstated such that most people think the risks are a lot higher than they are. Not sure how it is where you are, but the public has been quite informed here. quote:Not related to risk informed basis or this argument. First of all, it's not a US-Iran conflict, but a "the industrial world"-Iran conflict. If Iran severed all ties with terrorist organizations and stopped pushing for Israel to be "wiped off the map", then I think the rest of the world would have no problem with them developing nuclear technology. The problem is that they continue to develop enrichment technology secretly. If they were more transparent, things would be different. Also, Russia has agreed to give them whatever they need in terms of enriched material, but they have refused. Taken in context with everything else and from gathered intelligence, one is left to conclude their motives are for military and not for civilian purposes. quote:Yes, there is radiation everywhere naturally -- always has been and always will be. I could double my exposure if I go up and live in Denver or eat four bananas a week and yet there is no increase in adverse health effects. Heck, even if I increased it by 20 times, there would be no increase. quote:Longer time scale, how so? Petrolium products and a lot of other chemicals have an almost infinite life once they contaminate things. At least radioactivity decreases over time. I think you have my point backwards, an oil tanker spill or nuclear accident people see the risk and overestimate it. Chronic exposure to emissions from car exhaust is an accurred risk that is much higher that people do not see it. The chronic exposure from radiation from an operating nuclear reactor is very, very low and an insignifcant risk. The point is people underestimate these risks, but overestimate large events such as a nuclear accident -- the only way a reactor could harm you. quote:US reactors are licensed for 40 years and most will be expanded to 60 years. As for the waste, most likely a few hundred years. This assumes we are smart about it and extract out the actinides (which we burn as fuel) that cause the tens of thousands of years. My response is what about chemical waste you may throw down the drain. How do you plan on sequestering it and how long do you plan on storing it? That kind of stuff is toxic forever. It's just chemical sluge is held to a paradoxical lower standard even though it can be quite toxic. quote:I think an equal standard for all industries would be fair, except that you'd have to shut most of them down if you applied ones as rigorous as nuclear plants. * Risk of proliferation in the US and developed countries is minimal...they already have weapons stockpiles and the capability to make more. * Using low enriched uranium for weapons is impossible -- the effort to enrich to weapons grade is about the same as with natural uranium. * Extracting plutonium for bombs out of spent fuel is a very difficult task and is more difficult than just enriching natural uranium. * Dirty bombs are less of a health threat than a means of inflicting fear. * Waste disposal is more a political problem than a technical one. We have the technology to do it, it's getting past the political hurdles that makes things difficult. * Nuclear plants are some of the most difficult targets to strike. Modern ones would be even more difficult. Many studies have shown this to be a minimal risk compared to other far more vulnerable and deadly targets. You have not shown why a decentralized energy grid would be superior. We need baseload power in large quantities, period. Solar and wind, although very good and should be expanded where feasible, cannot do this with current technologies, at least not economically so. It comes down to a choice: coal, natural gas, or nuclear. quote:It should be, and largely is in terms of exposure of effluents to the public in normal and severe accident conditions. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 16:05
Profile
Homepage
I am not sure what is the point of this "discussion" past each other. Should I now choose single statements and disprove them to procuse a cacophonic duet of "you are wrong. I am right."? You do address my main point, namely that the decisions regarding the risks of nuclear power are made in a way that is not to betrusted by voicing exactly the arrogant attitude that the public just has to accept your technology: quote:What can I say? If I am to trust someone, I would prefer that someone to view my concerns as more than a political hurdle. Until then we are adversaries. So what is the point of this thread? Give the kids both sides of the coin like the president's and the vice-president's? If you look at the UK-example you find that the cost of decommissioning cannot really be quantified. The lastest estimate is at The 56GBP up from 48GBP - not counting any nuclear accidents. Who is going to pay for this other than the tax payer? That is why I wrote quote:What you write means that some government agency - like FEMA - assesses the risk and calculates those that the public is deemed to stomach. An honest risk assesssment requires that someone is willing to put their money where their mouth is. This means buy insurance - not "ensure" -in such a way that the victims of a nuclear accident would be better off than Katrina victims and it means more than just passing a law to limit damage awards. When I wrote about the effect of Chernobyl on myself,namely that quote:I