Solar panel or nuclear reactor?

[Michael Press]

I'm choosing the latter. More energy for the amount
of toxic waste.

<http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/01/solar-panels-generate-300-times-more-toxic-waste-than-nuclear-reactors/>
<http://tinyurl.com/y8mbfuw9>

--
Michael Press

[plai...@gmail.com]

It's a good point, but on the other hand, if a solar energy farm blows a gasket, you don't have to wait 40,000 years to make repairs. Also, disposing of spent solar panels is a much simpler task than spent fuel rods.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

I disagree. The volume of disposal per megawatt is several orders of magnitude
worse, which introduces problems of its own. The task is different, and not
really simpler once you adjust for that and you have a suitable repository
for the expended fuel.

--
The problem with Internet quotations is that many of them
are not genuine. -- Abraham Lincoln

[Michael Press]

In article <54e6943a-084d-46cd...@googlegroups.com>,

plai...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's a good point, but on the other hand, if a solar energy farm blows a gasket, you don't have to wait 40,000 years to make repairs. Also, disposing of spent solar panels is a much simpler task than spent fuel rods.

I'm building a nuclear reactor in my back yard.
I'll be totally off the grid. Take that NIMBIES!

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

I've wondered why the backyard fuel cell that you can run with various
fuels hasn't been developed. We need to decentralize electricity
production as a part of our national security plans.

[Some dued]

Unfortunately for you you're Boogeyman power source the solar cell is the closest thing there is to that.

[Ken Olson]

On 7/2/2017 9:44 PM, Some dued wrote:
> Unfortunately for you you're Boogeyman power source the solar cell is the closest thing there is to that.
>

Please try to make sense.

[Some dued]

I know people who live off the grid and use solar cells for power. I hope you can decipher what I am saying.

[Ken Olson]

On 7/3/2017 12:25 AM, Some dued wrote:
> I know people who live off the grid and use solar cells for power. I hope you can decipher what I am saying.
>

Thank you. That's good. I did.

[xyzzy]

On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 12:04:22 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-07-02, plai...@gmail.com <plai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's a good point, but on the other hand, if a solar energy farm
> > blows a gasket, you don't have to wait 40,000 years to make repairs.
> > Also, disposing of spent solar panels is a much simpler task than
> > spent fuel rods.
>
> I disagree. The volume of disposal per megawatt is several orders of magnitude
> worse, which introduces problems of its own. The task is different, and not
> really simpler once you adjust for that and you have a suitable repository
> for the expended fuel.
>

it's an interesting discussion with a lot that goes into it. More than the volume of waste per kwh produced, also have to consider how nasty that waste is. I like the way the article says it only takes a few thousand year before most nuclear waste is inert. Practically benign!

The other question is how accident prone each is. Solar plants are relatively simple and passive. Most of them operate fine with no operator on site. Nuclear plants are complex and have a zillion moving parts that all have to operated exactly correctly at all times or disaster ensues.

btw I'm a fan of both nuclear and solar. But we have to acknowledge the dangers and drawbacks of both. The cited article is good for not letting people forget those for solar, because disposals of obsolete panels is something people don't tend to think about like nuclear waste. But it also reminds me of a WSJ snark in the 1990s, they were snarking on liberal musicians and posited that CDs would be the toxic waste crisis of the future. Still hasn't happened.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-07-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 12:04:22 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2017-07-02, plai...@gmail.com <plai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It's a good point, but on the other hand, if a solar energy farm
>> > blows a gasket, you don't have to wait 40,000 years to make repairs.
>> > Also, disposing of spent solar panels is a much simpler task than
>> > spent fuel rods.
>>
>> I disagree. The volume of disposal per megawatt is several orders of magnitude
>> worse, which introduces problems of its own. The task is different, and not
>> really simpler once you adjust for that and you have a suitable repository
>> for the expended fuel.
>>
>
> it's an interesting discussion with a lot that goes into it. More than
> the volume of waste per kwh produced, also have to consider how nasty
> that waste is. I like the way the article says it only takes a few
> thousand year before most nuclear waste is inert. Practically benign!
>
> The other question is how accident prone each is. Solar plants are
> relatively simple and passive. Most of them operate fine with no
> operator on site.

But at what efficiency levels? If you grant the most modern technology,
they may be pretty troublefree. But ....

> Nuclear plants are complex and have a zillion moving parts that all
> have to operated exactly correctly at all times or disaster ensues.

... that is also true for the newer nuclear plants. They are pretty
failsafe. They definitely require trained management, but they aren't
really prone to disaster in normal operation.

> btw I'm a fan of both nuclear and solar. But we have to acknowledge
> the dangers and drawbacks of both. The cited article is good for not
> letting people forget those for solar, because disposals of obsolete
> panels is something people don't tend to think about like nuclear
> waste. But it also reminds me of a WSJ snark in the 1990s, they were
> snarking on liberal musicians and posited that CDs would be the toxic
> waste crisis of the future. Still hasn't happened.

There are many many variables. The land utilization for solar sucks, for
example. It requires more maintenance than people grant, because
they are degraded by dirt and other contamination of the panels and
dealing with that (or not dealing with it) costs. Security and defense
against animals has to be dealt with. Considering the very low energy
density of solar, these are significant factors that are ignored.

Unfortunately, very few people are educated about these things, and
the most fervent "environmentalists" seem to be about the worst, as they
are impervious to information, making decisions like religious zealots
reading some modern-day bible. But their bibles are often decades-old
activist screed.

