Just wondering..

[Cedric Chang-2]

> Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.
>
>
>         Russell


Yes, wind farms have many unknowns relative to effects on micro and  
macro climates and the local flora and fauna and local ambience.  I  
would fear wind farms more than I would fear Nukes.
cc

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Herbert Graf-2]

On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 22:02 -0700, Cedric Chang wrote:
> > Wind also is "getting there", but that's another story.
> >
> >
> >         Russell
>
>
> Yes, wind farms have many unknowns relative to effects on micro and  
> macro climates and the local flora and fauna and local ambience.  I  
> would fear wind farms more than I would fear Nukes.

Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.

You can have as many wind farms as you want, you'll still need either
another source of generation that can operate 24/7 to cover 100% of the
load, or some way to store the energy for later use (doesn't really
exist on the large scale).

Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
more theoretically possible then with wind generation.

To me, the only renewable energy source that is at all feasible is
hydro, and there just isn't enough out there to even come close to our
energy needs, so for today non-renewable generation is here to stay.

TTYL
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Byron Jeff wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:
>  
>> Byron Jeff wrote:
>>    
>>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
>>>>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
>>>>> radiation coming out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
>>>> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
>>>> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
>>>> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
>>> all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
>>>
>>> According to this site:
>>>
>>> http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
>>>
>>> Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
>>> mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
>>>>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
>>>>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
>>>>> total energy than the original substance.
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
>>>> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
>>>> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
>>>> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
>>> in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
>>> rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
>>> estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
>>> because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
>>> decayed by then.
>>>
>>> BAJ
>>>
>>>      
>> My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
>> and many others that capturing
>> solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
>> anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
>> a Yucca Mtn.
>>    
>
> Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:
>
> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>
> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.
>
>  

er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy. Concentrating
the sunlight into a heat source
to run a turbine or stirling engine is more efficient, and for a large
generating system would be more
practical. A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar
generation plant have two main
differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at
the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
waste is generated, EVER. Aside from that, the very same workers are
needed by both types of plants.
The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant, its
fuel costs are almost zero; and
maintanence would be much less.

I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV
arrays and batteries to run his entire
business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for
several years, and never bought
a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power lines
are even routed to his yard.
Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun.

OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure like to
find out where that comes from.
Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable.

--Bob A

>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a hurricane, and its
>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the end.
>>    
>
> It's not a done deal, though I wish that it could happen.
>
> BAJ
>  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[William "Chops" Westfield]

On Feb 29, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Cedric Chang wrote:

> I assumed that the rebate was taxpayer financed.
        :
>  I assumed 4% opportunity cost.  At 6% , your profit is
> -3,103.30 ( a loss ).  at 10% your loss is $8,292.14.

Did you remember to go back to the rebated cost when calculating
the cost of the "lost opportunity" ?  Even if tax-payer financed,
James would (presumably) only had the ~$13k to invest rather than
the ~$21k...

BillW

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a
>> hurricane, and its
>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
>> end.

There are many people spitting against the hurricane,
rightly or wrongly.

> Trot out the solar solution. Where does it go ? How much
> does it
> cost ? How does it fit in with the existing infrastructure
> ?  I am
> all for it if it is cost competitive.  If it is as cheap
> as nuclear
> to implement, let's rock and roll.

The difficulty is comparing the two.
Firstly let both bear their own regulatory and management
costs. If it costs more then it pays more. Nuclear is fairly
solidly saddled with costs in that area but it is fair for
it to pay providing such costs are justified. Whether they
are justified depends on whether the zealot who is trying to
convince you is hugging a tree or glows in the dark.

Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against
prosecution or liability. These are easily priced by
estimating what price the market insurers would charge for
them. if no insurers would front up at any cost it's not a
viable industry - or so the market forces people would tell
me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?

Next add the true cost of greenfielding the site when the
economic lifetime is over. Assuming that a site has an
economic lifetime for some reason or other. Greenfielding
includes the true costs (as if they were carried out by free
market of black fielding some other yuccy location and
keeping it securely that way until it turns green all by
itself or itself can be greenfielded.

