Just wondering..

[Bob Axtell]

M. Adam Davis wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Bob Axtell <engineer@...> wrote:
>  
>> 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.
>>    
>
> Depends on your definition of hazardous waste.  Something has to be
> pumped through the turbines, and it isn't going to be pure water
> (liquid sodium in some plants, IIRC).  The mirrors will also be washed
> off with something strong than water.  The turbines must be maintained
> with a variety of petrochemicals, the transformers sealed in cooling
> oils, etc.  Even in the 'closed' systems there's filtering and
> maintenance that results in wastage.
>
> Environmentally friendly solutions may be found for those, and even if
> not they aren't quite the ecological disaster spent nuclear waste is,
> however it's quite a stretch to say that there is never any hazardous
> waste.
>
> -Adam
>  

Good  point. But non-nuclear hazardous waste will not get bright people
scratching their combined
heads over it. That's my point...

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

[Russell McMahon]

> Dear Rustle

Pressssnt.

> Mock me if you will sir.

Mocking not intended.
To much good content to waste on mockery.

Mainly - if we all retreat to religious fortresses and throw
rocks we don't end up getting far - unless my fortress is
downhill from yours and your rocks are large and my fortress
small and/or frangible. Unless you are not only utterly
certain but also correct in your belief that my locale and
state-of-materials are as aformentioned then a slight
movement from entrenched positions may lead to better
outcomes, or, failing that, at least different ones.

?

:-)


        Russell
 

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

[Eoin Ross]

Wind/Hydro could complement each other - given enough capacity of each. Don't drain the lake while the wind is blowing, and vice versa.

Issue here is considering the effects on river ecology, building a buffer dam immediatly downstream to smooth the load/flow fluctuations is impractical (Might make a good "surf lake" though ;).

To me there wouldn't be a huge difference between forest plantings and wind generators. Not an expert or done the studies there mind you...

>>> mailinglist4@... 01 Mar 08 00:14:30 >>>

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 



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

[David VanHorn-2]

There's not that many places where we have enough head for practical hydro.

But we could dig a really deep hole using nukes!  :)



I'm all for hydro where it's practical. It has it's minuses in the
damming of rivers, but again it's a cost/benefit ratio.  Of course the
failure of the containment at a hydro plant can certainly ruin your
day too.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Alan Smith-10]

The pours are gone...so on these two internal layers, there are no active signals.  But in the layers select, they are still showing and when I try to delete them from the list, it comes back with an error dialog box claiming "cant delete internal layers"

Vasile Surducan <piclist9@...> wrote:  Go on the coper pour (if you have one) and hit delete. Will ask
"signal GND, class0 default? ( left=yes, right=next, ESC=cancel)", hit
left button of your mouse and you'll delete the ground or power plane,
line by line (the polygon shape will change).

On 2/29/08, alan smith wrote:

> I've inherited a board, and I am spinning and I need (want) to eliminate the two internal power and ground layers. I've tried the command "delete -2" but it comes back and says it can't delete internal layers. There are no pours or routes that I can see, so how do you delete them? I can just not process them on the gerbers but I would prefer to just have it clean.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> --
> 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


       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[David VanHorn-2]

An interesting link that popped up today.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7445131

McGaffigan has held jobs on Capitol Hill, in the White House and at
the embassy in Moscow. But if you go way back he did graduate work in
physics. And he says if there was one thing he could convince people
of about nuclear power it's that radiation is everywhere, and its
risks should be kept in perspective.

"We self-irradiate ourselves at 40 millirems (a unit for measuring
small doses of radiation) per year because of the potassium 40 we
carry in our bodies. "[In] double beds, you know your spouse will
irradiate you to about 2 or 3 millirems a year," McGaffigan said.
"These are doses we actually regulate at. And I've always wondered,
when people demand even tighter [nuclear] regulation, why they're not
demanding that double beds be regulated or bananas be regulated or
Brazil nuts be regulated."
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Russell McMahon]

> "We self-irradiate ourselves at ...
> ... you know your spouse will irradiate you ...