should have added: due to the Chernobyl accident. I do not feel taken seriously by your reply: quote:As you will know, there is no physiological threshold radiation dose. As an example of the long-time consequences and costs, consider that 10 farms in Scotland are still under restrictions because of radioactive contamination from the Chernobyl disaster exactly 20 years ago.It is not just a political problem. And your comparison with the tanker oil spill is just wrong: Ten years after a grounded tanker spilt 72,000 tonnes of oil in Britain's only national coastal park, experts say its ecology has only now recovered. These are different criteria for recovery but your assessment that oil is not broken down is contradicted by Dr Paul Kingston, from the Centre for Marine Diversity and Biotechnology at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh Does it make any sense to answer when you sate apodictically quote:Apparently, you have missed out on World's largest solar installation to use Stirling engine technology The 500MW planned amount to enough power to run approximately half a million homes. I could go on - even without getting into the US oil-Iran scam that has increased Chevron's 2006Q1 profits by 49% and Iran is making a killing, too. [ Tuesday, May 02, 2006 02:38: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Monday, May 1 2006 16:56
Profile
Nuclear cleanup: Be careful when quantifying the costs of cleanup to exclude nuclear weapons and military nuclear applications. This legacy is a horrible one and is an example of severe neglect in the name of producing as much as possible to feed the "demand" for weapons. I fully admit, the conduct here was unacceptable. However, in making arguments for civilian reactors, one has to compare apples to apples. It is true the two were conjoined in the early days, but since then (at least in the US) the two have been separated for a long time. One has a legacy of severe mismanagement and the other has a fairly good track record -- the commercial side being the latter because of the higher accountability. Government Regulation: As for the FEMA to NRC comparison, I'm afraid that is a not a valid comparison. FEMA is an agency with a lot of problems, not to say the NRC is perfect. However, the US NRC is a lot more strict and effective than most other regulatory agencies. Also, keep in mind FEMA is a purely reactive agency whereas the NRC is dominantly a proactive one. If you have any specific concerns about the NRC or anything in their jurisdiction, you may easily contact them and they, by law, must address them. FEMA and other agencies have no such accountability requirements. Spent Fuel: As for the waste issue, you did not state the exact concerns you had, you only offered a blanket statement to which I responded with a blanket statement -- a conclusion that many respectable scientists share after doing a lot of the analysis themselves. Please give more specific examples and we can discuss those. Yes, there are concerns, I agree. However, I do feel from the analysis I see that many of the concerns that have been voiced have either been addressed or are being addressed. In other words, I see no major technical barriers (not that there aren't problems to solve) that would prevent safe spent fuel disposal. Now you don't have to take the experts' words for it. However, remember your doctor is an expert too with vested interests. :P Radiation Dose: You missed the perhaps too subtle point I was trying to make: the radiation from man made sources is no different than natural ones. There are areas in the world with significantly elevated natural background that are not "forbidden or contaminated zones". The fact is the two get treated differently, even through from a health perspective they are identical. Also, I never said that contamination from Chernobyl was a "political problem" as you quickly claim out of context. I said controlled waste disposal -- there is a huge difference. The uncontrolled, abrupt, and massive radioactive release from Chernobyl is a real environmental and ecological problem. As I stated, there were so many things we could have done to prevent it. As far as the argument that any dose is harmful, that one stems from very conservative assumptions of how radiation dose and and biological harm interplay. There is much debate to the assertion that any dose is harmful, so honestly, I don't know your statement is true on that -- no one does for sure. It's a simple and convenient way to assess consequences conservatively. The point of agreement is that the effect from slightly elevated doses is that they are very small. Solar Power As for the solar power, I read the article curious to see what it was about. Unfortunately, they gave no estimates of the cost of electricity despite claims that it will be "beneficial". Traditionally, solar thermal technologies have been quite expensive in the US therefore I am very skeptical; they don't have a proven track record and nor do they give any figures that could be independently checked or verified. Not to say that it cannot work, I just would like some hard numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of solar and wind, but virtually every expert I talk to (of whom I see virtually every day) says the same thing: solar and wind are not going to be able to provide large quantities of baseload power anytime soon barring some major breakthrough. [ Monday, May 01, 2006 17:01: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 03:40
Profile
Homepage
In Germany we have decided against building new nuclear reactors - mainly because the political opposition is to strong. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is basically impossible because of transport risks and security concerns. It may not be for the right reasons but I welcome the decision. As you mention wind energy the leading German company Enercon has an installed based of 7,831 installed wind turbines as of April 2005, good for 7.2 GW of power production. Another 27GW offshore wind farms are being planned. For comparison, the nuclear reactors we use in Germany come in units of about 1.3Gb and account for about 1/3 of our electrical energy. We have a huge overcapacity and could switch off nuclear energy completely without having to import electricity. So the installed wind energy base amounts to the equivalent of about 6 nuclear reactors and the offshore projects are going to increase this by the equivalent of another 20 nuclear reactors. BTW, decommissioning is trivial in comparison to nuclear reactors. No wonder that the NSA has been investigating Enercon with the result that "Kenetech Windpower Inc." got the respective patent in the US before going bancrupt and you will have to wait for Enercon to enter the US market until 2010. [ Tuesday, May 02, 2006 04:41: Message edited by: Yet another procrastinator ] -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 04:46
Profile
It's good to see that Germany is pushing the development. They are fortunate in that they are in places where wind is available in dense quantities there. Nonetheless, a diversified energy profile will be necessary to keep up with growth in the long-term. It is not good to be overly dependent upon one source. Even wind has issues with short-term fluctuations in climate, very weak winds for a month would not be good. I want to see wind and solar grow where feasible. However, anyone who says the entire world can be powered on it is dreaming -- it is just is not practical everywhere. Conservation and efficiency improvements are great, but difficult to legislate and takes a while for these products to diffuse through the market. Geomthermal pumps can be used, solar thermal would work well too. Ultimately, we are left with the need of supplying baseload power. The only three that can work everywhere reliably are coal, natural gas, and nuclear. I choose the third because it is the by far the least damaging of the three. Reprocessing -- The biggest fear is proliferation of weapons grade material. Western countries already have the bomb, so there is no fear there. The only argument is the diplomatic bargaining chip one of "why can you do it, but we can't". Nonetheless, historically look at Frace. They have a fairly large reprocessing industry and they do it cleanly and safely for the most part. This goes to show that it is possible to do. Right now, it's just economically dubious to do it. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 05:28
Profile
by Procastinator: quote:The article actually stated 278,000 homes, about half your stated capacity. Given the US presently consumes about 100 quadrillion BTU's of energy this is a drop in the bucket (something on the order of 0.15% of US energy needs (total) come from renewable sources). In addition, renewable energy has its own costs/needs. E.ON Netz, one of the world’s largest private energy providers (owns over 40% of Germany’s wind generating capacity) released a report titled "WIND REPORT 2004" stating that wind energy require "shadow stations" of traditional energy on back-up reserve in case the wind forecast is wrong. They state that reserve capacity needs to be 60% to 80% of the total wind capacity! This power comes from fossil fuels or nuclear. Germany doesn't have the capacity to shut down it's nuclear plants because it ensures that the wind plants have reserve. In fact, expanding wind generation will most likely cause an expansion of other forms of energy generation, to provide the necessary reserve capacity. Nuclear power has at least the ability to be reliable and secure in its ability to consistently generate energy. Here is an interesting article that states renewable power is dirty power. Because it introduces the need for cyclic power sources as backup and because cyclic power is more inefficient than constant power (for a number of reasons, seee the article) use of renewable power has resulted in an increase in the consumption of fossil fuels in California! http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_print.cfm?a_id=758 [ Tuesday, May 02, 2006 10:18: Message edited by: Strontium ] -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 09:15
Profile
Homepage
quote:The article states: quote:. I can read. However, the precise number does not matter for the argument. I found it remarkable that a solar energy project is undertaken without subsidies. Wind power has been heavily subsidized in Germany and it is produced for about 5ct/kWh I read. Solar energy is still much more expensive. It will take a major initial investment until it becomes commercially viable. However, compare this to the effort and the pain that have gone into the development of nuclear reactors. I would like you to see this in relation to the global energy crisis. We will not have enough fossil fuel to meet the demands of developping countries as they they develop, first and foremost the development of China. Peak oil production is not so far away. I guess we agree on that. Nuclear power provides about 80% of French electricity and with their standards no major accident has happened yet. Are you seriously considering to establish nuclear energy in politically unstable countries until the economy grows sufficiently to provide for stability? I am sure, you hesitate at least as much as I do. So what should these countries do? Stay poor? Deveolp solar energy on their own? Or get a nuclear bomb and equip suicide bombers? -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 5410