Next add any costs for extras such as requisite security for
sites or products or whatever.

You can allow a positive contribution for outputs other than
power per se as long as the prices are paid by fully non
subsidised customers. To give an example, if you can sell
Plutonium to a military body that is fully self funding and
doesn't depend on taxpayer support then you have a valid
sale. [[Sales to the French government, at a minimum, are
liable to fail this test alone rather handsomely]].

Now add the cost of fuel, production etc.

Now add all that up and calculate true cost per unit of
electricity.

When do you want your solar thermal plant delivered?


        Russell


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> Please tell me what you mean by rebate ?  Do you mean the
> manufacturer sold it for less, or taxpayers paid for part
> of your
> system ?  If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the
> cost of the
> system must be the total cost , not the amount you paid.

There's a logical error there.

Perhaps

"If taxpayers ponied up money, then the real the cost of the
system may lie somewhere between the real cost and the
amount you paid, but may be even less than that range"

ie your "must" assumed that the subsidy was arbitrary or
capricious or pork-belly or similar. It can be and is
argued, and the point is moot, that the subsidies in whole
or in part reflect the value to 'the people' of you sourcing
energy locally. At some level the opportunity cost of being
able to delay installing new large scale generation plant
may merit encouraging such investment. This also may reflect
reductions in distribution infrastructure. Also, progress in
developing more efficient mass solar, wind, wave or whatever
alternative systems on larger scales may result in
efficiencies if large plant upgrades can be delayed until
higher efficincy / lower cost solutions are available. Like
'death from passive smoking' such gains or losses may be
measured in incremental statistical effect rather than being
able to point to a given power station that was installed
year later with higher tech gear than could otherwise have
been the case.

Now, all the above may in practice be rubbish, or close
enough to rubbish as not to matter. And may not. But the
point is that it' easy to say 'subsidies are a direct and
unproductive cost to the consumer'. Inarguably some are and
many may be. But some do reflect real world actualities.
Some factors are moderately intangible such as relief from
dependance on "foreigh oil"  and attendant improvements in
"national security" and "national pride" and ... .

Agree?

> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time

I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
manner for this to happen.

"Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".

"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
understand what causes him to age."
Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
York City September 16th, 1954.



            Russell



--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Paul Hutchinson]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bounces@... On Behalf Of James Newton
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:01 PM
>
> Byron Jeff Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 15:24
> > 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity,
> > it takes more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>
> Ahhh... Huh? Could you provide a reference or supporting data for that
> assertion? If it takes more energy to make a solar panel than it will ever
> produce, wouldn't the cost of the panel exceed the value of the
> electricity
> produced? Why would anyone produce a panel if that were the case? Wouldn't
> the power to make it cost them more than the panel is worth?

I've never encountered good data that proves or disproves the proposition
that it takes more energy to make them than they can produce. However, it is
plausible because of the substantial discounts on electricity prices for
industry, see:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

To use California as an example, average residential power costs 14.26
(Cents per kilowatthour) while industry pays only 9.75. If the manufacturer
is in another state, like say the Iowa Thin Film Co. now known as
http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/, they'd only pay 4.45. Also some, possibly
much, of the energy used in the manufacturing operation will come from less
expensive fossil fuel sources further lowering the total cost of energy
(e.g. natural gas fired kilns and ovens).

Whether or not solar panel production uses more energy than the panels will
produce, the panels certainly allow the transfer of industries cheaper
energy prices over to residential customers who typically get paid for the
solar generated power at the residential rate. If you where only paid the
industrial rate for the power you generate would the payback period exceed
the life span?

Paul Hutch

>
> http://techref.massmind.org/techref/other/solar/case1.htm my solar panels
> cost $16,000. The system cost $21,000 TOTAL including professional
> installation. I paid $12,759 after rebates. The first year, it made $1,400
> worth of electricity. The panels are warranted for 25 years so they should
> produce $29,400 dollars worth of electricity. And that assumes that the
> price of electricity stays the same; which it has not:
> http://techref.massmind.org/images/other/ePwrRates.GIF
>
> > 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> > production and waste.
>
> Pretty much everything has nasty stuff in it, but I would curious to know
> exactly what they have that is any worse than roofing material.
>
> --
> James.