As an example, there are tons of living room environmentalists who
insist we need to recycle because we are running out of landfill
space, or that fuel to haul trash is killing our planet with "carbon
pollution". A greater bunch of horsehockey has rarely been uttered, yet
they cite it like it is gospel.

--
"I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way."
-- Franklin Pierce Adams

[unclejr]

I vote for more coal-fired power.

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

That's what the Germans are doing. They screwed the pooch by 1) spending huge amounts
on inefficient solar and 2) ill-conceived abandonment of nuclear power. So, they have one
thing left they can do, considering natural gas puts them in thrall to the Russians -- coal.

As a result, they have some of the world's most expensive electricity and their emissions
are rising, not falling. Oops.

--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer

[xyzzy]

How new? Is anyone building these new plants? Would like to see them proved out in operation. I remember a few years ago reading about some interesting nuke concepts, like plants that use much less radioactive pebbles that could be done on a small scale (hi to Ken and his decentralized grid).

I have flying club pla who's a nuclear engineer... manages fueling and refueling of plants. Eventually he bought his own plane. He bought about the most complex, difficult to manage plane you can get and still be a single engine. Tightly cowled turbocharged engine with very demanding thermal management requirements. All kinds of dials and gauges that have to paid close attention to, you can crack the engine block real quick if you screw it up, but it rewards you with amazing capability. I joked that it was the perfect airplane for a nuclear engineer.

> > btw I'm a fan of both nuclear and solar. But we have to acknowledge
> > the dangers and drawbacks of both. The cited article is good for not
> > letting people forget those for solar, because disposals of obsolete
> > panels is something people don't tend to think about like nuclear
> > waste. But it also reminds me of a WSJ snark in the 1990s, they were
> > snarking on liberal musicians and posited that CDs would be the toxic
> > waste crisis of the future. Still hasn't happened.
>
> There are many many variables. The land utilization for solar sucks, for
> example.

But market.... rural land is cheap...That's a pretty minor concern IMO.

[xyzzy]

I lost some FB friends when a pla posted a meme congratulating Germany on shutting down their nukes and he asked how did they do it? He didnt like my one-word answer, which of course was "coal"

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

In the past 30 years. No, sad to say -- nothing going on in the U.S. I don't
know the worldwide state.

> Would like to see them
> proved out in operation. I remember a few years ago reading about some
> interesting nuke concepts, like plants that use much less radioactive
> pebbles that could be done on a small scale (hi to Ken and his
> decentralized grid).

There are lots of things that could happen if there wasn't so much insane
opposition. Sad to say, the greens have much more voice than is rational.

>
> I have flying club pla who's a nuclear engineer... manages fueling and
> refueling of plants. Eventually he bought his own plane. He bought
> about the most complex, difficult to manage plane you can get and
> still be a single engine. Tightly cowled turbocharged engine with very
> demanding thermal management requirements. All kinds of dials and
> gauges that have to paid close attention to, you can crack the engine
> block real quick if you screw it up, but it rewards you with amazing
> capability. I joked that it was the perfect airplane for a nuclear
> engineer.

I know quite a few nukes, and know a little bit about nuclear plants
due to my submarine service. It needs to be treated with respect, to be
sure, but the safety margins are usually quite good.

>
>
>> > btw I'm a fan of both nuclear and solar. But we have to acknowledge
>> > the dangers and drawbacks of both. The cited article is good for not
>> > letting people forget those for solar, because disposals of obsolete
>> > panels is something people don't tend to think about like nuclear
>> > waste. But it also reminds me of a WSJ snark in the 1990s, they were
>> > snarking on liberal musicians and posited that CDs would be the toxic
>> > waste crisis of the future. Still hasn't happened.
>>
>> There are many many variables. The land utilization for solar sucks, for
>> example.
>
> But market.... rural land is cheap...That's a pretty minor concern IMO.

Not in my book. Wind and solar are a blight that kill birds and destroy
scenery.

--
I don't buy from direct telephone or email marketers. This makes it
hard for me to find a phone company. ;>

[Con Reeder, unhyphenated American]

On 2017-07-03, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:

If they would unfriend me for such a thing, I don't want them. :)

I think some of this unfriending thing is just that they are too
dumb to know you can unfollow someone without unfriending them.

--
Alas for those who never sing, but die with all their music in them.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

[Michael Press]

In article <slrnolkpnr.f...@kim.perusion.com>,

It's early teenager behavior.

--
Michael Press

[Ken Olson]

On 7/3/2017 11:17 AM, xyzzy wrote:

>
> But market.... rural land is cheap...That's a pretty minor concern IMO.
>
>

Not by me. Unless you consider $15K per acre cheap.

[xyzzy]

I doubt they're putting them in locations where land is $15k/acre.

[Ken Olson]

And they're not buying land in parcels small enough to command that
price, either. Posted in the interest of more information.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

Next you'll tell me you can drop someone into teh olde killfile without doing a big PSA about it...

Cheers.

[Some dued]

On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 9:02:01 AM UTC-5, dotsla...@gmail.com wrote:
> Next you'll tell me you can drop someone into teh olde killfile without doing a big PSA about it...
>
> Cheers.

*plop*

is the only PSA I remember, but it was always fun to see the drama.

[dotsla...@gmail.com]

You just need to work harder at it, dued.

I've gotten the full "I took you out, hoped for the best, and now - and you know I hate to do this - you're basically forcing me to drop you back it" lecture a couple times here. It's cool. Everyone knows that lecture is the black unicorn of Usenet - rarely seen, instantly redeemable for 1M confidence points.

Both times from folks I'd put in the "might as well be a troll because you're an ideologue whose opinion on any specific is infinitely predictable" bucket, too. Ouch.

Cheers.