> And I've always wondered, when people demand even tighter
> [nuclear] regulation, why they're not
> demanding that double beds be regulated or bananas be
> regulated or
> Brazil nuts be regulated."

Where's the fear? !!!!
You have to have fear as well or it doesn't work.

He has the uncertainty and doubt off pat.
But to spread F.U.D. you need all three.

Mind you, he's making some sort of attempt at ridicule and
sarcasm and trivialisation and marginalising the doubters.
So maybe he things that RUD will carry the day. Or RSTMUD.



            R


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

[David VanHorn-2]

I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
or so.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Chris Smolinski]

I get a bit over background from salt-substitute.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html


>I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
>anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
>or so.
>--


--

---
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

[James Newtons Massmind]

That is a really cool page...
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html

--
James.

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@... [mailto:piclist-bounces@...] On Behalf Of
Chris Smolinski
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 18:21
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: Re: [OT] Just wondering..

I get a bit over background from salt-substitute.
http://www.blackcatsystems.com/science/radprod.html


>I just picked up a canister of K^40 at the grocery store yesterday,
>anticipating the arrival of a custom radiation sensor in the next day
>or so.
>--


--

---
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

--
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 Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 02:21:53PM -0400, Howard Winter wrote:

> Byron,
>
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:23:53 -0500, Byron Jeff wrote:
>
> >...
> > > 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.
>

> A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this
> possibly be true?

I wqas speaking to energy amounts, not cost. I subsequently retracted my
statement, having found newer information that indicates a reasonable
energy paybay time.

Snipping your example.

> > 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> > production and waste.
>

> This is true of practically everything manufactured, so I really don't
> see it as a problem specific to solar panels.

The point is though that everyone thinks that solar, wind, and
hydroelectric are "clean" energy resources as compared to nuclear. The fact
of the matter is that each contributes damage in their own ways.

>

> Further, since photovoltaic panels aren't very efficient yet, why not use
> the heat directly?  We don't have coal-voltaic or gas-voltaic plant that
> generates electricity directly from the fuel, we go via steam, so why not
> do the same with solar heat?

Because in miniature distributed solar installations, it's difficult to
build efficient systems for steam generation.

>  In the UK a lot of our energy use is to
> produce heat (I understand that in other places this isn't true, such as
> Southern California where a lot of it produces "cool"), so heating water
> directly from sunshine is a Good Thing, and solar water-heating panels
> have some success here - moreso than photovoltaic, I believe.

No disagreement from me. Same with solar space heating. But there are still
a ton of electrical needs beyond those two.

> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps cropping
> up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must* get our energy
> from what is coming from the Sun now - otherwise we *will* run out of
> fuel, whatever it is.  We are a closed system, and coal, oil and nuclear
> fuel aren't being recreated at a rate that is useful to us, so the only
> permanent solution is to use what is arriving here each day, either
> directly in sunlight, or indirectly in wind, waves, tides,
> rain-circulation.

Not nuclear. There are enough uranium and thorium reserves in the crust of
the planet to sustain centuries of worldwide power production with some
rather simple reprocessing steps. Fundamentally 99% of currently spent
nuclear fuel is resusable. You can find a detailed discussion here:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/MKEZ-5HUMJH?OpenDocument

>  The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can put
> development effort into achieving it, rather than squabbling about
> alternative ways to eke out what we have, so they run out later rather
> than sooner.

While I agree in the longer timeframe (100000 years plus) that solar will
be the only option, in the nearer term nuclear can work.

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

[Howard Winter]

Chris,

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:55:06 -0500, Chris Smolinski wrote:

> >Since a lot of the folks responsible for the security and operations
> >would be essentially living at the plant, I would think that they
> >would take a serious interest.
>
> That's an excellent point. If your wife and kids are living there,
> you're going to be extra careful.

Didn't work at Chernobyl!

Cheers,

 

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[Howard Winter]

Herbert,

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:42:12 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-02-29 at 11:26 -0800, James Newton wrote:
> > But you are happy for your offspring to be exposed to coal fired generating
> > plant exaust and coal ash (which is radioactive)?
> >
> > Or to live with less electricity and therefore less of a technological
> > advantage?
> >
> > Or to be more dependant on foreign oil?
>
> Here, here James. It seems people are so open to being afraid of the
> "badness" of nuclear, yet COMPLETELY IGNORE all the badness of all the
> other poisons we spew into the air/water/ground that our descendants
> will have to deal with.
>
> I doubt very much they'll care WHICH poisons we are poisoning them with.

I think you've strayed from arguing against the argument, to criticising the person making the argument.  

I think this is wrong, especially in this place.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[Howard Winter]

Byron,

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:23:53 -0500, Byron Jeff wrote:

>...
> > 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.

A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?

According to the only person I know who has significant solar generation capacity (James), his annual electricity bill is about zero - he generates enough surplus to
pay for what he uses when he isn't generating.  As a result, he is "paid back" each year by an amount equal to the electricity he's used, and that will pay off the
cost of the solar roof in a decade or so (I forget the actual number - perhaps 12 years?).  The useful life is about twice that, so he will have saved about twice the
cost of the roof all together.  Now the people who built the panels had to pay for the energy to make them.  Unless they get *really* cheap energy somehow, that
means that the energy they use *must* be less than the panels generate over their life, because otherwise they couldn't "pay back" as above.  Not to mention that
as well as the cost of the energy to make them, there's all the other manufacturing costs, profit, and the cost of installing the panels.

So unless solar panel manufacturers have a really cheap source of energy, your point makes no sense to me.  And if they have got really cheap energy, they could
make more profit selling it on, rahter than making panels with it!  :-)

> 2) Solar panels have nasty stuff in them too. They cause issues in both
> production and waste.

This is true of practically everything manufactured, so I really don't see it as a problem specific to solar panels.

Further, since photovoltaic panels aren't very efficient yet, why not use the heat directly?  We don't have coal-voltaic or gas-voltaic plant that generates
electricity directly from the fuel, we go via steam, so why not do the same with solar heat?  In the UK a lot of our energy use is to produce heat (I understand that
in other places this isn't true, such as Southern California where a lot of it produces "cool"), so heating water directly from sunshine is a Good Thing, and solar
water-heating panels have some success here - moreso than photovoltaic, I believe.

When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must* get our energy from what is
coming from the Sun now - otherwise we *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.  We are a closed system, and coal, oil and nuclear fuel aren't being recreated at a
rate that is useful to us, so the only permanent solution is to use what is arriving here each day, either directly in sunlight, or indirectly in wind, waves, tides,
rain-circulation.  The sooner we accept this, the sooner we can put development effort into achieving it, rather than squabbling about alternative ways to eke out
what we have, so they run out later rather than sooner.

IMHO, of course!  :-)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[David VanHorn-2]

>  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?

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

[Howard Winter]

Herbert,

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:14:30 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:

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

Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...

> 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).

Indeed, although it could if hydro-electric systems were designed that way, pumping water back up into the lake when there was excess energy.  There's a tidal
hydro-electric system in France which does this, where if there's excess energy on the grid at tide-turn, it over-pumps in the previous tidal direction.
 
> Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
> more theoretically possible then with wind generation.

Hang on!  They both produce electricity - why is it any easier to store solar electricity than wind electricity?
 
> 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.

But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if there was a massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places could never use the traditional
lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate eg. Southern California, where there's no water, the Netherlands, where there's plenty but it's all
pretty-much at sea level.  I'm sure Wouter would be unhappy to rely for his electricity on other countries which are more mountainous - political stability just isn't
that good!  (As a matter of interest, is there any wave or tidal generation in the Netherlands?)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[Howard Winter]

Jinx,

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:01:10 +1300, Jinx wrote:

>...
> And some people still believe that electricity drips of off wires

If you walk under the 440kV pylons here on a wet day, you can hear it doing so!  :-)

(Actually you can more feel it - the buzz goes right through you.  There's no way I'd live underneath one - or even close)

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


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

[Howard Winter]

David,

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:41:04 -0400, David VanHorn wrote:

> >  A moment's thought about the economics of this make me ask: How can this possibly be true?
>
> Government subsidies.

Not on this side of the pond!  I am seriously envious of James' economic situation with his solar array - not only would I have to pay full whack for it and it's more
expensive here anyway, about £3.50 to £4 per watt (say US$7 to $8) just for the bare panels, but anything I generate is not netted from what I buy in, I'd get paid
for what I'd exported once a quarter, at a rate that's less than I pay for what I use.

Actually there *are* subsidies available, but the rules for them are so stringent that hardly anyone gets them, they aren't substantial (nowhere near the rate that
James got), and you have to employ a certified installer to get them.  Which costs much more than doing it yourself, so the net effect is that it's more expensive to
get the subisdy than to pay full price for the parts and DIY!  I believe I'd pay about £4,500 after subsidy per kWhp.  And it has to be approved according to Building
Regulations (which costs a couple of £hundred) and you have to get Planning Permission.  You may not get the permission, but have to pay for the application for it
anyway!

My investigations and experiments reveal that at the moment, the financial situation in the UK means that it's not worth having PV panels that export power.  It's
possibly OK if you use all you generate, but that's marginal and very dependant on the price of electricity (although it has just gone up again - I'm now paying up to
24p (US$0.48) per kWh).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England



--
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]

>> When you think about the long term (the 10,000 years that keeps  
>> cropping up in the nuclear debate is a good start) then we *must*  
>> get our energy from what is coming from the Sun now - otherwise we  
>> *will* run out of fuel, whatever it is.

Well, there's geothermal (lets cool the planetary core; I'm sure that  
won't have any detrimental environmental effects!)  And there is  
fusion...

BillW

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

[Bob Axtell]

I am of the opinion that as fossil-fuel costs rise out of sight, people
will finally
"get it"; solar and wind will replace everything. When it happens, people
will marvel at how easy it was to do....People will plug in their
electric cars
to their local solar/wind generator.

I know that Israel developed inexpensive  hot-water heating 20 years ago,
and almost none is heated by the mains there anymore...

--Bob A

Howard Winter wrote:

> Herbert,
>
> On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 00:14:30 -0500, Herbert Graf wrote:
>
>  
>> ...
>> Wind farms are wonderful, as long as the wind is blowing.
>>    
>
> Quite!  And fossil fuels are fine as long as there's some left...
>
>  
>> 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).
>>    
>
> Indeed, although it could if hydro-electric systems were designed that way, pumping water back up into the lake when there was excess energy.  There's a tidal
> hydro-electric system in France which does this, where if there's excess energy on the grid at tide-turn, it over-pumps in the previous tidal direction.
>  
>  
>> Solar has the exact same problem, although energy storage is a little
>> more theoretically possible then with wind generation.
>>    
>
> Hang on!  They both produce electricity - why is it any easier to store solar electricity than wind electricity?
>  
>  
>> 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.
>>    
>
> But during a drought hydro "dries up" too!  And even if there was a massive increase in hydro-electric capacity, some places could never use the traditional
> lake-and-drop setup because of geography and/or climate eg. Southern California, where there's no water, the Netherlands, where there's plenty but it's all
> pretty-much at sea level.  I'm sure Wouter would be unhappy to rely for his electricity on other countries which are more mountainous - political stability just isn't
> that good!  (As a matter of interest, is there any wave or tidal generation in the Netherlands?)
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Howard Winter
> St.Albans, England
>
>
>  

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