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 09:50
Profile
Yes, but if you read the article closely, the approximately 500,000 homes number comes from the author of the argument, 278,000 comes from those who wish to install the solar equipment (SCE), quoting from the article quote:I would prefer the second number as being more realistic and it is valuable in that overstating the benefits of solar by 2 grossly exagerates its benefits. It may have been a roundoff, gross simplification of the number or other error, but if I compound the error and round off to the nearest million we now have the system powering a million homes. It is always best to quote the original source rather than an interpretation of it. With respect to solar/wind energy, I also made the argument that solar/wind energy does not replace fossil fuels but infact exacerbates the need, by requiring backup power to be installed and by causing that backup power to be a more inneficient form of production. This innefficiency is caused in part because of intermittent operation, which is ineefficent itself, and compounded by the inefficient nature of production, causing the selection of cheaper power plants which produce power less efficiently in the first place. Ie., if instead of investing in solar and backup power, you invested in highly efficient fossil power alone you ultimately consume less fossil fuel. [ Tuesday, May 02, 2006 09:58: Message edited by: Strontium ] -------------------- "Dikiyoba ... is demon ... drives people mad and ... do all sorts of strange things." "You Spiderwebbians are mad, mad, mad as March hares." Posts: 687 | Registered: Wednesday, January 19 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 10:51
Profile
Homepage
quote:Opinions are at least divided on that and I find it hard to believe even without emission trading taken into account. Repetition does not help. Renewable energy comes at considerable investment but very small incremental cost. You need some sort of energy storage or averaging out over regions but these are available and are being installed by people who have looked into the economic side quite carefully, Just look at the Basslink cable to average out electrical energy needs and production between Tasmania and Australia. or at the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity]pumped storage hydroelectricity plants (Wikipedia lists a lot of such plants world wide) that are exceptionally well suited to store electric power and provide peak power. -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 12:37
Profile
I read a study once that areas with windmills as peaking actually cause more emissions from the nearby coal plant baseload had the coal plant provided all of it. This is because the plant has to operate at lower efficiencies and burn at lower temperatures meaning a dirtier burn. The analysis seemed sound, not sure how this applies in general. As for nuclear power in unstable countries, it depends on how the world carries it out. Surely there is no proliferation issues with stable countries. Historically what the first world does with respect to energy has little to do with the developed world -- they base theirs on economic realities. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3980
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 17:31
Profile
Homepage
quote:Which evidence class is this? What about C "This is evidence that is either out-of-date, sketchy, poorly referenced, erroneous, or needs more research. Class C Evidence may not be totally falsified, but we need to be careful to curtail our use of it until more evidence is found." -------------------- The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference. Because of indifference, one dies before one actually dies. (not mine) Posts: 311 | Registered: Friday, February 13 2004 08:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Tuesday, May 2 2006 17:51
Profile
You know, I read a lot of studies and hear a lot of presentations on this subject. I only read the study that someone else found as part of another presentation. I do not have the citation on me right now and don't have time during the day to dig through various journals to find it. Besides, this message board is NOT a technical symposium but an informal discussion. I assure you it exists. You don't have to believe me, feel free to search for the study on your own. Oh, and please don't be a jerk about asking for a citation. I'm not going to tolerate your insults of my character, if I make myself clear. All right, I'm not sure as it has been a couple years, but I think this is it: The likely adverse environmental impacts of renewable energy sources Applied Energy, Volume 65, Issues 1-4, April 2000, Pages 121-144 [ Tuesday, May 02, 2006 18:39: Message edited by: *i ] -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |