Post by: roo_ster on July 25, 2007, 07:08:30 PM
Quote
Renewable energy wrecks environment
Renewables fail environmental test
Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He also compares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meter of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
Solar power also comes in for criticism. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about than 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Moreover, every form of renewable energy involves vast infrastructure, such as concrete, steel, and access roads. "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' but renewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as natural gas or nuclear," Ausubel says.
While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometers and there are considerations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heart of the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energy source. Benefiting from economies of scale, nuclear energy could multiply its power output and even shrink the energy system, in the same way that computers have become both more powerful and smaller.
"Renewables may be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."
Renewables fail environmental test
Renewable does not mean green. That is the claim of Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University in New York. Writing in Inderscience's International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, Ausubel explains that building enough wind farms, damming enough rivers, and growing enough biomass to meet global energy demands will wreck the environment.
Ausubel has analyzed the amount of energy that each so-called renewable source can produce in terms of Watts of power output per square meter of land disturbed. He also compares the destruction of nature by renewables with the demand for space of nuclear power. "Nuclear energy is green," he claims, "Considered in Watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages over its competitors."
On this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for wind, hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.
A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypothetically flooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storing it behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Put another way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770 square kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 US electricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 square kilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.
One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundry equipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meter of Connecticut to become a wind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.
Solar power also comes in for criticism. A photovoltaic solar cell plant would require painting black about than 150 square kilometers plus land for storage and retrieval to equal a 1000 MWe nuclear plant. Moreover, every form of renewable energy involves vast infrastructure, such as concrete, steel, and access roads. "As a Green, one of my credos is 'no new structures' but renewables all involve ten times or more stuff per kilowatt as natural gas or nuclear," Ausubel says.
While the full footprint of uranium mining might add a few hundred square kilometers and there are considerations of waste storage, safety and security, the dense heart of the atom offers far the smallest footprint in nature of any energy source. Benefiting from economies of scale, nuclear energy could multiply its power output and even shrink the energy system, in the same way that computers have become both more powerful and smaller.
"Renewables may be renewable but they are not green," asserts Ausubel", If we want to minimize new structures and the rape of nature, nuclear energy is the best option."
Greens pumping nukes. Will wonders never cease?
The scalability bit is also, ahh, grist for the mill.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 25, 2007, 07:17:10 PM
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
They just won't tell you that at the Toyota dealership, and folks hell-bent on buying one don't want to hear it, anyway.
Post by: SomeKid on July 25, 2007, 07:19:13 PM
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
Post by: Bogie on July 25, 2007, 09:57:08 PM
Now give me more grant money.
Post by: charby on July 26, 2007, 04:18:59 AM
The sky is falling.
Now give me more grant money.
Now give me more grant money.
exactly
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 04:49:31 AM
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite?
Post by: charby on July 26, 2007, 05:26:43 AM
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite? I think he talking the processes to make the batteries and disposal of the batteries in the hybrid cars.
My feelings towards hybrid cars and ethanol from corn is the same, its a great start.
-C
Post by: AJ Dual on July 26, 2007, 05:33:39 AM
I wish we would biuld more nuclear plants.
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
You are right about the solar. It can be erected in "wasted spaces". So in large part, any "footprint" issues are moot.
Mainly the problem with solar is that the more efficient the cells, the more they cost. And the break-even point on expense, and the energy to produce, install, and maintain the cells is somewhere around 12-18 years, but realisticaly more like 20-25 years when you take subsidies out of the equation.
And the probability of storm damage (hail, wind, support frames being overloaded by a blizzard etc.) destroying or severely degrading the cells approaches close to 100% over 25 years. Most cell designs also degrade over time, producing less power as they age.
There is a decent possibility that someone could come up with a cell design that is either so cheap, or so efficient, it pays for itself very quickly, and can be made into roofing or whatnot, so every rooftop could use it, even in northern latitudes. However, we won't know that until it happens.
Solar does already make good sense in any application that justifies it's expense, like remote places where the cost of running power lines has to be factored in, or the user desires electrical power even if SHTF or there's a major utility failure. In that case all economic arguments go out the window, as you can't buy electricity at any price in a blackout. However, just like the hybrid vehicles, it does not always make sense.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 05:38:06 AM
I find a LOT in this article that is highly suspicious, though.
Post by: charby on July 26, 2007, 05:43:20 AM
Didn't we have a thread some weeks ago about some professor whining that humans were taking up far too much of our "fair share" of solar energy? I think that's a pretty good indication of just how frigging whacked some of these people are.
I find a LOT in this article that is highly suspicious, though.
I find a LOT in this article that is highly suspicious, though.
I'm waiting for the wacko that states how to reduce a carbon footprint is go kill a few people.
Post by: AJ Dual on July 26, 2007, 05:52:49 AM
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Cite? Google "CNW Study Hybrid", and you'll find more than you care to read.
The study has obviously generated lots of controversy with the Hybrid community. And they've claimed to have poked all sorts of holes in the study. Just like the zealotry surrounding the global warming debate, it's hard to get an honest accounting of who's right, because so much emotional and political investment is in the arguments.
The main argument by the hybrid lovers is that the CNW study used a lifetime figure of 100,000 miles, and not more. However, the hybrid lovers seem to be ignoring that you will need new NiMh batteries, the most environmentally offensive part of the car, at least once. And even though NiMh batteries can be recycled, it takes yet more energy to do so. Whereas the recycling of a traditional car is a net energy savings, as scrap steel is much cheaper to melt, than making it from scratch with mined iron ore&
However, even if you take the CNW study with a huge grain of salt, I think they have made the point that the total energy expenditure and environmental impact of production of a hybrid is probably still much higher than the stingiest econo-box you can find, like a Civic, Aspire, or a Scion, especially if it's at least partially produced domestically.
Odds are that the punk kid in his boxy Scion, tricked out with those annoying sub-woofers is indeed harming the environment less than your snooty neighbors with the Prius and the Ralph Nader bumper sticker.
I agree partially with charby that hybrids hold promise, but they way their being executed now is a pure scam, and nothing more than a fashion statement. A constant RPM (maximized for efficiency and exhaust) direct drive diesel generator that uses smaller batteries, and DC motors are the drivetrain, would away with the complicated "synergy drive" gas-electric where there's tons of expense, a complicated drivetrain full of parasitic losses. Those show great promise. Hell, diesel-electric is a well understood technology, and it's been used on locomotives, submarines, and busses for decades.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 05:56:50 AM
Feeling REALLY guilty that your conspicuous consumption is killing Mother Earth?
Well there's now a credit card for you!
From the NY Times
"Feel guilty about fueling up that gas guzzler or buying that box of incandescent bulbs? Would you feel better if, instead of frequent flier miles or cash, your credit cards rewards program allowed you to offset your role in global warming?
For every $100 spent on an Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard, G.E. offers $1 in carbon offsets.
General Electric is betting you will. Today, G.E. will introduce the GE Money Earth Rewards Platinum MasterCard, which allows cardholders to forgo a 1 percent cash rebate on purchases and earmark that amount for projects that reduce greenhouse gases. In months when they feel short of money, cardholders can opt to contribute half and take half in cash.
G.E. will keep a running tally of the amounts, and each Earth Day it will use the total to buy offsets of greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, GE gets to earn interest on money that it would have otherwise paid out to consumers. Smart for them!
The offsets will be purchased by GE AES Greenhouse Gas Services, a joint venture between GE Energy Financial Services and the AES Corporation, a power company.
G.E. has a commercial finance group that creates carbon offsets, a finance division that creates credit cards, and of course, Ecomagination, said Tom Gentile, chief marketing officer for GE Money, referring to G.E.s program to develop green products. We are in a perfect position to help people make a difference through their purchases.
Environmentalists are not quite as sure. Its ironic, said Michael J. Brune, executive director for the Rainforest Action Network. G.E. supplies parts for coal-fired plants, so its credit card offsets emissions it helps create.
Others worry about more direct conflicts of interest. At myearthrewards.com, the new cards Web site, consumers can calculate their carbon footprint and read tips for reducing it, like buying compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy-efficient appliances, items that G.E. sells.
Moreover, G.E. is a big player in carbon offset projects, both directly as an investor and indirectly as a manufacturer of wind turbines and other alternative energy devices.
Kevin Walsh, managing director of renewable energy for GE Energy Financial Services, said that G.E. is supporting only projects that have been certified by third parties to be effective and that would not have happened without carbon offsets.
The joint venture first will buy offsets from projects that capture methane from landfills and coal mines. Later, it will add reforestation and alternative energy projects. GE Moneys credit card is just one of many customers for our pipeline of projects, Mr. Walsh said.
The card will have no annual fee and will charge annual interest of 12.99 to 18.99 percent, depending on the cardholders credit history.
G.E. insists that even small purchases add up. Twenty-five cents or 1 percent of a $25 purchase can offset a months emissions from a refrigerator. If someone charges $750 each month, 1 percent would come to $90 for the year enough to offset air conditioning, driving and pretty much all of the activities that yield the 10 metric tons of greenhouse gases that G.E. says a consumer produces each year on average.
We are not sending a message that you can buy your way out of your environmental responsibility, said Lorraine Bolsinger, vice president of GE Ecomagination. Were offering another tool in the kit for reducing carbon footprints.
G.E. is keeping everything about the card as green as possible. It is spurning paper applications, insisting that people apply online or by phone. Although by law it must send paper bills when asked, it is encouraging cardholders to receive and pay their bills online. It plans no direct mail and will advertise on search engines like Google and on environmental sites like treehugger.com.
MasterCard, meanwhile, will sponsor the card on its Web site and may help G.E. set up arrangements to automatically pay recurring bills. They have a lot of options on the table, said Denise Walker, the executive who handles the G.E. account at MasterCard Worldwide.
The idea is not unique to G.E. There are similar credit cards available in some parts of Europe. Matt B. Arnold, a co-founder of Sustainable Finance, a consulting firm, said he knows of five small groups negotiating with banks to offer similar credit cards in the United States. G.E.s announcement will probably accelerate those projects, he said.
In May, a research group, Redefining Progress, formed a company called Cooler, which is to soon unveil climatecooler.com, a shopping site that has arranged for about 350 vendors, including Wal-Mart, to purchase carbon credits in amounts that offset the greenhouse gases resulting from the manufacture and use of items purchased through the site.
American Express may enter the fray, too. We are evaluating a number of opportunities, said Desiree Fish, an American Express spokeswoman. We will pick the one that resonates most with our customers.
Many environmentalists would prefer a card that rewards only the purchase of green products. But some welcome these cards for now. As Aron Cramer, the president of Business for Social Responsibility, put it, any effort that makes it easier for consumers to address climate change is a net positive.
Big question is, if these schmucks are "feeling short of cash" some months, WHY ARE THEY USING THE CREDIT CARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
JESUS WHAT A SCAM!
Post by: Tallpine on July 26, 2007, 06:08:44 AM
We have a couple neighbors with totally solar powered houses, though one of them is still on the grid (they sell power back to the co-op). High initial expense, but it seems to be working out okay.
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 06:11:36 AM
THOSE PLUNDERING MASS MURDERING ENVIRONMENTAL RAPISTS!
Post by: Vile Nylons on July 26, 2007, 07:17:59 AM
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 07:18:56 AM
Quote
Google "CNW Study Hybrid", and you'll find more than you care to read.
The CNW 'Study' is completely uncorroborated, contains faulty methods of analysis, untenable assumptions, selective use and presentation of data, and a complete lack of peer review ; IOW, it's bogus. The CNW 'Study' has been all but completely debunked, by Argonne National Laboratory, MIT, and others. It contains so much misinformation that articles about it have been retracted, and corrections published. Even General Motors won't make any such absurd claim. I don't even think Sean ("bigazz Escalade") Hannity and Rush are even citing this recycled garbage anymore. Although, Rush was on a sputtering rant yesterday about the Prius. Which is odd-he claims to be a big 'free market, give the customer what they want' proponent.
Do a google search on 'CNW debunked' and you'll get more information contradicting that 'study' than you'll want to read.
Post by: Tallpine on July 26, 2007, 08:36:11 AM
Post by: Firethorn on July 26, 2007, 10:19:51 AM
I wish we would build more nuclear plants.
I fully agree
Quote
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
So wouldn't the added cost. Let's say that every household south of the mason-dixon line decided to add solar power to the roof. Southern climate gets substantially more usable sun than my frostbitten self in ND.
Installing a 'few panels' is actually a bad idea - there's a significant static cost to enable a building to operate on multiple power sources. The inverter for one thing. A 600 watt building infrastructure quality inverter costs $300 alone.
1.98 peak Kw solar, cost: $12,560, or $6.34 per watt of maximum capacity. Price after california cash rebate, system rebate, $2k federal income tax credit: 7,241.94, or $3.66/watt.
34.65 peak Kw solar, cost: $186,339, $5.38 per watt.
Note: This is for the system alone, installation costs a 'mere' $1-$1.50 per watt.
Now place this against the nuclear power plant, which is claiming costs ranging from $1-2 per watt of capacity, with a proven capacity factor in the high 90s. Solar will never break 50%, and 30-40% is unusually high. Capacity factor is simply the actual production divided by peak production capability.
The little green book suggests 8-11% is average.
So, we're spending 4 times as much per peak watt capacity for a system that's likely to only produce a third of the actual power - making solar 12 times as expensive as nuclear.
If everybody who put solar panels on their roof invested into building a new nuclear plant, the return on their investment would cover their electrical bills with change left over as compared to any savings with the panels.
Just like biofuels, energy via solar panels only make sense with heavy subsidies or special circumstances(IE nowhere near the grid).
Quote
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
No, hydroelectric can't do it all, matter of fact the enviromentalists want to blow up a number of dams due to the ecological damage they cause. The USA has already dammed all the 'good' sites, as well as a number of sub-optimal sites.
Quote
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
Yes, a mixture is good and all, it's just that compared to the 'green' technologies nuclear has them beat hand down, and thus I think it should be the majority answer.
Post by: Firethorn on July 26, 2007, 10:44:01 AM
I imagine that my old iron carraiges (16 and 30 years old) make less total impact on the environment than buying a new econo-car every two or three years.
Most certainly, especially if you consider CO2 to be pollution.
Now, it changes a bit if you don't consider CO2, but other pollutions instead. At some point it'd be better to replace your old vehicles to gain the decreased emmissions of other, true, pollutants.
Just like how replacing inefficient windows with newer, more energy efficient windows can save you money over enough time.
Post by: Tallpine on July 26, 2007, 12:06:32 PM
We just don't drive that many miles, anyway. I probably won't live long enough to see any savings on buying a new and smaller vehicle, not to mention you can't haul firewood in a Honda or Toyota.
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 01:34:51 PM
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
I still want backup. Or a retraction. Either will do. 
Post by: SomeKid on July 26, 2007, 01:58:30 PM
Starting where we agree. Yes, nuclear should be expanded. I used to live less than 10 miles from a reactor, for all I care they can build one a mile from me. Damn NIMBY people are the only reason it won't become the majority answer. I do think it should be expanded, but to mollify the NIMBYs, you can't make it the majority answer. Also, we agree (I think) on having a variety of answers. We already have some hydroelectric for example, and even if it cannot be expanded further, keeping what we have and running it at full capacity is a good option. Wind should be expanded, especially in the west. If cattle are willing to graze under them, the footprint becomes very small.
I don't know much about geothermal, haven't heard about it any in years. If the concept of getting energy from the Earths heat was feasible, I admit I would support it.
Now, for solar.
First, when I said a few, I meant blanket the roof. Just clarifying.
Second, cost. Right now it is a bad trade. However, I see long run potential for solar. If we spend the money now to develop the tech, we could put solar out there far cheaper. I am rarely optimistic, but I am regarding science. If you consider the massive increase in discovery in the last century, and project half that into the next, I can see great breakthroughs made.
So, what do I see foresee? If solar was developed, I could see solar panels becoming so well advanced they were used to augment a cars internal electrical supply. Imagine that for a moment, solar panels so efficient that they can keep a car running on a sunny day. Impossible today, but in a century or two I can see it happening. Long before then though, I could easily see them being placed on houses cheaply and greatly reducing the need for other methods.
It sounds pie in the sky, but just keep in mind how far computers have come in the past few decades, let alone other advances. Someday in the future, I can see solar being the dominant form of energy production, but we need to keep the research going today. I don't deny for a second that right now solar isn't the best method, but then again, all advances take research. I hope they keep working on it.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 26, 2007, 04:41:09 PM
Gewehr98
I am not sure about the Suburban, I think I saw some numbers a while back on this site that said a small engine economy car is less damaging from production through use than the hybrid. The small engine car requires much less energy and pollution to make and its lesser fuel economy is not big enough to offset for the hybrid to make up the higher initial impact. I am not sure if that carries over to Suburbans or Hummers. The article I remember mentioned lithium mining and such had a pretty high environmental impact.
Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
I still want backup. Or a retraction. Either will do. Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 04:46:00 PM
I used to feel that way.
I grew up less than 15 miles from a nuclear reactor.
You may have heard it mentioned once or twice.
Three Mile Island.
Nothing like watching your town turn into a ghost town and wondering that if you have leave if you'll ever be able to come home again.
I'm not as hot on nuclear as I used to be.
Post by: Gewehr98 on July 26, 2007, 05:00:58 PM
And when the next version of the Prius hits the road, it's rumored to have lithium-ion batteries. They're already nervous about the current batch, but when the Li-Ion model goes public, you'll see fire departments giving them plenty of room during emergency responses. A main power relay that cuts out when the airbags deploy isn't going to make them sweat any less.
You want an environmentally clean car that covers the bases from manufacture to fuel consumption? Get a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic, or better yet, a Rabbit or Jetta diesel. The Prius drivers I've talked to complain that they have to drive like a granny, or else the MPG isn't so wunnerful, and certainly not close to what Toyota claims. 60mpg? No. Try 45mpg, or worse. The car's a slug, too, compared to its fuel-efficient gasoline counterparts. Interesting test drive here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA
There are two engines and a battery pack, adding a lot of weight and extra parts to break. Add the huge extra cost, and yes, I think that the Prius is a good idea horribly executed. Idolize what you want, but they need to do more work on the hybrid idea. At least install a carbon credit printer on the dash, and re-tune the horn to squawk, "Feel-good, Feel-good".
In the meantime, instead of spending 20k+ on a Prius, one could spend 5k on a used economy car, and spend 15k in a donation to an environmental organization...
Post by: roo_ster on July 26, 2007, 06:09:34 PM
Post by: Firethorn on July 26, 2007, 06:27:29 PM
Starting where we agree. Yes, nuclear should be expanded. I used to live less than 10 miles from a reactor, for all I care they can build one a mile from me. Damn NIMBY people are the only reason it won't become the majority answer. I do think it should be expanded, but to mollify the NIMBYs, you can't make it the majority answer. Also, we agree (I think) on having a variety of answers. We already have some hydroelectric for example, and even if it cannot be expanded further, keeping what we have and running it at full capacity is a good option. Wind should be expanded, especially in the west. If cattle are willing to graze under them, the footprint becomes very small.
Windmills do have a pretty good economy in limited locations. You need a place with as steady and constant wind as you can get - too much wind and you have to shut the turbines down, not enough and you don't produce much power. They do have a fairly small footprint, and cattle do quite willingly graze under them. They're a good answer in the correct location. My parent's old town had a blurb in the newspaper how the electric company was shutting down the two turbines outside of town because wind levels couldn't justify the continued maintenance to keep them running, much less installing more.
Quote
I don't know much about geothermal, haven't heard about it any in years. If the concept of getting energy from the Earths heat was feasible, I admit I would support it.
Again, limited locations. Also, many geothermal places involve some nasty chemicals down there, which in any scheme to gain power from the heat source you run the risk of releasing them. Not to mention that they eat many of the materials we have, making them uneconomic(at this time).
Quote
First, when I said a few, I meant blanket the roof. Just clarifying.
I posted two solutions. The smaller install is ~163 square feet of solar panels. The larger is 2,857 square feet of solar panels
Quote
Second, cost. Right now it is a bad trade. However, I see long run potential for solar. If we spend the money now to develop the tech, we could put solar out there far cheaper. I am rarely optimistic, but I am regarding science. If you consider the massive increase in discovery in the last century, and project half that into the next, I can see great breakthroughs made.
There's plenty of stuff in the pipeline, but I view it like I view many of the ethanol plants under construction; the technology isn't really there yet, and installing current gen stuff is mostly a waste of time, because you'll have to replace the panels/rebuild the plant to get the better economy.
If the factor wasn't 12 for 1 it wouldn't be as big of a deal. If you could justify it as having a straight break even point within 5-10 years, you'd probably be able to get loans from the bank for the install.
Quote
So, what do I see foresee? If solar was developed, I could see solar panels becoming so well advanced they were used to augment a cars internal electrical supply. Imagine that for a moment, solar panels so efficient that they can keep a car running on a sunny day. Impossible today, but in a century or two I can see it happening. Long before then though, I could easily see them being placed on houses cheaply and greatly reducing the need for other methods.
Phoenix, AZ, a high solar energy area, only averages 5.7 kWh per DAY per square meter. Assuming 100% effective solar panels, that'd give your average car about 20 miles per day, the solar panels would act as a trickle charger during the day. More realistic efficiencies would limit you to 5 miles a day.
Quote
It sounds pie in the sky, but just keep in mind how far computers have come in the past few decades, let alone other advances. Someday in the future, I can see solar being the dominant form of energy production, but we need to keep the research going today. I don't deny for a second that right now solar isn't the best method, but then again, all advances take research. I hope they keep working on it.
Computers are data manipulation devices. Physics has proven to be much harder - just look at the automobile, which would be an efficient spaceship if it'd improved as fast as computers.
Post by: Firethorn on July 26, 2007, 06:40:15 PM
Nothing like watching your town turn into a ghost town and wondering that if you leave, you'll ever be able to come home again.
I'm not as hot on nuclear as I used to be.
I'm not as hot on nuclear as I used to be.
Man, you're ancient..
We are talking about an accident that happened when this car was new.
for that matter, chemical accidents can be quite nasty, and the railway accident in Minot, ND killed more people.
For the record, we made substantial changes in the way nuclear power plants were run after TMI. A new philosophy of safety was put in place, with the result that nuclear power kills hardly anybody. Workers are most at risk - and mostly when they're being stupid, like the Japanese waste processors that violated around a hundred regs.
You're safer living near a nuclear plant than a coal plant - you're statistically far more likely to die from lung cancer caused by the pollution from the coal plant. Fact is, civilization needs power. For the last 25 years Nuclear power has had about the best safety record going - Even TMI is noted to be the only multi million industrial accident where nobody was killed. The other specter - Chernobyl - well, that wouldn't have been approved in the western countries as it was a critically flawed design. It was made to produce weapon material mainly, so power was actually just a useful side effect...
Post by: K Frame on July 26, 2007, 06:59:06 PM
Wow, that's really breathtakingly... NON-pertinent to the conversation.
"For the record, we made substantial changes in the way nuclear power plants were run after TMI."
WOW! REALLY? I had NO idea! I guess that's why Peach Bottom in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has had nearly 400 unscheduled reactor shutdowns in those 30 years.
How silly of me. On January 1, 1980, nuclear generation achieved unparalleled, unqualified, perfection! Accidents, incidents, errors, oversights, and omissions have been completely eliminated!
I feel SO much safer knowing that "experts" can tell us, with "authority," that nothing can possibly go wrong ever again!
And the absolute icing on the cake is you telling me that!
GODDAMN IT, I FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT IT THAT I WANT A NUCLEAR REACTOR ON THE LOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE!
You know, disaster lurks where complacency and hubris live.
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 07:13:24 PM
Post by: SomeKid on July 26, 2007, 08:02:13 PM
Mike, as I noted in my second post, I would love to see solar become so cheap and effective we didn't really need much else. While I have no problem with a few new nuclear plants, I wouldn't want to have hundreds more pop up. Ideally, solar would become efficient. Even if solar goes disastrously wrong, you only lose a few bucks. Unless it falls on your head, you are pretty safe.
Fire, you misunderstand. I am not saying we should go nuts on todays tech. I am saying we should go nuts (by go nuts, I mean focus our energy/$$$) on research. The atom bomb was a fictitious concept until someone figured out how to do it. I think it will be the same with solar. Your math regarding solar on a car is worthless, because I wasn't talking about doing that today. I am talking about in the future.
The biggest thing that annoys me with all the energy debates now, is everyone says 'just go solar' or 'use ethanol' when instead we should focus on R&D a while longer.
The best answer for today however, was what I posted earlier.
Quote
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
Post by: Paddy on July 26, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
Quote
Riley, that isn't capitalism causing that, that is government regulations companies are trying to live within and still garner a good profit.
The poor babies. You're breakin' my heart.
Post by: SomeKid on July 27, 2007, 12:06:59 AM
Post by: drewtam on July 27, 2007, 08:53:08 AM
"We are talking about an accident that happened when this car was new."
Wow, that's really breathtakingly... NON-pertinent to the conversation.
"For the record, we made substantial changes in the way nuclear power plants were run after TMI."
WOW! REALLY? I had NO idea! I guess that's why Peach Bottom in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has had nearly 400 unscheduled reactor shutdowns in those 30 years.
How silly of me. On January 1, 1980, nuclear generation achieved unparalleled, unqualified, perfection! Accidents, incidents, errors, oversights, and omissions have been completely eliminated!
I feel SO much safer knowing that "experts" can tell us, with "authority," that nothing can possibly go wrong ever again!
And the absolute icing on the cake is you telling me that!
GODDAMN IT, I FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT IT THAT I WANT A NUCLEAR REACTOR ON THE LOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE!
You know, disaster lurks where complacency and hubris live.
Wow, that's really breathtakingly... NON-pertinent to the conversation.
"For the record, we made substantial changes in the way nuclear power plants were run after TMI."
WOW! REALLY? I had NO idea! I guess that's why Peach Bottom in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has had nearly 400 unscheduled reactor shutdowns in those 30 years.
How silly of me. On January 1, 1980, nuclear generation achieved unparalleled, unqualified, perfection! Accidents, incidents, errors, oversights, and omissions have been completely eliminated!
I feel SO much safer knowing that "experts" can tell us, with "authority," that nothing can possibly go wrong ever again!
And the absolute icing on the cake is you telling me that!
GODDAMN IT, I FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT IT THAT I WANT A NUCLEAR REACTOR ON THE LOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE!
You know, disaster lurks where complacency and hubris live.
Your right, nuclear is not "perfectly safe". Nothing in this world will ever be "perfectly safe".
But the FACT remains, nuclear is much safer than coal. How much safer? If you include the radioactive material and cancers caused by coal, nuclear plants would need a melt down as bad Chernobyl every month to keep up with coal fatalities.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm
Chernobyl Accident
"28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/
Deadly power plants? Study fuels debate
Thousands of early deaths tied to emissions
"MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 4:56 p.m. CT June 9, 2004
"Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten nearly 24,000 lives a year, including 2,800 from lung cancer, ..."
Drew
Post by: K Frame on July 27, 2007, 09:01:09 AM
Screw the people. I don't care about the people.
I'm not a big fan of nuclear power because an accident has the potential to render a large area of land uninhabitable for decades, if not centuries.
Post by: Firethorn on July 27, 2007, 11:11:05 AM
Wow, that's really breathtakingly... NON-pertinent to the conversation.
I was trying to point out that state of the art has advanced considerably during that time, I'm sorry that I failed.
Quote
WOW! REALLY? I had NO idea! I guess that's why Peach Bottom in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has had nearly 400 unscheduled reactor shutdowns in those 30 years.
And it's probably one of the worst on record. Besides, an unscheduled shutdown is, relativly speaking, a ho-hum occurance. Safety functions worked and prevented greater damage. Depending on what went wrong, the plant could come back up in hours or days.
Quote
How silly of me. On January 1, 1980, nuclear generation achieved unparalleled, unqualified, perfection! Accidents, incidents, errors, oversights, and omissions have been completely eliminated!
No, it's been a constant improvement process. Back in the 70s nukes had a capacity factor below 50. Today most plants operate at over 90. Many have also been uprated, to the point that increased availability and capacity was equivalent to a new plant being built for years.
Quote
I feel SO much safer knowing that "experts" can tell us, with "authority," that nothing can possibly go wrong ever again!
Things can go wrong, however failure modes have been considered and compensated for with layered defenses to the point that the odds of a chernobyl style disaster happening again is pretty much zilch in american plants.
Quote
GODDAMN IT, I FEEL SO GOOD ABOUT IT THAT I WANT A NUCLEAR REACTOR ON THE LOT NEXT TO MY HOUSE!
Glad you can see the light! I'll even move in next to you. I'm sure we can get some good paying jobs at the plant.
I'm going off from statistics - which, even including a chernobyl style disaster every year would still be safer than the real world effects of coal power. And no, I'm not talking about CO2. If I had my way, I'd shut down all the coal plants, replacing them with nuclear ones. That we'd meet the kyoto accord goals almost by accident is just a bonus.
Mike, as for rendering land uninhabitable - remember all the land rendered 'uninhabitable' from chemical contaminants? How about the times when a few rivers caught fire?
Post by: K Frame on July 27, 2007, 03:25:15 PM
Funny, I remember after the 1986 shuttle disaster a NASA official saying pretty much the same thing...
Post by: 280plus on July 27, 2007, 04:50:28 PM
Anyhoo, I just stopped by to say I was following this little car with a little hippie dude in it just the other day and all over the car it's saying Uses bio fuel blah blah. Man, that car was smoking black and stinkin' to high heaven. Worse than a bus. Go figure.
Post by: Paddy on July 28, 2007, 09:31:20 AM
Quote
No backup or retraction warranted. It's a feel-good technology, needing only a built-in carbon credit printer to be complete. Talk to me in 5 years when the nickel-metal-hydride battery pack in that Toyota Prius (called Pious in some circles) has to be changed out. (How come nobody wants to talk about that, hmmm?) My son's Suburban will be on the road long after the Prius has been made into Chinese kitchen utensils for sale at Walmart. That is, unless one somehow gets all those Toyota hybrids to go for 200,000 miles or more. (Easy for a Suburban, Tahoe, or Hummer, built on a real truck chassis) Then, after 4 battery changes, it just might amortize the R&D energy that went into making it, as well as the subsidies (aka, tax credits) offered to manufacturers and buyers. Think a Prius plus whatever it was recycled into while the GM truck chassis continues to roll over that timeframe.
Just a lot of speculation and unproven claims. And it doesn't even address your original statement:Quote
That's why a new Toyota Prius is more enviromentally damaging than a new Chevrolet Suburban.
Post by: Firethorn on July 28, 2007, 01:32:56 PM
"the odds of a chernobyl style disaster happening again is pretty much zilch in american plants."
Funny, I remember after the 1986 shuttle disaster a NASA official saying pretty much the same thing...
Funny, I remember after the 1986 shuttle disaster a NASA official saying pretty much the same thing...
Please note that I didn't say that it couldn't happen, and I listed one failure mode. There could still be unknown failure modes.
As for the shuttle, I'll note that the second accident was unrelated to the first, tiles damaged by falling foam vs faulty O-rings. Frankly, I'm not impressed with the shuttle's safety record. It operates far closer to the edge of disaster than any nuclear plant.
Still, we've logged orders of magnitude more hours on nuclear plants than we have on shuttles; there are more of them, and they're pretty much in constant operation.
If nothing else, on my nuclear power expansion spree I'd end up replacing the old nuclear plants once I've gotten rid of all the coal ones. Especially if we actually standardize the design, we'd be able to share data on failure modes.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 28, 2007, 03:58:09 PM
Quote
Rush was on a sputtering rant yesterday about the Prius. Which is odd-he claims to be a big 'free market, give the customer what they want' proponent.
Did he claim that manufacturers should not make enough hybrids to meet demand? If not, then I want a retraction, too. As long as people want hybrids, I'm sure Rush favors the rights of capitalists to profit from it.
Post by: Paddy on July 28, 2007, 04:10:56 PM
Quote
Did he claim that manufacturers should not make enough hybrids to meet demand? If not, then I want a retraction, too. As long as people want hybrids, I'm sure Rush favors the rights of capitalists to profit from it.
The Prius is a commercial success. I would think that a good capitalist would applaud that.
Post by: roo_ster on July 28, 2007, 05:27:14 PM
Post by: Paddy on July 28, 2007, 05:36:26 PM
Quote
A commercial success when sweetened with a $5000 tax credit...
More bullshit. I think I need hipboots at this website. The credit was $2k before 12/31/05. Now it's zip, as Toyota has sold way over 60k units. Please read the regs before bloviating. Thank you.
Post by: Paddy on July 28, 2007, 06:05:28 PM
Post by: roo_ster on July 28, 2007, 07:22:28 PM
Quote
A commercial success when sweetened with a $5000 tax credit...
More bullshit. I think I need hipboots at this website. The credit was $2k before 12/31/05. Now it's zip, as Toyota has sold way over 60k units. Please read the regs before bloviating. Thank you. A co-worker of mine based in Colorado remarked to me after he bought his Pius, that he was going to get "$5000 in tax credits." Pretty cool for him, I thought.
It turns out that he got (after RMc prompted me to googlage):
2005 Toyota Prius:
Incremental price difference - $4,040
Tax Credit available $3,434
ANDIncremental price difference - $4,040
Tax Credit available $3,434
$2,000 from the federales
Which adds up to $5,434. It seems my co-worker was modest.
I think such might have an effect on sales. Inh my buddy's case, he is a gadget-guy from way back & maybe would have bought the latest hybrid doo-dad without any sweetener.
OTOH, I bet darn near any incentive could not spur sales in Alaska, what with the cold's effects on batteries.
I wonder which state gives the biggest incentives? I wonder what the mean & median combined (fed, state, other) incentives are for those who bought hybrids?
Post by: K Frame on July 28, 2007, 08:43:07 PM
But, when the price of gas bankrupts you, and you lose your house, they're EXTREMELY roomy to live in. Far more so than a Prius.
We had one in the late 1970s through the 1980s when I was in high school.
Not once did I have to pay for a hotel room. Girlfriend and I would head up to the mountain with a sleeping bag and the Subdivision... er... Suburban.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 28, 2007, 08:49:39 PM
Quote
Did he claim that manufacturers should not make enough hybrids to meet demand? If not, then I want a retraction, too. As long as people want hybrids, I'm sure Rush favors the rights of capitalists to profit from it.
The Prius is a commercial success. I would think that a good capitalist would applaud that. Quote
Yeah well he must be making a ton of money to be able to feed that hog. Suburbans are a PITA. You can't see around them or over them. They're nothing more than rolling roadblocks.
Those comments are not just dumb, they're Sean Hannity dumb. And that's pretty darn dumb.
Have you seen how many Suburbans (and other large SUVs) are on the road? You think all of those people are rich? Like I said, Sean Hannity dumb. Hint: Gas is cheap.
Post by: Tallpine on July 29, 2007, 07:21:58 AM
We go to town maybe once or twice a month. The load coming home includes 6 or 8 3gal jugs of drinking water, a dozen or so sacks of groceries (plus a large ice chest for the cold stuff), maybe 5 or 6 50# sacks of horse/dog/rabbit food, plus whatever else we needed that trip (hardware, lumber, fence supplies, etc...).
Tell me again why we don't need a pickup/Suburban.
Post by: Firethorn on July 29, 2007, 09:24:37 AM
I wonder which state gives the biggest incentives? I wonder what the mean & median combined (fed, state, other) incentives are for those who bought hybrids?
I'm pretty sure that it'd be California. Whenever I browse around it's generally their rebates and incentives that are listed, and they're more than the federal rebates.
Same thing with solar.
Post by: Art Eatman on July 30, 2007, 10:49:50 AM
A Prius gets some 50mpg highway? What's the big deal? So do several other cars of less weight and equal interior volume. Heck, the original VW diesel Rabbit could get 60mpg...
The only possibility of a Chernobyl-type excursion here in the US is the Hanford plant. It's the only similar design. Hanford operates at most at 40% of rating; Chernobyl was operating at 120% of rating when it blew.
The radiation release at Three Mile Island, mostly in the form of Radon, was (in terms of millirems) about the same as spending a summer in Aspen, Colorado--getting more cosmic rays at elevation 7,400 than TMI's 300 feet above sea level.
I read an article on risk analysis in 1985 which claimed that deaths due to coal smoke pollution in the area between Richmond, VA, and Boston, MA ran some 4,000 per year above the normal rate if no coal smoke were present. So that's 88,000 dead in just 22 years. Seems like a lot less than from nukes...
As said above, the worthwhile hydro projects have been done. And, given what happens when you get into the EIS phase of damming a river, plus the lawsuits, no river authority is interested...
Art
Post by: K Frame on July 30, 2007, 11:12:27 AM
I read an article on risk analysis in 1985 which claimed that deaths due to coal smoke pollution in the area between Richmond, VA, and Boston, MA ran some 4,000 per year above the normal rate if no coal smoke were present. So that's 88,000 dead in just 22 years. Seems like a lot less than from nukes..."
Did you actually read my message?
I don't care if a nuke plant turns 1 billion people into upright rotting corpses.
I do care if that nuke plant makes several thousand square miles of land uninhabitable, especially if it's land that I care about.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 30, 2007, 11:24:14 AM
I was under the impression there were differences in the way Chernobyl was designed compared to similar plants in the US and was largely responsible for the severity of that disaster.
Wasn't coal burning in relatively dirty power plants causing all that acid rain that screwed up some wilderness areas? It has been a while since I heard much about it. It was a real big issue in the 80's.
Post by: roo_ster on July 30, 2007, 11:32:30 AM
Post by: Iain on July 30, 2007, 12:19:41 PM
Art - could be wrong, but I thought part of the pro-Prius argument wasn't about the total mpg, but was about localised pollution. Running on an electric motor in urban areas reduces pollution in that area. Diesels are great for total mpg, but until recently less good on particulate emissions.
There's plenty of reaction to this article on the internet, including a long argument about whether his solar panel maths is correct.
Post by: DustinD on July 30, 2007, 10:52:03 PM
Quote
I remember them saying the Titanic was unsinkable, Well, I don't ACTUALLY remember them saying it but I've HEARD that they said it.
The engineers did not say it was unsinkable, a reporter did. A while after it sank it was widely reported that way because everbody loves the whole "experts/engineers/scientists have been wrong before" type story. I doubt anyone cared whether it was unsinkable or gave the risk any thought until it actually sank. They only thought of how big, fast, and luxurious it was.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 31, 2007, 02:00:29 AM
Post by: Iain on July 31, 2007, 03:56:15 AM
See for instance - http://www.gizmag.com/go/7705/
I suppose nothing will improve if we all just snipe.
Post by: Firethorn on July 31, 2007, 05:00:24 AM
Quote from: Mike Irwin
I do care if that nuke plant makes several thousand square miles of land uninhabitable, especially if it's land that I care about.
First, the odds of a Chernobyl style disaster happening in the USA is pretty much zilch. That includes having to evacuate the area for an extended period of time. There are actually people living there today that never left, or only left for a short period of time. Their population is declining because nobodys moving in and there are no young people having families, but so far has had a similar death rate for their age groups as nearby cities.
It seems I heard that the land around Chernobyl is heavily occupied, just not by humans. I guess the long term effects are still not known.
There were a couple of studies that found bird survival rates were not quite as good, while small mammals are surviving quite well. Larger mammals also seem to love the area as there were numerous sightings, but the scientists didnt have permission to mess with them.
Of course, part of the bird study found them nesting in the sarcophagus, which is among the most heavily contaminated areas left, so I think that that might explain the birds reduced hatchling survival rate.
Quote
I was under the impression there were differences in the way Chernobyl was designed compared to similar plants in the US and was largely responsible for the severity of that disaster.
Chernobyl would have never been approved in the USA. For one, it didnt have a pressure container, which is a requirement for US reactors. Think of it as a pre-installed sarcophagus. If reactor number 4 had a dome, they would have ended up with a contaminated dome, but little to no release of radioactivity into the surrounding area. At that point you lock the dome up or decontaminate it pretty much at your leisure.
It also had a 'positive void coefficient', a rather high one at that. What that means is that when a void forms from boiling coolant, the reaction in the surrounding area increases. This can lead to more boiling, more reaction, IE runaway situation. Plants in the USA are required to have a negative coefficient.
As for the hanford plant - it was a plutonium production plant, and has been shut down for quite some time, at least per wikipedia.
Quote
Wasn't coal burning in relatively dirty power plants causing all that acid rain that screwed up some wilderness areas? It has been a while since I heard much about it. It was a real big issue in the 80's.
Tightened emission requirements have cleaned up coal power substantially, but its still an issue. At the same time its substantially raised the cost of coal power, to the point that the dropping costs of nuclear power has made it cheaper.
As for the titantic, while they made a number of 'new' improvements to reduce the chances of it sinking, the iceberg hit was pretty severe. They consequently modified the designs of the sister ships, raising the height of the waterproof 'cell' walls, which worked fairly well in reducing the rate of sinking when one of the ships ended up going down after being hit with a mine.
Post by: Art Eatman on July 31, 2007, 06:08:40 AM
So a Prius might benefit the people of LA, but screw up a bunch of people elsewhere. The common term for that is "hypocrisy".
As for US reactors, as noted above, the basic designs and regulatory mandates pretty much insure that "The China Syndrome" will never be a documentary. TMI endured three major human errors and twenty-two minor errors yet there was no notable excursion. That was some 30+ years ago. I think it naive to believe that reactor control concepts and technology have remained stagnant. They've certainly kept pace with the computerization of automobiles.
Side effects of wind generators: A helluva lot of wire, whether copper or ACSR to collect the electricity to a central point to put it onto hundreds of miles of transmission lines to a use point. There are the cost aspects at a time of rising commodity prices as well as the environmental impacts of the mining and smelting. Transmission (""wheeling") costs from the buss bar of a conventional power plant add some 20% to the FOB cost of the plant's electric output. I suspect it would be a good bit higher because of wind unit gathering--but this cost is rarely discussed in public.
Little ironies: If you want to build a nuke plant, ya gotta do an EIS. Now, after some 116 nuke plants (maybe more) in the US, you'd think that an EIS could be done with the typing of "We're gonna change the land use of some 160 acres." 'Scuse me, but what's gonna be different at a new plant that we don't already know? Duh? But, no, millions of dollars to hire a bunch of bug'n'bunny folks and a couple of archaelogists to run around for a couple of years. Then the inevitable lawsuits from the NRDC, et al, picking flypoop out of pepper.
But who's worried about dead birds--raptors included--with wind units? Dunno how many of y'all are aware that many TV stations have a morning chore of removing bird carcasses from the base of the towers? And how many birds die from flying into all manner of communication towers (including, now, all these cell-phone towers) and into electric lines? (Transmission lines are rough on geese, down on the Texas coast.)
Then there's the aesthetic aspect of wind units: IMO, they uglify tens of thousands of acres. A nuke plant occupies how many?
Just stray thoughts...
Art
Post by: K Frame on July 31, 2007, 06:20:56 AM
The arrogance and shortsightedness of a statemnt like that are the exact reason why I'm not in favor of nuclear power at all.
IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE! (confident, smug, self-satisfied grin)...
We're right back to my comment below that apparently as of January 1, 1980, we achived immutable perfection in the design and operation of nuclear power plants. Nothing can ever go wrong. No accident can ever sully the perfection that we have achieved. Anyone who believes otherwise is a threat to enlightened, benevolent society.
Bullshit.
Absolutely, 100% bullshit.
History is littered with the wreckage of "perfect" systems.
And obviously a "Chernobyl-style disaster" can't happen here, becuase there are no Chernobyl-design reactors in operation anywhere in the United States. That leaves open avenues for completely different disaster types.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 31, 2007, 07:07:02 AM
On another tack: Why don't the police take your guns away because it is possible that you will go on a shooting spree. The odds of that are very low you say? Why that doesn't matter. It is still possible. How arrogant can you be. We must protect the children.
Post by: The Rabbi on July 31, 2007, 07:36:23 AM
Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER. That's all anyone needs to know. The facts don't matter here. Don't try arguing facts or statistics. It wont help because HE IS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.
Just like some people are against guns. Sure, more people are killed by cars than by guns. Sure the likelihood of a gun going off by itself is nil. But it doesn't matter because THEY ARE AGAINST GUNS.
Just like Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER.
Might as well close the thread already.
Post by: MechAg94 on July 31, 2007, 08:55:54 AM
Post by: DustinD on July 31, 2007, 09:01:06 AM
Quote
That leaves open avenues for completely different disaster types.
This would be a lot better discussion if people would go through those types instead of just saying "it could happen."Quote
History is littered with the wreckage of "perfect" systems.
How often do credible sources say a system is perfect, and then it goes on to fail? I doubt it is too often despite that particular plot element existing in many hollywood movies. Edit: As an example sales people and spokes persons are not credible, peer reviewed groups of experts that have been checked by the field as a whole are.Also to improve the quality on this forum a bit why don't you calm down. You have gone after others for being far less off the wall and emotional than you are now. Note this thread as an example, posts 13-16.
Also you may want to read this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
Post by: Firethorn on July 31, 2007, 10:20:06 AM
Quick restatement:
1. Strawman argument. I haven't characterized, to my knowledge, that nuclear power is perfect.
2. Multiple layers of safeguards exist, such as containment structures, negative void coefficients, and physical safety systems to SCRAM a reactor without intervention or electronics if the pressure/temperature gets too high. Their operation has been verified through the safe operation of hundreds of reactors for decades.
3. Please name a possible accident involving a nuclear reactor that's not 'Chernobyl like' that still involves the contamination of hundreds of square miles? Personally, my definition of 'Chernobyl like' would be any accident that spreads a good portion of radioactive reactor material across a fair bit of landscape. US reactors have that great big concrete dome/building to prevent just that. Tests have shown them to laugh at plane strikes.
4. A non-breach meltdown is still nasty, and pretty much guarantees the permanent shutdown of that reactor, possibly the whole plant... That's what the containment dome is for, and I personally don't really care about losing the plant as long as the landscape and people around it are fine. Bonus if no plant workers are harmed.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 01, 2007, 05:19:59 AM
From a safety standpoint, the design could be likened to running mechanical brakes on an Indy car. Even so, it's safe at some operating load. Chernobyl, to repeat, was operating at 120%. That's Doom, just waiting.
Can there be some minor, short-term radiation problem with modern designs? Yes. Can there be a Chernobyl-type disaster? For all practical purposes, no. That is, it might be somehow possible, but nobody knows how it could happen. When a "pile" overheats, it melts; it does not repeat Hiroshima. Had Chernobyl had a containment building around the reactor system, the chemical explosion could not have blasted radioactive material across the countryside.
Chernobyl was the prototypical "dirty bomb" that is commonly talked about as a terrorist's weapon. It was not a nuclear explosion.
Yeah, I'm somewhat repeating some of Firethorn's stuff--and I'm reinforcing his views.
I'm not gonna apologize for a semester of nuclear physics, two semesters of nuclear power reactor design, and some decades in civil engineering messing around with steel and concrete. Sometimes I wish I had no technical education, so it could be so much easier to run around emoting at length about things of which I know nothing.
Hey, Firethorn, even the little 10-watt-thermal reactor at Gatorland had a Scram button.
Art
Post by: Ben on August 01, 2007, 05:33:01 AM
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
Post by: K Frame on August 01, 2007, 05:45:03 AM
I can only assume that that means an uncontrolled reaction with core breach and atmospheric exposure.
If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.
Nuclear power's greatest failing isn't the technology; it's the atom chimps who control the technology. As long as the technology depends on the atom chimps, it will be a disaster waiting to happen.
Post by: Firethorn on August 01, 2007, 06:30:51 AM
From a safety standpoint, the design could be likened to running mechanical brakes on an Indy car. Even so, it's safe at some operating load. Chernobyl, to repeat, was operating at 120%. That's Doom, just waiting.
I did a report on Chernobyl when I was in HS. They were not only running at 120%, they also disabled a number of safety systems for a test, then their backup generators wouldnt start up, they failed to initiate a SCRAM when they were supposed to for political reasons. Oh yeah, and a little quirk where when control rods were inserted the reaction would go up before it went down. The list goes on. Hanford was probably a safer design.
Quote
Can there be some minor, short-term radiation problem with modern designs? Yes. Can there be a Chernobyl-type disaster? For all practical purposes, no. That is, it might be somehow possible, but nobody knows how it could happen. When a "pile" overheats, it melts; it does not repeat Hiroshima. Had Chernobyl had a containment building around the reactor system, the chemical explosion could not have blasted radioactive material across the countryside.
Bingo, worst case scenario (explosive reactor core breach), short circuited by a pre-built massive concrete and steel containment building. You might end up burying the dome for a couple hundred years before cleaning it up, but unlike many chemical contaminants, radioactive materials get less dangerous over time.
Quote
Chernobyl was the prototypical "dirty bomb" that is commonly talked about as a terrorist's weapon. It was not a nuclear explosion.
True, the explosion was a steam/pressure release, explosive decompression once the reactor container was breached. Much of the core is still intact down in a sub-basement. They have some pictures of it, very grainy. The radiation is so intense down there they had to use special film.
Quote
Hey, Firethorn, even the little 10-watt-thermal reactor at Gatorland had a Scram button.
Is it big and red? Its not a proper SCRAM button if its not big and red. Oh yeah, and a protective clear plastic cover.
Though I was thinking about the fuse type emergency SCRAM system where when the temperature reaches a certain point the linkages holding the control rods melt, dropping them all into the reactor, stopping the reaction. Of course, at that point the plants going to be down for a year, but it didnt melt down!
Quote from: Mike Irwin
You've said that a "Chernobyl-type accident" isn't possible here.
Youre misrepresenting us again. For all practical purposes, no, pretty much zilch doesnt say that it isnt possible, just that the odds are vanishingly remote. IE extremely low. Thats not to say that it couldnt happen, just that extremely unusual events would have to happen such as an asteroid strike.
Quote
I can only assume that that means an uncontrolled reaction with core breach and atmospheric exposure.
Id remove the uncontrolled reaction, though thats generally part of it.
Quote
If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.
Youre trying to knock down a strawman here again. We dont say that its not possible, we dont say that accidents dont happen, that mistakes arent made. What we do say is that nuclear power has achieved one of the safest power generation records in the world. Per kWh, nuclear power does the least amount of environmental damage and kills the fewest people of any major electrical power generation system. Its so low that deaths from falls from maintaining wind farms and accidents while maintaining solar panels might exceed those of the nuclear industry, even including Chernobyl.
Quote
Nuclear power's greatest failing isn't the technology; it's the atom chimps who control the technology. As long as the technology depends on the atom chimps, it will be a disaster waiting to happen.
When did the atom chimps get control? I mean, weve had pretty much the same record for the last 30 years: no deaths from radiation (weve lost a few due to steam accidents, which also happen in coal plants) and few injuries. For chimps they seem to be doing pretty good. Weve had more radiation caused deaths from malfunctioning medical devices.
Post by: The Rabbi on August 01, 2007, 07:41:30 AM
Mike Irwin is AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER. Unless you can give him an iron-clad guarantee that nothing whatsoever will ever happen to endanger the environment, he will be opposed to it. It doesnt matter that he probably takes more risk getting up in the morning and making himself a cup of coffee than he would living next door to a nuke.
You can't guarantee that your gun won't be used against an innocent person either. It's all the same thing.
Post by: MechAg94 on August 01, 2007, 08:58:34 AM
Quote
If you claim that that's not possible, it goes to follow that nuclear power has achieved perfection. Or at least the American iteration of it has.
No one made that claim. No one is saying "perfection" but you. What they are saying is that all possible failure scenarios have been reviewed and mapped out and processes/structures have been designed to prevent failure (failure defined as part of the study). In engineering terms, that means the probability of failure is very low. Impossible is not an engineering term and every engineer knows that nothing is perfect. Imperfections are accounted for in design and construction.
Post by: Perd Hapley on August 01, 2007, 01:57:10 PM
Post by: Mabs2 on August 02, 2007, 06:21:39 AM
I wish we would biuld more nuclear plants.
However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
This is exactly my position.However, I don't quite see how solar energy is bad. Put panels on the roof of your house. May not provide all you need, but imagine every house with a few panels. The added energy would be tremendous.
Sure, hydroelectric can't do it all, but strategically placed Dams can add some power. Same for wind.
The answer isn't JUST nuclear, the same as the answer is not JUST 'other' types. A mixture would be best.
If you don't want to have solar panels, fine.
I want them because it'll save me money and help out a small way...not much. But mainly it's just the money. =p
I think people should get solar hot water and solar electric panels...because it'd save them lots of money.
I also agree with moar nukes.
Post by: Tallpine on August 02, 2007, 06:28:59 AM
Right now our biggest vulnerability is that our water supply (well) depends on electric power.
Quote
What they are saying is that all possible failure scenarios have been reviewed and mapped out and processes/structures have been designed to prevent failure (failure defined as part of the study). In engineering terms, that means the probability of failure is very low. Impossible is not an engineering term and every engineer knows that nothing is perfect. Imperfections are accounted for in design and construction.
You are probably safer living next to a nukular plant than driving over a bridge
Post by: MechAg94 on August 02, 2007, 07:34:51 AM
Mistakes can still be made, but the likelihood is very low. The biggest factor in that would be changes made from the standard design.
Post by: Mabs2 on August 02, 2007, 09:26:44 AM
I wish I could afford to convert our house to solar power, not for any cost savings but simply for freedom from the "grid." Then so what if the power goes off, the sun is still up there
Right now our biggest vulnerability is that our water supply (well) depends on electric power.
You are probably safer living next to a nukular plant than driving over a bridge
Right now our biggest vulnerability is that our water supply (well) depends on electric power.
Quote
What they are saying is that all possible failure scenarios have been reviewed and mapped out and processes/structures have been designed to prevent failure (failure defined as part of the study). In engineering terms, that means the probability of failure is very low. Impossible is not an engineering term and every engineer knows that nothing is perfect. Imperfections are accounted for in design and construction.
You are probably safer living next to a nukular plant than driving over a bridge
I'm sure that if you found a way to pay for it it would pay for itself over time.
I took my HVACR course with a teacher who is VERY* green.
He believes in man made global warming, but that's the only thing we disagree with.
His main motivation for going green is, like me, for saving money.
We spent many a whole day goofing off and doing calculations to prove how much you'd save with geothermal heatpumps and solar water systems...
It's seriously very good stuff.
*Well, not very green. He just likes saving money. :3
Post by: Paddy on August 02, 2007, 02:55:49 PM
Quote
What's not included in the world-cost of a Prius is the pollution around the nickel mine in Canada,
That occurred over thirty years ago, long beforethe Prius. If you don't like the car, simply don't buy one. It's a free country (or was, anyway, at one time), and choice is good. I would think you 'free market' types would understand that. Post by: Art Eatman on August 02, 2007, 03:03:19 PM
I guess the variable is the life for the batteries; how long before replacements are needed. If that's known, it's not hard to then figure out the amortization as compared to the present electric bill.
When I built my house in 1993, doing it myself, the cost of an adequate system was $16,000 plus replacement batteries. (I'd do the labor.) I was 60 years old. My bill had been running at some $60/month for a comparable loading. So, 700 per year into 16K plus batteries at my age. I'd have to really live a long time for it to come out ahead. Easier to stay with the grid, plus a small gasoline generator for outages.
Art
Post by: DustinD on August 02, 2007, 04:38:22 PM
www.homepower.com
www.otherpower.com has good info for do it yourselfers. Including designing and building windmills from scratch.
Post by: Mabs2 on August 02, 2007, 06:52:41 PM
For what it is worth, windmills beat solar panels hands down for price per watt. Just make sure you buy a decent one, as some are junk. The same goes for inverters. Outback is a great brand for home sized inverters.
www.homepower.comhas had some good articles on the subject for free in their "files" section. They seem to be gone now, but there are some basics on the front page. I have copies of their free stuff I can post a bit later if anyone is interested. They had pretty good info on everything from making large scale pure hydrogen gas, to designing solar thermal systems from scratch.
www.otherpower.com has good info for do it yourselfers. Including designing and building windmills from scratch.
www.homepower.com
www.otherpower.com has good info for do it yourselfers. Including designing and building windmills from scratch.
From what I've heard, windmills were almost junk up until recently. That true? From what I can tell these days they turn slowly and are very quiet.
Post by: DustinD on August 02, 2007, 07:54:47 PM
There where a few good brands, and the old Jacobs where good despite (or maybe because of) being designed and built in the 1930's IIRC. But yes, most where, and many still are junk.
I am mostly involved in the homebuilt sector so I can't do many product reviews. I will dig the "apples and oranges" windmill review from Home Power Magazine off of my old HD tomorrow and post it.
If you do buy one make sure you know what the output is at a given wind speed, preferably they will have a graph showing the output at all operating speeds. The power rating is worthless without wind speed because power goes up by a factor of 8 when you double the wind speed.
Avoid high tip speed mills because of noise and the fact that they spin faster to make the generator lighter, and they usually don't work well in lower winds. Reliability also suffers with high tip speeds.
Also make sure you use enough tower. Wind velocity (and thus mill power) and smoothness gets a lot better the higher you go up. Too short of towers is one big mistake lots of people make, as well as not giving the mill clean air. You want the bottom of the blades at least 30 feet above any obstacle within 500 feet away.
If you are thinking about buying a mill I would be happy to give my opinion of it, if I am familiar with it. I know basic mechanical and aerospace engineering as well as aerodynamics for what it is worth.
Also avoid any mill with only two blades due to a phenomenon known as "yaw chatter." It will destroy any mill without yaw control, which non of the small ones have.
Post by: Iain on August 02, 2007, 10:10:24 PM
Post by: DustinD on August 03, 2007, 10:53:44 AM
Quote
(normal turbines) operates at around 1% efficiency in terms of the power it harvests from the wind, due to the deflective blade design and friction losses.
Wrong, modern utility scale turbines are approaching the betz limit. Which is 100% of the capturable wind energy. Also note that the aerodynamic drag of a spinning rotor is comparable to the drag of a solid disk of the same diameter.As for frictional losses, it is a non issue. I can spin a twenty foot windmill around with my index finger. I am referring to below cut in speeds, or with the generator running open circuited so their is no load from it. These where axial flux gens without an iron core so there was not any cogging either. I have seen many homebuilts from several inches to nearly thirty feet in diameter, most never stop spinning no matter how calm the air gets. Many can also produce energy from five mile an hour winds thanks to buck/boost converters.
As for bigger utility scale turbine drive trains (not counting generator electrical inefficiency), they can lose more than a few percent in some cases, but many of the losses can't be fixed with magnetic bearings. The loss is biggest at low speeds, and magnetic bearings don't work well at slow speeds.
Quote
One innovative possible use could be to harvest wind energy from passing cars on freeways to power the roadside lighting.
Cars don't move enough air along the roadside to power lights even if it could be captured 100% effectively. Also the roadside power generating scam has already been done a few times already, they should try something new.So far almost every vertical access wind turbine business has been a scam. They are often done by the same people over and over again. Note that almost none of them have ever produced any hardware, have any engineers or production capabilities, or have contracted or even contacted anyone with engineering or production capabilities. Many of the founders of these companies are facing legal action or have in the past. Buyer beware. Also www.otherpower.com as well as many other sites have good info on past and present enviro or alt energy scams. This industry is absolutely full of crackpots and unscrupulous businesses taking advantage of people's ignorance and good intentions.
They did not give any sizes that I saw but I can bet that their claims go way over unity. Almost every VAWT generator claim in the past has been a scam, and claimed performance way over unity to the point where you would want to leave it indoors with a fan blowing on it 24/7 get the most power out of it.
Post by: Len Budney on August 04, 2007, 04:20:14 AM
...The added energy would be tremendous.
So wouldn't the added cost. Let's say that every household south of the mason-dixon line decided to add solar power to the roof. Southern climate gets substantially more usable sun than my frostbitten self in ND.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on August 04, 2007, 04:30:34 AM
I guess that's why Peach Bottom in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, has had nearly 400 unscheduled reactor shutdowns in those 30 years... You know, disaster lurks where complacency and hubris live.
All American reactors are at least two decades out of date. For one thing, they're all the "giant heap of fissile material" type that can, if not watched carefully, melt down. Completely different reactor types have been invented, but no new reactors have been deployed in the US in thirty years. A pebble bed reactor is literally incapable of melting down or exploding: a Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island type accident is literally impossible, even if all the workers dropped their tools and abandoned the site, and nobody came back to check on anything.There are of course still issues, such as waste--but coal-fired plants actually produce more radioactive waste than a nuclear plant. They don't have a disposal problem because they send it out the smokestack with other waste products.
So it would be a bit over the top to suggest that nuclear plants are on par with bakeries, safety wise, but modern plants would be much better than pretty much any fueled electric plant in service today. It wouldn't be risk-free, but it would be a big improvement.
--Len.
Post by: Art Eatman on August 04, 2007, 04:53:15 AM
The Chinese offered to build a small PB unit for free, in Alaska, IIRC, as a demo to promote further sales of the technology. They were turned down because of fears of nuke.
Uranium mining company stocks have, this recent year, more than doubled with the rise in the price of U. Still a good investment...
Art
Post by: Firethorn on August 04, 2007, 09:09:05 AM
All American reactors are at least two decades out of date. For one thing, they're all the "giant heap of fissile material" type that can, if not watched carefully, melt down. Completely different reactor types have been invented, but no new reactors have been deployed in the US in thirty years. A pebble bed reactor is literally incapable of melting down or exploding: a Chernobyl or Three-Mile Island type accident is literally impossible, even if all the workers dropped their tools and abandoned the site, and nobody came back to check on anything.
There are still issues with PBR designs. And experimental PBR in england had to be shut down back in the 1970s or so due to the balls cracking.
Besides, there are additional controls in at least some of our updated reactors that would be the same way - if no human inputs are incoming, the reactor would eventaully shut itself off before containment breach without any outside input. There are systems very similar to fuses that will drop the control rods or even a separate control solution to SCRAM the reactor without human intervention(Indeed, the way they're designed, even human intervention wouldn't stop their release) to prevent worst case scenarios.
The newest designs have them by default.
Post by: DustinD on August 04, 2007, 06:26:14 PM
Birds Vs Turbines. The short answer is that windmill don't kill birds more than other fixed structures.
Wind Energy for Electric Power A report on windmill tech and economics. This will probably not interest most readers.
Post by: Paddy on August 07, 2007, 02:21:38 PM
Quote
Heck, the original VW diesel Rabbit could get 60mpg...
Except that diesels are filthy. And they stink. And they're gutless. If I had my way, diesels would only be allowed in commercial applications (maybe with some exceptions)
Post by: Firethorn on August 07, 2007, 03:00:27 PM
Quote
Heck, the original VW diesel Rabbit could get 60mpg...
Except that diesels are filthy. And they stink. And they're gutless. If I had my way, diesels would only be allowed in commercial applications (maybe with some exceptions)You obviously haven't driven one lately. The new turbocharged diesels over in Europe definitely have guts, have clean emissions, and with the newer low sulfur fuels, stink less than gasoline.
I once drove a rental vehicle in Germany that I didn't realize was a diesel until I pulled in to fill it up.