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

> On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:40 PM, William Chops Westfield wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Cedric Chang wrote:
>
>> I assumed that the rebate was taxpayer financed.
> :
>>  I assumed 4% opportunity cost.  At 6% , your profit is
>> -3,103.30 ( a loss ).  at 10% your loss is $8,292.14.
>
> Did you remember to go back to the rebated cost when calculating
> the cost of the "lost opportunity" ?  Even if tax-payer financed,
> James would (presumably) only had the ~$13k to invest rather than
> the ~$21k...
>
> BillW

Don't know what you mean.....
cc

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> Whether or not solar panel production uses more energy
> than the panels will
> produce, the panels certainly allow the transfer of
> industries cheaper
> energy prices over to residential customers who typically
> get paid for the
> solar generated power at the residential rate. If you
> where only paid the
> industrial rate for the power you generate would the
> payback period exceed
> the life span?

When the arguments get down to such fine hair splitting as
to which energy pricing is being used the argument is lost,
or muddied to the extent that it will provide endless hours
of fun without productive outcome.

Possibly useful is to deal in kWh, and that's what people
generally do in studies. If they get close enough you can
then fight over realistic energy sources and costs.

If you want to us lowest known power prices to deny the
arrival of solar as a serious technology then you should use
the cost of electrical energy to an aluminium smelter as
your yardstick. I believe that it is in the 1 to 2 cent or
thereabouts range per kWh but prices are always said to be
"commercially sensitive" and not disclosed. That's another
way of saying that the peasants will rise up and lynch the
government em masse if they find out how much Manapouri
power station electricity is being sold to furriners for.

Solar is obviously sensible [tm]. ie it is knocking on the
door now with technology that is simple enough to make and
leave in the sun for 20 years. What goes wrong is often the
glue they use to glue the solar cells to the glass. You can
be sure people are working on improving that. And sheet
amorphous in football field, or house roof, lengths is
available now and will become increasingly now.

In Ring-World our heroes laid out black "cloth" and
connected wires to gather 'solar' energy. I remember
thinking it was a slight reach even in those circumstances.
I have long since realised that it was well within the
expectable capabilities of the situation. They also carried
full oxygen sets which allowed breathing in any degree of
contamination. Louis noted that he had brought them only
because they crumpled (folded?) up in a pocket and took no
room and weight so he thought he may as well take them. I'll
be looking for a few of those after they start delivering
25% roll out solar cloth at $10/kW.




        Russell





--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Apptech wrote:

> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against prosecution or
> liability. These are easily priced by estimating what price the market
> insurers would charge for them. if no insurers would front up at any
> cost it's not a viable industry - or so the market forces people would
> tell me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?

I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few minutes
ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies in trusting
the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the price of everything
in such a system) are now telling me that it's the stupidity of "the [same]
masses" that prevents the superior solution of the problem of the day.

I guess you can't have it both ways. If you think it's because of the
stupidity of "the masses" that the superior solution of our energy problems
isn't viable and you think this should be changed, then I think this has
consequences that go far beyond energy policy.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

James Newton wrote:

> With nuke waste, spread it thinner when you dispose of it, and put it
> deep in the earth in very stable geological areas.

This sounds to me as being contrary to each other: putting it deep in the
earth in stable areas sounds to me as concentrating it all in one location
(or a few locations), not as spreading it thin.

> As to the level of radiation over the next 100 years: First the argument
> was that it will be radioactive for millions of years and our distant
> offspring [...]

FWIW, 100 years /is/ distant offspring. How many of those that were in
their 40ies or older 100 years ago (that is, the "deciders") do you know?
Is there any guarantee the USA and its control structures (and the
maintenance documentation) will still exist in 100 years? (And FWIW, if the
current development of the public debt and the problems some very much
smaller private debts have already created are any indication ... :)

Let's just try to plan a solution for the next few centuries. Then we'll
look into the more distant periods. And we really need an appropriate
insurance for a nuke plant right now... I need it for my car, and I don't
see how they could not need it for a power plant.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> And we really need an appropriate
> insurance for a nuke plant right now... I need it for my
> car, and I don't
> see how they could not need it for a power plant.

AFAIK:

US "nuke plants" are indemnified by law in a manner is not
afforded to any other industry. Their operators are
effectively protected against the sort of risks which would
make their level of uncertainty unacceptable to the
insurance industry.

Somebody here can no doubt provide greater detail, or
explain how I'm wrong.

        Russell


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Sat, Mar 01, 2008 at 12:27:45AM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:

Need some snippage...

> > On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0500, Bob Axtell wrote:
> >
> >> Byron Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:21:59AM -0500, wouter van ooijen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> The difference between naturally occurring radioactive
> >>>>> materials and nuke waste is ONLY in terms of the level of
> >>>>> radiation coming out of it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Dunno what 'nuke waste' is (waste after an exploding nuke?), I was
> >>>> talkinmg about what's left of the fuel rods after their lifetime. That
> >>>> stuff is *very* different from natural uranium ore, for a starter it is
> >>>> chemically different: there is a significant amount of plutonium in it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Actually there isn't going to be. All fuel rods would be reprocessed and
> >>> all of the useful fuel would be put back into new fuel rods.
> >>>
> >>> According to this site:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm
> >>>
> >>> Only 3% of the rod is actual waste and the other 97% (depleted uranium
> >>> mixed with plutonium) would be extracted and reused.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> It actually has less total radiation over time. Some of the
> >>>>> materials are producing a higher RATE of radiation, but they
> >>>>> have a shorter half life, so over all, they will produce less
> >>>>> total energy than the original substance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Again I doubt if this is true, but for the sake of argument let's accept
> >>>> it for now. So the radiation which would otherwise occur over a very
> >>>> long time is now concentrated in let's say a few 100 years. I don't
> >>>> think the people living in those few 100 years will like that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I would agree with you if the waste were made into a statue that was placed
> >>> in a open public park. But when buried under hundreds of meters of solid
> >>> rock, the residual radiation effect is minimal. That's why the EPA's
> >>> estimate for Yucca Mountain for the first 10,000 years was so important,
> >>> because virtually all of the highly radioactive waste products would have
> >>> decayed by then.
> >>>
> >>> BAJ
> >>>
> >>>
> >> My main objection to nuclear power is simply that it seems obvious to me
> >> and many others that capturing
> >> solar energy to generate electricity would result in minimal damage to
> >> anything. And we wouldn't even NEED
> >> a Yucca Mtn.
> >>
> >
> > Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:
> >
> > 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it takes
> > more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
> >
> > 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> > production and waste.
> >
> >

> er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy. Concentrating
> the sunlight into a heat source to run a turbine or stirling engine is
> more efficient, and for a large generating system would be more
> practical.

Solar tower. OK. I went and reread the Wikipedia article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

>A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar generation plant have
>two main differences:

>(1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at the solar plant;
>and (2) no hazardous waste is generated, EVER.

(1) is not technically true. As long as some type of heat storage (heating
water for example) is possible, generation can continue after the Sun has
set.

>Aside from that, the very same workers are
> needed by both types of plants.

> The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant,

The article debates that. The big problem with the Solar tower is that the
collector requires huge expanses of surface area is order to work. That
drives up the costs significantly.

With nuclear the vast majority of the cost is regulartory. A streamlined
approval process of a standard plant design would significantly reduce the
initial cost of building a nuclear power plant.

As for the waste issue, we've been over it multiple times. I do realize
that risks are involved. I'm not dismissing them. I know that accidents
occur. But I believe that by super overengineering the containment system
those risks are significantly reduced.

The point that's missing here is that the nuclear genie is already out of
the bottle. The US already has 9% of its electricity generated by nuclear.
France is upwards of 90% nuclear. Canada is at 15% or so.

Another approach is to consider a different type of reactor: the molten
salt reactor (MSR). You can take a long read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

The key points are that it burns virtually all of its fuel onsite, so there
are minimal waste products. The other point is that none of the waste
products have long half lives (all less than 30 years), so after 10 half
lives the waste is less radioactive than its original fuel source. The next
point is that the salts operate is low pressure environments, so no
explosions are possible. Finally the liquid fuel is temperature self
regulating, so if it gets too hot, it slows down the reaction.

The biggest problems seems to be possible corrosive effects and the fact
that fuel is so efficient that there's very little money in fueling the
plants.

> its
> fuel costs are almost zero; and
> maintanence would be much less.
>
> I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV
> arrays and batteries to run his entire
> business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for
> several years, and never bought
> a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power lines
> are even routed to his yard.
> Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun.
>
> OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure like to
> find out where that comes from.
> Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable.

I have to call a mea culpa. I dropped that statement in from something I
read a while ago without reresearching it. I was wrong. This 1997 article
points to reasonable payback periods for solar panels:

http://www.csudh.edu/oliver/smt310-handouts/solarpan/pvpayback.htm

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>Apptech wrote:
>
>>  Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against prosecution or
>>  liability. These are easily priced by estimating what price the market
>>  insurers would charge for them. if no insurers would front up at any
>>  cost it's not a viable industry - or so the market forces people would
>>  tell me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?
>
>I always get a strange feeling when the same people who just a few minutes
>ago told me that the superiority of the capitalist system lies in trusting
>the wisdom of "the masses" (whose actions determine the price of everything
>in such a system) are now telling me that it's the stupidity of "the [same]
>masses" that prevents the superior solution of the problem of the day.

The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
plants was itself radioactive.

Of course the dismal state of scientific education in the US makes it
quite easy for the general public to be manipulated.


--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Dario Greggio (in giro)]

Chris Smolinski wrote:

> The anti-nuclear movement has at the core a small group of
> scientifically illiterate people who oppose nuclear power for
> ideological reasons. Through a well financed dis-information
> campaign, they've been able to convince the general public that
> nuclear energy is dangerous. I still remember a book put out by one
> of them that claimed that the electricity produced by nuclear power
> plants was itself radioactive.
>
> Of course the dismal state of scientific education in the US makes it
> quite easy for the general public to be manipulated.

Italy, 8th november 1987.
Sadly true.
(side note: if ever French nuke plants would explode, my town would be
contaminated as well. Of course. But they sell us electricity)

--
Ciao, Dario -- ADPM Synthesis sas -- http://www.adpm.tk
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

AppTech said:

>> I believe that energy costs will actually fall over time
>>    
>
> I do too. But I also believe that we may have to wait until
> Lunar Helium 3 fusion power comes on line in a widespread
> manner for this to happen.
>
> "Power so cheap it won't need to be metered".
>
> "It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy
> in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will
> know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as
> matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas
> and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger
> and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far
> longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to
> understand what causes him to age."
> Lewis L. Strauss
> Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New
> York City September 16th, 1954.
>
>
>  

Yes. This quote was made in a 3-page advertisement in Scientific American in
1955. I carried it with me for years. Alas I finally lost it. and I have
been very
suspicious of Scientific American ever since...

The truth is that nuclear power is the MOST costly of all power
generation methods.
The US government has never admitted the true costs, because it would
probably
cause a taxpayer revolt. The original purpose of nuclear power was to
provide a
reliable  source of plutonium from spent fuel rods. Where do you think
the USA _GOT_
its warheads?

After 9/11, the price went up dramatically. Now, no airplane is allowed
to overfly a
nuke plant. Seriously armed guards are EVERYWHERE. Visitors must have prior
permission to even pickup a worker's paycheck. Unused radioactive
material is
stored ONSITE, an open invitation to evil-doers of all flavors. It goes
on and on.

But solar concentration plants have problems too. The sun doesn't shine
at night, so
energy must be shared between different generation methods, by moving it
over the
power grid. But here in the USA, our "power grid" is a joke; it is
overloaded now, so
no new power can move over it. Third-world countries have better power
grids than
we have. One workable idea is to drop the power grid entirely, and
pipeline hydrogen
gas (cracked by excess electricity) between cites, and burn it at night
(as well as sell it
to hydrogen-powered cars). But such planning takes competent political
oversight, and
here in the colonies, our politicians are much too stupid for  the task.

Here's the vision of a few Arizona engineers:

1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of sunlight
concentrators.
Several turbine plants would generate electricity but only to crack
water into hydrogen
and oxygen immediately. The hydrogen will be pipelined to various
generating plants in
the USA, who will store the H2 then generate electricity locally on a
24/hr basis; in
essence, the hydrogen would replace natural gas in the burners,
generating no carbon
dioxide.

2.  The hydrogen will also be delivered to hydrogen "filling stations"
across the USA
for use in clean-burning cars and trucks. Hydrogen burns with 0 (ZERO)
smog emissions
and creates just WATER as a waste product. No more adding CO2 to the
atmosphere.

3. Oxygen can be sold to vendors  who will further clean it to be used
in commercial
or medical processes.

A plant of this size can supply the needs of the entire USA from one
site. No new nukes,
no use of petroleum to generate electricity anymore. The headaches of
the past are ended.

If we don't do this, Mexico will.

--Bob A



>             Russell
>
>
>
>  

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

>1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of sunlight
>concentrators.

The environmentalists will tie this up in the court system for
decades. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.

>A plant of this size can supply the needs of the entire USA from one
>site. No new nukes,
>no use of petroleum to generate electricity anymore. The headaches of
>the past are ended.

100 sq miles (I assume that is what you mean) is about 3 x 10^8 sq
meters. We get about a kW of solar power when the Sun is shining. So
we'd get 2.3 x 10^12 kWh a year, if the Sun shined 24 hours a day and
you were 100% efficient. (Please check my math) We presently use
about 4 x 10^12 kWh a year of electricity. Throw in the fact that the
Sun doesn't shine at night, and various conversion inefficiencies,
and you'd probably need more like 1000 sq miles.



--

---
Chris Smolinski
Black Cat Systems
http://www.blackcatsystems.com
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Bob Axtell]

Chris Smolinski wrote:
>> 1. Establish a huge solar concentrator, with a 10-mile  area of sunlight
>> concentrators.
>>    
>
> The environmentalists will tie this up in the court system for
> decades. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone.
>
>  
Nope, got that one covered. This would be in the middle of an Indian
Reservation, where the
land is worthless, and almost nothing grows. No trees to hug, I'm
afraid. (Most of AZ is Indian
Reservation. I guess you didn't know.) The Indians will provide a very
reasonable lease.

Actually, the shade provided will attract animals and birds. Presently
the only shade is an occasional
cactus.

>> A plant of this size can supply the needs of the entire USA from one
>> site. No new nukes,
>> no use of petroleum to generate electricity anymore. The headaches of
>> the past are ended.
>>    
>
> 100 sq miles (I assume that is what you mean) is about 3 x 10^8 sq
> meters. We get about a kW of solar power when the Sun is shining. So
> we'd get 2.3 x 10^12 kWh a year, if the Sun shined 24 hours a day and
> you were 100% efficient. (Please check my math) We presently use
> about 4 x 10^12 kWh a year of electricity. Throw in the fact that the
> Sun doesn't shine at night, and various conversion inefficiencies,
> and you'd probably need more like 1000 sq miles.
>
>
>
>  

Busy today. I'll get your math fixed  later, rest assured. a 10-mile
square of land; 10 sq miles is not
quite enough. Based on 9 hrs of sunlight per day, if I recall.

--Bob
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>>
>> Unfortunately that's a very narrow view. Two major points:
>>
>> 1) At the efficiency levels that solar converts to electricity, it  
>> takes
>> more energy to create solar panels than they produce.
>>
>> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in  
>> both
>> production and waste.
>>
>>
> er.. I didn't think I said PV arrays, I said solar energy.  
> Concentrating
> the sunlight into a heat source
> to run a turbine or stirling engine is more efficient, and for a large
> generating system would be more
> practical. A nuclear generation plant and a concentrated solar
> generation plant have two main
> differences: (1) during the night, no electricity can be generated at
> the solar plant; and (2) no hazardous
> waste is generated, EVER. Aside from that, the very same workers are
> needed by both types of plants.
> The solar plant would cost much less initially than the nuke plant,  
> its
> fuel costs are almost zero; and
> maintanence would be much less.
>
> I have a client who builds steel buildings. He uses tracking solar PV
> arrays and batteries to run his entire
> business- even some spot welding machines. He's been in business for
> several years, and never bought
> a dime's worth of power from the local utility; in fact, no power  
> lines
> are even routed to his yard.
> Yes, we are in Tucson, AZ- and we have a LOT of sun.
>
> OK, I'll bite. I have heard that PV array yarn before. I'd sure  
> like to
> find out where that comes from.
> Fill me in. From what I have seen, your statements are unsupportable.
>
> --Bob A
>

Would your client be willing to talk to me about his experience with  
solar energy ?  I would love to do an article about cost /benefit  
including maintenance costs operating costs and his back up plan in  
case the sun does not come up ( see David Hume ).
Hey I was just kidding about that last part.
CC  720 222 1309   Denver , CO
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Cedric Chang-2]

>
> On Feb 29, 2008, at 10:46 PM, Apptech wrote:
>
>>> But I am one of a few persons spitting against a
>>> hurricane, and its
>>> pretty obvious that nuclear will win in the
>>> end.
>
> There are many people spitting against the hurricane,
> rightly or wrongly.
>
>> Trot out the solar solution. Where does it go ? How much
>> does it
>> cost ? How does it fit in with the existing infrastructure
>> ?  I am
>> all for it if it is cost competitive.  If it is as cheap
>> as nuclear
>> to implement, let's rock and roll.
>
> The difficulty is comparing the two.
> Firstly let both bear their own regulatory and management
> costs. If it costs more then it pays more. Nuclear is fairly
> solidly saddled with costs in that area but it is fair for
> it to pay providing such costs are justified. Whether they
> are justified depends on whether the zealot who is trying to
> convince you is hugging a tree or glows in the dark.
>
> Next add the true costs of any indemnities offered against
> prosecution or liability. These are easily priced by
> estimating what price the market insurers would charge for
> them. if no insurers would front up at any cost it's not a
> viable industry - or so the market forces people would tell
> me. Why wouldn't I choose to believe them in this case ?
>
> Next add the true cost of greenfielding the site when the
> economic lifetime is over. Assuming that a site has an
> economic lifetime for some reason or other. Greenfielding
> includes the true costs (as if they were carried out by free
> market of black fielding some other yuccy location and
> keeping it securely that way until it turns green all by
> itself or itself can be greenfielded.
>
> Next add any costs for extras such as requisite security for
> sites or products or whatever.
>
> You can allow a positive contribution for outputs other than
> power per se as long as the prices are paid by fully non
> subsidised customers. To give an example, if you can sell
> Plutonium to a military body that is fully self funding and
> doesn't depend on taxpayer support then you have a valid
> sale. [[Sales to the French government, at a minimum, are
> liable to fail this test alone rather handsomely]].
>
> Now add the cost of fuel, production etc.
>
> Now add all that up and calculate true cost per unit of
> electricity.
>
> When do you want your solar thermal plant delivered?
>
>
>         Russell

Rustle, I am disappointed.  Where are the hard figures ( or at least  
good estimates ) that I know you love to provide ?  I do not think  
you have made your case without them.  Greenfielding is generally  
only a problem when people are trying to hide something and then get  
caught and have to fix it.  This is generally done big time by  
governments.

CC
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist