Solar, not nuclear
GerryWolff
suggesting a need for new nuclear power stations and glossing over the
many problems with nuclear power
(www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm). If you would like to help
with an easy-to-do online campaign to correct some of the misleading
information that is being spread, and to raise awareness of a major
alternative to nuclear power, please go to
www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm.
PLEASE SEND THIS MESSAGE TO OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY LIKE TO HELP.
Keith Pike
GerryWolff <Ge...@mng.org.uk> writes
Why just solar power? There is a great deal of work being carried out to
exploit tidal currents for large-scale power generation.
--
Keith
Bob Kolker
> Why just solar power? There is a great deal of work being carried out to
> exploit tidal currents for large-scale power generation.
There are very few places were the tidal drop is sufficient to generate
significant amount of power. And what does one do between the tides?
Bob Kolker
David Hansen
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote this:-
>> Why just solar power? There is a great deal of work being carried out to
>> exploit tidal currents for large-scale power generation.
>
>There are very few places were the tidal drop is sufficient to generate
>significant amount of power.
Tidal currents don't involve a drop as such. Rather one puts
something like http://www.marineturbines.com/home.htm in suitable
places. Development of this seems to be going well, though it is not
yet ready for large scale use.
>And what does one do between the tides?
Tides can be predicted a very long time in advance. It is easy peasy
to schedule other plant to cover this.
Also note that slack water times are not the same everywhere at the
same time. However, in Scotland there would be a fair variation on
tidal output due to the massive influence of one area of output.
However, this variation is worth living with.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
Keith Pike
<now...@nowhere.com> writes
streams using turbines are a mean spring peak velocity exceeding about
2.25 to 2.5m/s (4.5 to 5 knots) with a depth of water of 20 to 30m.
There are many such locations that meet these criteria around the UK.
--
Keith
nada
Hemisphere, the sun goes doesn before peak power hit's its high for the
day? You need some way of storing the power...and that doesn't exist,
not enough to run industrial society.
Plus the cost right now of solar power is rediculous to contemplate
'swapping' over.
Most tidal power is not based on tidal differentials, although that can
be used, it's based on tidal current movement which is active except at
ebb tides. There is some research going on in San Francisco about
building some thing like this as an experiement.
David
bill
sorry, jack, but you either support nuclear or coal, solar isn't
even a part of the answer at this time
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> Also note that slack water times are not the same everywhere at the
> same time. However, in Scotland there would be a fair variation on
> tidal output due to the massive influence of one area of output.
> However, this variation is worth living with.
>
since I looked at a set to predict tides for going diving), there's the
best part of 6 hours high tide time difference just between Edinburgh
and Aberdeen, so suitable bi-directional tidal power stations at that
sort of spacing would be able to pick up the load one from the other
and stabilise the power input to the grid considerably.
(I'm not proposing this as being workable - it's just an
illustration that tidal phase is unlikely to be a total show-stopper
for tidal power, just another issue for the engineering to deal with at
the design stage.)
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:37 GMT, but posted later.
Eeyore
Aidan Karley wrote:
Tidal power is certainly entirely practical but I believe the capital costs make
it very expensive.
Graham
Crooked Exxon Crooked Hired Liars
Bill with Exxon's Dick crowded with Halliburton's Dick and Bechtel's
Dick in every possible place isn't any part of the discussion.
David Hansen
<name1...@email.provider.invalid> wrote this:-
> If I recall my tide tables correctly (it's been a few years
>since I looked at a set to predict tides for going diving), there's the
>best part of 6 hours high tide time difference just between Edinburgh
>and Aberdeen, so suitable bi-directional tidal power stations at that
>sort of spacing would be able to pick up the load one from the other
>and stabilise the power input to the grid considerably.
Indeed. However, the question is about the north west (of Scotland).
The potential is much greater than the other areas. Should this
potential be restricted to produce a relatively even output across
all tidal farms, or should the potential be developed and the
variation accepted?
The latter is the best course in my view. The system already copes
with sudden unplanned variations of a large magnitude. Dealing with
a predictable variation is easy in comparison through a variety of
engineering means from storage to operating other plant.
Eeyore
David Hansen wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:53:36 GMT someone who may be Aidan Karley
> <name1...@email.provider.invalid> wrote this:-
>
> > If I recall my tide tables correctly (it's been a few years
> >since I looked at a set to predict tides for going diving), there's the
> >best part of 6 hours high tide time difference just between Edinburgh
> >and Aberdeen, so suitable bi-directional tidal power stations at that
> >sort of spacing would be able to pick up the load one from the other
> >and stabilise the power input to the grid considerably.
>
> Indeed. However, the question is about the north west (of Scotland).
> The potential is much greater than the other areas. Should this
> potential be restricted to produce a relatively even output across
> all tidal farms, or should the potential be developed and the
> variation accepted?
>
> The latter is the best course in my view. The system already copes
> with sudden unplanned variations of a large magnitude. Dealing with
> a predictable variation is easy in comparison through a variety of
> engineering means from storage to operating other plant.
Tidal power has a lot to commend it in that way.
There was a trial installation ( of a new method not requiring dams ) in
Northern Ireland recently.
Graham
David Hansen
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>There was a trial installation ( of a new method not requiring dams ) in
>Northern Ireland recently.
http://www.marineturbines.com/projects.htm outlines the state of
play with this. The first prototype worked well off Lynmouth. The
second stage is the installation of one in Strangford Lough. I was
not aware that this had been commissioned yet, but that's good news.
jtno...@yahoo.com
offer us a false dichotomy, they are both good and both will reduce CO2
emissions and reliance on Middle East and Russian oil.-Jitney
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> In newspapers and magazines around the world, articles are appearing
> suggesting a need for new nuclear power stations and glossing over the
> many problems with nuclear power
The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
really isn't a problem.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
bill
> offer us a false dichotomy, they are both good and both will reduce CO2
> emissions and reliance on Middle East and Russian oil.-Jitney
Incorrect, solar has the potential to replace 20% of the grid
energy generation in a very expensive fashion if given another 20 years
research and development. Nuclear on the other hand could replace 100%
of the fossil fuel grid energy in an inexpensive manner with todays
technology.
1 billion dollars spent on nuclear power permanently offlines 4
coal plants, the same billion dollars spent on pv offlines 1 plant for
6 hours a day on sunny days.
Crooked Exxon Crooked Hired Liars
If you can't prove you have the technical savvy to make PV without
killing yourself, you have no business making weapons-grade
radioactives for terrorists to hijack.
jtno...@yahoo.com
There's a rational, cogent response.
I don't know the economic analyses of the two well enough to comment,
it's just that it seems to me to make no sense to prefer one over the
other on the basis of some prejudice rather than what makes sense in
any particular application. I think that there is a place for both,
with nuclear for the generation of large amounts of electricity, with
solar mostly for space heating, residential hot water, and the greatest
potential application, the incorporation of passive solar heat
principles in architectural design.
I just don't think it has to be an either/or proposition.-Jitney
bill
economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced. solar does have a
place as you say, mostly in passive applications, remote localles, etc.
ultimately, it will probably make up around 10-20% of the energy grid,
but today it isn't feasible to install pv for electricity production
where grid energy is available. it is not a comparable product to a
nuclear plant, it's like trying to replace a car with a bicycle, sure,
the bicycle has its uses, but it isn't and will never be a viable
transportation solution.
RepigglyKKKlan Sewer Rat Plinker
jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Crooked Exxon Crooked Hired Liars wrote:
> > Some guy with Exxon's Dick in his mouth said:
> > jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Back to solar vs. nuclear power, there is no contradiction, don't
> > > offer us a false dichotomy, they are both good and both will reduce CO2
> > > emissions and reliance on Middle East and Russian oil.-Jitney
> >
> > If you can't prove you have the technical savvy to make PV without
> > killing yourself, you have no business making weapons-grade
> > radioactives for terrorists to hijack.
>
> There's a rational, cogent response.
>
> I don't know the economic analyses of the two well enough to comment,
> it's just that it seems to me to make no sense to prefer one over the
> other on the basis of some prejudice rather than what makes sense in
> any particular application.
Since you can't handle 2400 degrees farenheit to make PV you are too
bonehead ignorant to handle nukes that can melt down all the way to
china.
Give it up chump and go back to sucking Halliburton-Bechtel Dicks, who
are the only ones building nuke plants any more. Nobody but them and GE
wants nukes and they can't get what they want by fair discussion
without hiding their proble,ms and without lying about PV to make
themselves not look so bad.
> I think that there is a place for both,
> with nuclear for the generation of large amounts of electricity, with
> solar mostly for space heating, residential hot water, and the greatest
> potential application, the incorporation of passive solar heat
> principles in architectural design.
> I just don't think it has to be an either/or proposition.-Jitney
So you will suck both Halliburton AND Bechtel's dicks. Way to go
right-turd. You'll look good in uniform as you SURGE over to fight
Exxon-Halliburton-Bechel's war for them, and you'll look even better in
the memorial photograph that will be up for 15 minutes on your hometown
newspaper's website. RIP, SURGER, You're the perfect soldier.
Dan Bloomquist
bill wrote:
> economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
> simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
Whey don't you cite your claim??????????
So usenet........
Brad Guth
news:50hni6F...@mid.individual.net
> There are very few places were the tidal drop is sufficient to generate
> significant amount of power. And what does one do between the tides?
That is not the least bit true, is it.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
news:1168344940....@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Good topic with lots of flak tossing and lose cannon fire.
Solar and certainly solar induced wind and ocean thermal derived energy
alternatives are terrific, as well as nearly 100% clean and having been
perfectly doable on a large scale. However, don't forget or otherwise
exclude moon power, such as for starters there's a portion of the 2e20
joules available, and there's actually lots more where that came from.
The question is; how many spare terajoules would you folks like?
jtno...@yahoo.com
Such maturity and rationality from a sockpuppet troll.-Jitney
Brad Guth
news:1hrqtrl.r1kwb11871la9N%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk
> The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
> really isn't a problem.
That's only if you're French, whereas the rest of us village idiots are
getting screwed by our own kind.
David Hansen
pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote this:-
>The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
>really isn't a problem.
Except that nobody has yet worked out how to do it.
Another problem is the inflexibility of a small number of large
power stations. Because they are large they need large amounts of
backup for when they fail.
They are also inflexible when they are working, though there are
claims that new reactor designs may lessen the inflexibility a
little. However, they are never going to be able to go to full
output in a few seconds, unlike hydro stations.
Eeyore
David Hansen wrote:
> pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk (Peter Bjørn Perlsø) wrote
>
> >The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
> >really isn't a problem.
>
> Except that nobody has yet worked out how to do it.
In what way ?
> Another problem is the inflexibility of a small number of large
> power stations. Because they are large they need large amounts of
> backup for when they fail.
No different from other big power stations.
> They are also inflexible when they are working, though there are
> claims that new reactor designs may lessen the inflexibility a
> little. However, they are never going to be able to go to full
> output in a few seconds, unlike hydro stations.
No, they're ideal for base load though.
Graham
David Hansen
<rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote this:-
>> Except that nobody has yet worked out how to do it.
>
>In what way ?
Nobody has yet worked out how to do it. There are theories, but
these are hotly debated. The little practical work is not
conclusive.
Now there is an amount of this crap around and we will have to find
something to do with it, but that doesn't mean generating more crap
is a good idea. In my view the best thing to do with the existing
crap is to store it above ground, where it can be properly monitored
and retrieved if necessary. The nuclear "industry" wants it out of
sight and out of mind in holes in the ground.
>> Another problem is the inflexibility of a small number of large
>> power stations. Because they are large they need large amounts of
>> backup for when they fail.
>
>No different from other big power stations.
Not particularly different, but that's not the point. Small numbers
of large power stations are the result of a particular set of
engineering and political imperatives, but not all of these were
appropriate then and are certainly not appropriate now.
Bob Kolker
>
> Not particularly different, but that's not the point. Small numbers
> of large power stations are the result of a particular set of
> engineering and political imperatives, but not all of these were
> appropriate then and are certainly not appropriate now.
The country still needs a grid. The sun does not shine everywhere with
equal brightness and generators do go down. At night we need a means of
either generating or using stored energy and distributiing it.
For some industries using heat directly is more efficient than
generating heat by electrical resistance. Steel and copper for instance.
Coke is still the fuel of choice.
Bob Kolker
David Hansen
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote this:-
>The country still needs a grid.
Please indicate where I claimed otherwise.
It is mildly amusing that, having spoken out in support of the
Beauly - Denny grid upgrade, I am now accused of claiming that a
grid is not needed.
z
Bob Kolker wrote:
> Keith Pike wrote:
> > Why just solar power? There is a great deal of work being carried out to
> > exploit tidal currents for large-scale power generation.
>
> significant amount of power. And what does one do between the tides?
>
Well, for one thing, you trap the water at high tide and let it run
past a turbine for the next twelve hours until next high tide.
Bob Kolker
>
> Well, for one thing, you trap the water at high tide and let it run
> past a turbine for the next twelve hours until next high tide.
The energy output is bounded by the mass of the water dropped and the
height through which it is dropped.
Bob Kolker
>
z
Well, I'm not posing as an expert, but I spent half a day googling out
as much of the economic analyses of such as I could a couple of months
ago, and came to the conclusion that
1) every industry analyst thinks their own industry is the champ for
providing cheap clean power, as long as God smiles upon them and every
wonderful thing in the world happens.
2) other than that, in general the predicted **realistic** costs per
KWH for power are reasonably close for just about every source, with
the two exceptions of solar, which is expensive due to the current high
costs of producing solar cells, and building new nuclear plants, which
are expensive due to the huge capital costs of building a new plant
compared to the low cost of operation (as distinct from
refitting/updating current nuclear plants, which is in the same
comparable cost ballpark as all the other sources).
Which makes the current thread of "do we go solar, or build new nukes?"
sort of ironic.
(Of course, the optimal solution is one of fitting the best sources
into the correct niches; for instance, as I've posted before, the idea
of replacing the local power plant with an enormous array of solar
cells and storage batteries isn't great, but the idea of eliminating
the huge peak load on the grid from daytime air conditioning on a hot
sunny summer day, through the use of localized solar generation at the
point where the air conditioner load is operating, would be well worth
it even with the extra costs of solar cells over other means of
generation).
z
Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:
> The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
> really isn't a problem.
Because we don't dispose of it, we just leave it sitting around!
bill
well, that's correct as far as it goes, the ultimate cost of 1 kwh
of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
fossil fuels?"
> Which makes the current thread of "do we go solar, or build new nukes?"
> sort of ironic.
>
> (Of course, the optimal solution is one of fitting the best sources
> into the correct niches; for instance, as I've posted before, the idea
> of replacing the local power plant with an enormous array of solar
> cells and storage batteries isn't great, but the idea of eliminating
> the huge peak load on the grid from daytime air conditioning on a hot
> sunny summer day, through the use of localized solar generation at the
> point where the air conditioner load is operating, would be well worth
> it even with the extra costs of solar cells over other means of
> generation).
Well, I can see that, but in speaking of peaking plants,
especially ones that can aford to be unreliable and unschedulable,
you're speaking of a small niche, around 10%, you've got a point though
that PV and nuclear are an apples to grapes comparison.
the thing is that for base load generation, nuclear is so far
ahead of PV that it isn't even a fair comparison. Wind is actually
seeming to be coming up to remotely competitive, and there are actually
a number of wind projects being installed, so there's potential there.
there are 0 pv plants installed with the intentions of generating grid
energy, so that tells you everything you uneed to know.
R.H. Allen
> jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> I don't know the economic analyses of the two well enough to comment,
>> it's just that it seems to me to make no sense to prefer one over the
>> other on the basis of some prejudice rather than what makes sense in
>> any particular application. I think that there is a place for both,
>> with nuclear for the generation of large amounts of electricity, with
>> solar mostly for space heating, residential hot water, and the greatest
>> potential application, the incorporation of passive solar heat
>> principles in architectural design.
>
> economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
> simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
Actually it's not so simple. Nuclear and PV power are used in two
completely different circumstances -- base load and peak load,
respectively -- so comparing their costs is meaningless. Compare nuclear
to coal or biomass, if you must compare it to something, and PV to
natural gas and hydropower. And in the case of non-utility generation
(such as residential or commercial PV systems), compare the cost to the
*retail* cost of electricity, as in those cases the generation cost of
grid power means nothing to the owner of the PV system.
> but today it isn't feasible to install pv for electricity production
> where grid energy is available.
I suspect you meant to say that it isn't cost-effective, as the large
number of grid-connected PV systems around the world attest to its
feasibility. And even where cost-effectiveness is concerned, it depends
very much upon where you are and what your situation is. For most of the
industrialized world, it is still not cost-effective, but exceptions exist.
PV costs are comparable to grid power rates in many parts of Japan, for
example, and the end of Japan's subsidy program a few years ago hardly
slowed PV sales there. PV also costs less than California's highest
utility rates and could be used cost-effectively for certain
applications there even without the state government's subsidies. And
there are plenty of niche applications for which PV is ideally suited
even when grid power is available nearby, though the fastest-growing
market in the PV industry is for grid-connected systems.
Bob Kolker
>
> well, that's correct as far as it goes, the ultimate cost of 1 kwh
> of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
> solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
> fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
> here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
> fossil fuels?"
Nuclear Solar, PV, Wind, Tide, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. None of
these requires burning hydrocarbons in the steady usage state. The only
think lacking is the will. I do not include biomass since this means
burning stuff.
Bob Kolker
bill
> >> it's just that it seems to me to make no sense to prefer one over the
> >> other on the basis of some prejudice rather than what makes sense in
> >> any particular application. I think that there is a place for both,
> >> with nuclear for the generation of large amounts of electricity, with
> >> solar mostly for space heating, residential hot water, and the greatest
> >> potential application, the incorporation of passive solar heat
> >> principles in architectural design.
> >
> > economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
> > simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
>
> Actually it's not so simple. Nuclear and PV power are used in two
> completely different circumstances -- base load and peak load,
> respectively -- so comparing their costs is meaningless. Compare nuclear
> to coal or biomass, if you must compare it to something, and PV to
> natural gas and hydropower. And in the case of non-utility generation
> (such as residential or commercial PV systems), compare the cost to the
> *retail* cost of electricity, as in those cases the generation cost of
> grid power means nothing to the owner of the PV system.
I never said it was worthless, I said that it was capable of
providing a 10% solution. Better for a few niches. PV is arging that
it's a viable source of baseload energy, and that's just wrong. For
peaking, remember you will still need to build the gas plant to
accomodate cloudy days.
> > but today it isn't feasible to install pv for electricity production
> > where grid energy is available.
>
> I suspect you meant to say that it isn't cost-effective, as the large
> number of grid-connected PV systems around the world attest to its
> feasibility. And even where cost-effectiveness is concerned, it depends
> very much upon where you are and what your situation is. For most of the
> industrialized world, it is still not cost-effective, but exceptions exist.
feasibility and economic viability are related concepts, if the
goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions, and you have 1 billion dollars
to spend, 1 nuclear plant will take 4 baseload coal plants offline,
whereas 1 billion worth of PV will take 1 methane peaking plant
offline, not really a tough call.
> PV costs are comparable to grid power rates in many parts of Japan, for
> example, and the end of Japan's subsidy program a few years ago hardly
> slowed PV sales there. PV also costs less than California's highest
> utility rates and could be used cost-effectively for certain
> applications there even without the state government's subsidies. And
> there are plenty of niche applications for which PV is ideally suited
> even when grid power is available nearby, though the fastest-growing
> market in the PV industry is for grid-connected systems.
Granted a bunch of viable niches, I am not arguing that it
shouldn't be used ever, I am arguing that if we wish to stop burning
coal, 90% of the solution is nuclear and that solar wil not represent a
very significant fraction of the total. The bulk of the installations
going on in the world are either heavily subsidized stupidity or
homeowner paranoia regarding the future availability and cost of grid
power, and are not based in economic reality at all.
Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?
z wrote:
> (Of course, the optimal solution is one of fitting the best sources
> into the correct niches; for instance, as I've posted before, the idea
> of replacing the local power plant with an enormous array of solar
> cells and storage batteries isn't great, but the idea of eliminating
> the huge peak load on the grid from daytime air conditioning on a hot
> sunny summer day, through the use of localized solar generation at the
> point where the air conditioner load is operating, would be well worth
> it even with the extra costs of solar cells over other means of
> generation).
Most people are up and active in the day -- it's a classic
characteristic of the species.
Marjority of power is used during daylight -- "peak power" is defined
as a swath of daylight hours.
Most power needs could be met by PV with no storage alone, making deep
deep cuts into pollution and global warming gases, but using existing
carbon-fuel power only when PV can't meet the load. At least 50% and
maybe 60% or 65% of demand could be met with PV without any storage at
all.
Batteries are not efficient, but since everybody uses them and is
comfortable with them, and you can buy them all over the place,
batteries pop up as the first idea people think of for storage.
$6 worth of retail (12 cents kWh) electricity can make $27 of hydrogen
and hydrogen peroxide out of 2.4 gallons of water. Both H2 and H2O2 are
rocket fuels. Both have been used as motor fuels -- the land speed
record for 2-wheel vehicle is 365 miles per hour on H2O2 fuel.
Industry decided that the fuel cell car was something they wanted to
achieve, so they studied over 5,000 substances for hydrogen storage,
but none met their needs as too bulky and too heavy. Plenty of those
are great as stationary storage, taking less space and less weight as
lead batteries, and plenty are far cheaper than exotic batteries.
You, at least claimed to have spent half a day with google, like that's
some kind of heroic effort. Lots of people study four years for their
education, or longer. I downloaded 1,100 PDFs on solar PV hydrogen
storage, and it took a month of downloading in the background while I
read them in the foreground. That still doesn't scratch the surface --
I just downloaded 1,600 relevent patents and copied them onto my
website in a more user-friendly form, and that took 2 months, and that
I estimate is about half of one that make a useful core group on the
subject.
Since I can't know what is and isn't useful until finding it I can't
really say whether 1,600 patents is half, one-quarter, 10% or 99%.
What I can tell you is that batteries are not smart energy storage and
the human race knew better more than 20 years ago acording to the
patent library. That you even bring it up in 2007 shows how the public
has been sucking Exxon's Dick on the subjects of energy for your whole
lifetime. "Nothing wrong, therefore no reason to learn how to fix
anything" is Exxon's narcotic mantra to keep the sheeple sleeping.
bill
Correct, except. 1) PV is unschedulable, unreliable and
expensive as shit. 2) wind is unschedulable and unreliable. 3) tide
is unproven tech, therefore useless in todays grid. 4)hydroelectric is
tapped out, all the good locations for it are already in use. 5)
Geothermal also tapped out. 5) biomass has a pathetic EROEI. the
fossil fuels burned in the processing of it will be 80% of the fossil
fuels you avoid burning by burning it.
That leaves nuclear. again, I am talking about 85% baseload here,
not 15% peaking. take all the will you've got and throw it behind
something, but throw it behind the one that'll do the most good. take
1 billion dollars of "will" and build a nuclear plant and you take 4
large coal plants offline 24x7x365. take the same billion dollars of
will and buy PV cells, and you take 1 methane plant offline 4 hours a
day. coal emitts 4 times as much co2/kw as methane. so 1 billion
dollars in nuclear power avoids the generation of 16 times as much c02
as the same billion spent on PV, and is more economical besides.
hanson
news:1168554259.4...@o58g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > well, that's correct as far as it goes, the ultimate cost of 1 kwh
>> > of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
>> > solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
>> > fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
>> > here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
>> > fossil fuels?"
>>
>> Nuclear Solar, PV, Wind, Tide, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. None of
>> these requires burning hydrocarbons in the steady usage state. The only
>> think lacking is the will. I do not include biomass since this means
>> burning stuff.
>
> Correct, except. 1) PV is unschedulable, unreliable and
> expensive as shit. 2) wind is unschedulable and unreliable. 3) tide
> is unproven tech, therefore useless in todays grid. 4)hydroelectric is
> tapped out, all the good locations for it are already in use. 5)
> Geothermal also tapped out. 5) biomass has a pathetic EROEI. the
> fossil fuels burned in the processing of it will be 80% of the fossil
> fuels you avoid burning by burning it.
> That leaves nuclear. again, I am talking about 85% baseload here,
> not 15% peaking. take all the will you've got and throw it behind
> something, but throw it behind the one that'll do the most good. take
> 1 billion dollars of "will" and build a nuclear plant and you take 4
> large coal plants offline 24x7x365. take the same billion dollars of
> will and buy PV cells, and you take 1 methane plant offline 4 hours a
> day. coal emitts 4 times as much co2/kw as methane. so 1 billion
> dollars in nuclear power avoids the generation of 16 times as much c02
> as the same billion spent on PV, and is more economical besides.
>
That is "Awe Shit" you were responding to. "Awe Shit" has noble
ideas but his selling style is totally counter productive and the
less returns he gets for his fanatical efforts the more fanatical he
becomes, loudly goes: "Awe Shit" & behaves like a drowning rat.
For some reason "Awe Shit" falls for the gag when Exxon or other
biggies in the Energy production field utter "green notions" and he
says "wow", "Awe Shit". But the simple worldly fact is that the oil
giants have a, to him sinister looking, FANTASTIC 2-tier biz model:
a) to KILL OFF any competing green enterprises by
LOWERING the oil price and driving them into bankruptcy.
b) to KILL OFF any competing green endeavors by
INCREASING the oil price to drain the investment pool
for green startups and then buying them out, and then....
shelving any product that interferes with their oil markets.
Here is some more on how "Awe Shit"s nemesis operates
to "bankrupt-the-greenies" with unmitigated success:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
In addition, in 1979, they manipulated & bankrupted Prez Jimmy
Carter's Govt. owned Synthetic Fuel Oil Corp that he/Congress
had set up to make the US energy independent.
It was an $80 Billion fiasco. -- Oil boys won!
Bill, you are of course right that only nuke energy will perhaps
change the current energy production picture. GW will NOT
have any influence on it, except to make some bread for
Al Gore who sucks and leeches off it for his personal benefit.
In the following link you can see precisely why we have the sorry
current situation over which "Awe Shit" goes "Awe Shit"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/300a43bcbf8937a1
>
To "Awe Shit"s' credit it must be said and he must be
commended for how masterfully he makes the greenies look
even more stupid then they already are... AHAHAHAHA...
But he never sees that it was his greedy green enviro ilk
that was the fundamental cause and bears the guilt for the
current sorry condition at large, because the enviros were
and are as corrupt as any Enron goon. Here is why:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ea5b37d3b928ae91
ahahaha... ahahahanson
Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?
hanson wrote:
> But he never sees that it was his greedy green enviro ilk
> that was the fundamental cause and bears the guilt for the
> current sorry condition at large, because the enviros were
> and are as corrupt as any Enron goon. Here is why:
Exxon Surrenders but HoHo Hanson keeps sucking their dead dick: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
zzbu...@netscape.net
jtnos...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Back to solar vs. nuclear power, there is no contradiction, don't
> offer us a false dichotomy, they are both good and both will reduce CO2
> emissions and reliance on Middle East and Russian oil.-Jitney
Nuclear is the only viable long term solution
for propulision,
The moron greenies have delayed it long enough
now it''ll cost the idiots ten times what it would
20 years ago, inflation adjusted,
Since the idiot propaganda spin cranks
have actually managed to even convince themselves
that PRW's are the only safe reactor.
And they have screwed solar up with
their idiot Casio market so much
that for the most part, robots
have already taken over the idiots.
Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?
bill wrote:
> > > well, that's correct as far as it goes, the ultimate cost of 1 kwh
> > > of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
> > > solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
> > > fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
> > > here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
> > > fossil fuels?"
> >
> > Nuclear Solar, PV, Wind, Tide, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. None of
> > these requires burning hydrocarbons in the steady usage state. The only
> > think lacking is the will. I do not include biomass since this means
> > burning stuff.
>
> Correct, except. 1) PV is unschedulable, unreliable and
> expensive as shit.
How much does shit cost on the world market? Since 99% of PV is the
same as the stuff that goes into making beer bottles and beer cans, the
cost of PV is the same as beer cans and beer bottles. Currently beer
cans are $1.23 per pound.
The cost of PV is 30 cents a square foot, but people have to make a
living so the retail price is 12 times that, or 30 cents per watt. Any
other figures that you have are obsolete or fraudulent.
That's the cost of making PV when you use free public-domain
20-year-old expired patents.
What technology do you use to make PV?
bill
lets see, sand, purified to 99.9%, acid washed, melted into
ingots, wiresawed, p-doped, an n-doped electron deposited coating, a
nonreflective coating, printed wiring grid, an aluminum backing,
sintered contacts, hydroflouric acid, Hydrogen bromide, and phosphoric
oxide trichloride used in the manufacturing process, silicone hydroxide
as a waste product, , and you think that's comparable to a beer-can?
what planet do you live on?
Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?
99.99% with 99.9999% of some impurities removed.
> acid washed,
Bauxite is acid washed to get alumina before electrolysis
> melted into ingots,
Aluminum electrolysis product is cast into ingots that must be forged
into rolled flat stock
> wiresawed,
Beer cans die-cut into disks, repeatedly stretched into cup shapes,
neck trimmed
> p-doped, an n-doped electron deposited coating, a
Beercan lids punched discs, shaped, stamped, poptab riveted.
> nonreflective coating,
Beer cans get coated inside and outside.
> printed wiring grid,
Beer cans get screen printed in 4 color inks using same silk-screening
technology.
> an aluminum backing,
Beer cans get an aluminum backing <giggle>.
> sintered contacts, hydroflouric acid,
Actually HF is an unwanted waste product from some industries -- set up
shop next door and they'll give you a bunch for free.
> Hydrogen bromide, and phosphoric
> oxide trichloride used in the manufacturing process, silicone hydroxide
> as a waste product, ,
Alumina bathed in cryolites for electrolysis. Electrolysis tank with
complicated disposable liners, consumable carbon electrodes needing
regular replacement.
and you think that's comparable to a beer-can?
> what planet do you live on?
Beer cans = 16 kilowatthours per kilogram alumina electrolysis.
Silicon electromagnetic casting = 12 kilowatthours per kilogram melt
and polycrystalization.
You have successfully convinced me that PV rightfully should cost
considerably less than beer cans on a mass weight comparison of
product.
Not all of your assumptions are true, by the way, and only apply to
certain pathways
Now about comparing PV to beer bottles...
bill
> > > > > > of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
> > > > > > solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
> > > > > > fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
> > > > > > here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
> > > > > > fossil fuels?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Nuclear Solar, PV, Wind, Tide, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. None of
> > > > > these requires burning hydrocarbons in the steady usage state. The only
> > > > > think lacking is the will. I do not include biomass since this means
> > > > > burning stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Correct, except. 1) PV is unschedulable, unreliable and
> > > > expensive as shit.
> > >
> > > How much does shit cost on the world market? Since 99% of PV is the
> > > same as the stuff that goes into making beer bottles and beer cans, the
> > > cost of PV is the same as beer cans and beer bottles. Currently beer
> > > cans are $1.23 per pound.
> > >
> > > The cost of PV is 30 cents a square foot, but people have to make a
> > > living so the retail price is 12 times that, or 30 cents per watt. Any
> > > other figures that you have are obsolete or fraudulent.
> > >
> > > That's the cost of making PV when you use free public-domain
> > > 20-year-old expired patents.
> > >
> > > What technology do you use to make PV?
> >
> > lets see, sand, purified to 99.9%,
>
> 99.99% with 99.9999% of some impurities removed.
Versus aluminum at 90%.
> > acid washed,
> Bauxite is acid washed to get alumina before electrolysis
yes, but in different acid, hydrochloric is easy to handle and
harmless, hydroflouric is lethal.
> > melted into ingots,
> Aluminum electrolysis product is cast into ingots that must be forged
> into rolled flat stock
corrrect.
> > wiresawed,
> Beer cans die-cut into disks, repeatedly stretched into cup shapes,
> neck trimmed
All of which costs 10% of what a precision wiresawing process
costs.
> > p-doped, an n-doped electron deposited coating, a
> Beercan lids punched discs, shaped, stamped, poptab riveted.
not even remotely comparable.
> > nonreflective coating,
> Beer cans get coated inside and outside.
Beer cans get sprayed on coatings, the process for pv cells is an
electron deposition coating which needs to be done in a cleanroom type
environment, again, not even remotely comparable.
> > printed wiring grid,
> Beer cans get screen printed in 4 color inks using same silk-screening
> technology.
No, screen printing is about as comparable to semicondocter
electron deposition printing as a model T is to a stealth bomber.
> > an aluminum backing,
> Beer cans get an aluminum backing <giggle>.
> > sintered contacts, hydroflouric acid,
> Actually HF is an unwanted waste product from some industries -- set up
> shop next door and they'll give you a bunch for free.
Problem isn't obtaining the acid, it's being in a room with the
stuff, lethal vapors, explosive vapors, lethal on contact, extremely
corrosive, expensive to dispose of, nasty stuff. expensive to have
around.
> > Hydrogen bromide, and phosphoric
> > oxide trichloride used in the manufacturing process, silicone hydroxide
> > as a waste product, ,
> Alumina bathed in cryolites for electrolysis. Electrolysis tank with
> complicated disposable liners, consumable carbon electrodes needing
> regular replacement.
Yot used in beer can manufacture :)
> and you think that's comparable to a beer-can?
> > what planet do you live on?
>
> Beer cans = 16 kilowatthours per kilogram alumina electrolysis.
>
> Silicon electromagnetic casting = 12 kilowatthours per kilogram melt
> and polycrystalization.
> You have successfully convinced me that PV rightfully should cost
> considerably less than beer cans on a mass weight comparison of
> product.
>
> Not all of your assumptions are true, by the way, and only apply to
> certain pathways
The ones that's used by all current manufacturers.
Perhaps it would help if you'd post your total process, including
the chemicals and processes involved in each step.
R.H. Allen
>>>> I don't know the economic analyses of the two well enough to comment,
>>>> it's just that it seems to me to make no sense to prefer one over the
>>>> other on the basis of some prejudice rather than what makes sense in
>>>> any particular application. I think that there is a place for both,
>>>> with nuclear for the generation of large amounts of electricity, with
>>>> solar mostly for space heating, residential hot water, and the greatest
>>>> potential application, the incorporation of passive solar heat
>>>> principles in architectural design.
>>> economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
>>> simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
>> Actually it's not so simple. Nuclear and PV power are used in two
>> completely different circumstances -- base load and peak load,
>> respectively -- so comparing their costs is meaningless. Compare nuclear
>> to coal or biomass, if you must compare it to something, and PV to
>> natural gas and hydropower. And in the case of non-utility generation
>> (such as residential or commercial PV systems), compare the cost to the
>> *retail* cost of electricity, as in those cases the generation cost of
>> grid power means nothing to the owner of the PV system.
>
> I never said it was worthless,
And I never said you did.
> I said that it was capable of
> providing a 10% solution. Better for a few niches. PV is arging that
> it's a viable source of baseload energy, and that's just wrong.
I've been in the PV industry awhile and I can't really think of any
instances where "PV" -- assuming that by that you mean the PV industry
-- argues that it's viable for base load, at least without some means of
energy storage. In fact, most everybody I know in the industry works
under the conclusion reached by a U.S. Department of Energy researcher,
and that is that without storage, PV can supply a maximum of 20-30% of
U.S. electricity needs. That's not too shabby, especially when you
consider that the only source producing that much of the nation's
electricity right now is coal. Not only that, but the only sources that
have *ever* produced that much of U.S. consumption since World War II
are hydro (in the late 1940s) and natural gas (in the 1960s), though
since 1992 nuclear has gotten a few tenths of a percent above 20% in
some years.
> For
> peaking, remember you will still need to build the gas plant to
> accomodate cloudy days.
You need to have *some* backup -- as you do for any power plant -- but
demand peaks tend to be much smaller on cloudy days than they are on
sunny ones, especially in the summertime. The amount of backup required
would likely vary significantly with geography.
> Granted a bunch of viable niches, I am not arguing that it
> shouldn't be used ever, I am arguing that if we wish to stop burning
> coal, 90% of the solution is nuclear and that solar wil not represent a
> very significant fraction of the total. The bulk of the installations
> going on in the world are either heavily subsidized stupidity or
> homeowner paranoia regarding the future availability and cost of grid
> power, and are not based in economic reality at all.
For what it's worth, when nuclear power was at the same stage in its
development that PV is now it had been much more heavily subsidized --
even on a cost per kWh basis (and not including military expenditures on
nuclear technology).
http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/resRpt11/preleasesubsidies.pdf
As for subsidies being stupid, it really depends on what your goal is.
The Republicans who pushed California's ratepayer subsidy program did so
on a fiscal basis. A small reduction in peak load results in a large
reduction in spot-market electricity rates there, which translates into
lower electricity rates and may ease stress on their overloaded grid.
They project that subsidizing PV will actually lead to a net savings for
California ratepayers, though their conclusion is controversial.
Another piece of supporting evidence is provided by MIT, who calculated
that if Massachusetts had just 1 GW of PV installed in 2002, it would
have reduced electricity rates by 2-5%.
http://www.photon-magazine.com/news/news_04-12_am_feat_PVImpact_on_Electricity_Price.htm
The net present value of 1 GW of PV in Massachusetts was calculated at
$1.50-3.30/watt, so it isn't enough to cover the entire cost of the PV
system, but California's new subsidy is starting out at $2.80/watt this
year; when you factor in the better sunlight and higher peak demand
prices in California, it leans toward supporting the conclusion that
California's program will result in a net savings for ratepayers.
All that said, you seem to be anti-subsidy and pro-GHG elimination. I'm
curious, what incentives do you think will be required to get us to go
90% nuclear (or any other GHG-minimizing technology, for that matter)?
Generation cost alone is obviously not going to do it, especially if you
take away nuclear's remaining subsidies.
Despite our debate, I think you and I actually more on the same page
than I realized at first (though I'm not particularly pro-nuke).
R.H. Allen
>
> deep cuts into pollution and global warming gases, but using existing
> carbon-fuel power only when PV can't meet the load. At least 50% and
> maybe 60% or 65% of demand could be met with PV without any storage at
> all.
That is *highly* dependent upon where you are. In the U.S., base load
averages something like 70% of demand. Generally speaking, it's a bit
less than that in hotter areas and a bit more than that in cooler ones.
The peak tends to shrink as you go further north, and in may places --
Scandinavia, for example -- it's almost nonexistent.
bill
> > providing a 10% solution. Better for a few niches. PV is arging that
> > it's a viable source of baseload energy, and that's just wrong.
>
> I've been in the PV industry awhile and I can't really think of any
> instances where "PV" -- assuming that by that you mean the PV industry
> -- argues that it's viable for base load, at least without some means of
> energy storage. In fact, most everybody I know in the industry works
> under the conclusion reached by a U.S. Department of Energy researcher,
> and that is that without storage, PV can supply a maximum of 20-30% of
> U.S. electricity needs. That's not too shabby, especially when you
> consider that the only source producing that much of the nation's
> electricity right now is coal. Not only that, but the only sources that
> have *ever* produced that much of U.S. consumption since World War II
> are hydro (in the late 1940s) and natural gas (in the 1960s), though
> since 1992 nuclear has gotten a few tenths of a percent above 20% in
> some years.
PV in this case referred to "exxon's dick", the raving nutter. I
know that pv *can* produce that level of power, but at what cost?
> > For
> > peaking, remember you will still need to build the gas plant to
> > accomodate cloudy days.
> You need to have *some* backup -- as you do for any power plant -- but
> demand peaks tend to be much smaller on cloudy days than they are on
> sunny ones, especially in the summertime. The amount of backup required
> would likely vary significantly with geography.
most likely, yes, deserts are pretty good about not having many
cloudy days :) and granted that those locations are the most logical
choices for PV installations, Pheonix and Las vegas could well benefit
from a nearby PV farm. the question in my mind is, given that energy
dollars are finite, say you have $10 billion to use to reduce carbon
emissions, which would you, as an energy professional reccomend? 10
nuclear stations or 10 GW, 24x7, or 3 GW of 4-6 hour/day peaking?
prepared to believe it.
> All that said, you seem to be anti-subsidy and pro-GHG elimination. I'm
> curious, what incentives do you think will be required to get us to go
> 90% nuclear (or any other GHG-minimizing technology, for that matter)?
> Generation cost alone is obviously not going to do it, especially if you
> take away nuclear's remaining subsidies.
I am anti subsidy on things that are inherent losers, which a
large number of the current pv installations are. as far as how to
incentivise new development of carbon neutral power, I'd recommend
making available 25 year loans for the construction of new nuclear and
PV plants at current prime rate fixed, and imposing a small tax on
carbon emissions to pay for it. That ought to do it. Burying the
externalities is another form of subsidy, and the fossil fuel industry
has benefitted from that inordinately.
> Despite our debate, I think you and I actually more on the same page
> than I realized at first (though I'm not particularly pro-nuke).
Well, that makes sense, we're both reasonable people with actual
knowledge of the subject matter.
R.H. Allen
>>>>>>> well, that's correct as far as it goes, the ultimate cost of 1 kwh
>>>>>>> of nuclear generated energy is around 10 cents/kwh. the cost/kwh for
>>>>>>> solar is 20 cents. all the other forms of energy production are fossil
>>>>>>> fuel based, and that's what we're trying to get away from, the question
>>>>>>> here isn't "do we go solar or nuke?", it's "how do we get away from
>>>>>>> fossil fuels?"
>>>>>> Nuclear Solar, PV, Wind, Tide, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. None of
>>>>>> these requires burning hydrocarbons in the steady usage state. The only
>>>>>> think lacking is the will. I do not include biomass since this means
>>>>>> burning stuff.
>>>>> Correct, except. 1) PV is unschedulable, unreliable and
>>>>> expensive as shit.
>>>> How much does shit cost on the world market? Since 99% of PV is the
>>>> same as the stuff that goes into making beer bottles and beer cans, the
>>>> cost of PV is the same as beer cans and beer bottles. Currently beer
>>>> cans are $1.23 per pound.
>>>>
>>>> The cost of PV is 30 cents a square foot, but people have to make a
>>>> living so the retail price is 12 times that, or 30 cents per watt. Any
>>>> other figures that you have are obsolete or fraudulent.
>>>>
>>>> That's the cost of making PV when you use free public-domain
>>>> 20-year-old expired patents.
And creative accounting.
>>>> What technology do you use to make PV?
>>> lets see, sand, purified to 99.9%,
>> 99.99% with 99.9999% of some impurities removed.
>
> Versus aluminum at 90%.
>
>>> acid washed,
>> Bauxite is acid washed to get alumina before electrolysis
>
> yes, but in different acid, hydrochloric is easy to handle and
> harmless, hydroflouric is lethal.
I might be confused about which part of the process you're talking about
here, but you're talking about washing sand then you'd be using
hydrochloric acid. Hydrofluoric acid would dissolve the sand and leave
nothing of interest for coking. The silicon would still be recoverable,
mind you, but doing so would require a different process than is used by
virtually every silicon producer today. (This is not a step that is
typically done by solar cell manufacturers themselves, though it may be
in the future.)
>>> wiresawed,
>> Beer cans die-cut into disks, repeatedly stretched into cup shapes,
>> neck trimmed
>
> All of which costs 10% of what a precision wiresawing process
> costs.
Yes, HUGE difference between die cutting and wire sawing. Wire sawing
alone costs more than the raw silicon consumed to make the wafer and
represents nearly half the finished wafer's cost.
>>> p-doped, an n-doped electron deposited coating, a
>> Beercan lids punched discs, shaped, stamped, poptab riveted.
>
> not even remotely comparable.
Doping for solar cells is not done by electron deposition (by which I
suspect you mean ion implantation -- electron deposition would merely
leave a static charge on the wafer), as it is too expensive for PV.
Typically n-type doping is done via gas phase deposition at high
temperature or a liquid spray-on dopant; p-type doping is typically done
using screen-printed aluminum paste, though some manufacturers use a
gas-phase boron deposition.
>>> nonreflective coating,
>> Beer cans get coated inside and outside.
>
> Beer cans get sprayed on coatings, the process for pv cells is an
> electron deposition coating which needs to be done in a cleanroom type
> environment, again, not even remotely comparable.
Again, electron deposition (by which, in this case, I suspect you mean
electron beam evaporation) is too expensive for PV. For most solar
cells, the antireflection coating is grown via plasma-enhanced chemical
vapor deposition. It's cheaper than evaporation methods mainly because
it doesn't require as strong a vacuum, can handle many more wafers in a
single batch, and is faster. Semiconductor-fab-type cleanroom conditions
are not required, just a coat, booties, and maybe a cap. It's certainly
no cleaner than a room for painting beer cans should be.
>>> printed wiring grid,
>> Beer cans get screen printed in 4 color inks using same silk-screening
>> technology.
>
> No, screen printing is about as comparable to semicondocter
> electron deposition printing as a model T is to a stealth bomber.
Actually, the contacts on most solar cells are screen printed in exactly
the same way designed are printed onto t-shirts (though they are subject
to tighter tolerances and different optimizations -- you'll get lousy
results if you use an actual t-shirt printer to make solar cells).
Evaporated contacts, again, are too expensive for PV.
>>> an aluminum backing,
>> Beer cans get an aluminum backing <giggle>.
>>> sintered contacts, hydroflouric acid,
>> Actually HF is an unwanted waste product from some industries -- set up
>> shop next door and they'll give you a bunch for free.
HF is actually one of the more expensive chemicals used in PV
manufacturing. Last I looked, it was about $1300/ton, compared to
$55/ton for sulfuric acid, $75/ton for hydrochloric acid, $175/ton for
sodium hydroxide, and $200/ton for nitric acid (some or all of which may
be used, depending on the manufacturer and process). Of course, the
volume of HF used is typically much smaller than the other acids, so
actual expenditures on HF are probably fairly low for most PV manufacturers.
> Problem isn't obtaining the acid, it's being in a room with the
> stuff, lethal vapors, explosive vapors, lethal on contact, extremely
> corrosive, expensive to dispose of, nasty stuff. expensive to have
> around.
"Lethal on contact" is a bit of an overstatement -- in fact, it's
usually painless on contact, and many who are exposed don't develop
symptoms for hours or even days (and some of them don't even realize
they were exposed until they develop symptoms, by which time it's too
late for treatment). I was exposed once, and knew only because I felt
the burn of the nitric acid I had mixed it with. It's generally only
lethal if a sizable portion of skin is exposed to it, though as little
2.5% body exposure has resulted in death; in such a case, if you *don't*
die you're in for a very slow, extremely painful recovery. It's
non-combustible, and therefore not an explosion hazard, and its vapor
pressure is low enough that at room temperature, which is typically how
it's used in the PV industry, the vapors are not dangerous. (I'm
required to know all this stuff or they won't let me in the lab.)
As for added cost beyond the purchase price, you need to have calcium
gluconate gel in your first aid kit and I suppose your insurance
premiums might be affected. Beyond that, it's no different than any
other acid. Mixing it with a base neutralizes it, so it is even disposed
of the same way as any other acid.
>> Not all of your assumptions are true, by the way, and only apply to
>> certain pathways
>
> The ones that's used by all current manufacturers.
Except as noted above.
hanson
aka "Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones" aka
<Global.Warming at ARMY.com> / " <Net_Police at h2-pv.us>
aka "Exxon Pays Liars" <Exxon.Lies at ecovilliage.us> aka
"Exxon Crime Spree" <Exxon.RICO.Frauds at ecovilliage.us> aka
"Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?" <Loin.Knutz at ecovilliage.us>
"H2-PV, PV-H2" <foo at h2-pv.us>... BEGGED as the
*PV-Pink Vagina electro stooge*
>
"Have A Business? Want Green Power? How About Getting Solar
PV Power No Money Down?
>
[hanson]
You still don't get it. They're ROTFLTAO over you, "Awe Shit", you
poor sod. They do liken you to a dolphin that is breathing through
an asshole on the top of its head... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA..
For some reason "Awe Shit" falls for the gag when Exxon or other
biggies in the Energy production field utter "green notions" and he
says "wow", "Awe Shit". But the simple worldly fact is that the oil
giants have a, to him sinister looking, FANTASTIC 2-tier biz model:
a) to KILL OFF any competing green enterprises by
LOWERING the oil price and driving them into bankruptcy.
b) to KILL OFF any competing green endeavors by
INCREASING the oil price to drain the investment pool
for green startups and then buying them out, and then....
shelving any product that interferes with their oil markets.
Here is some more on how "Awe Shit"s nemesis operates
to "bankrupt-the-greenies" with unmitigated success:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2084d8f1e6393226
In addition, in 1979, they manipulated & bankrupted Prez Jimmy
Carter's Govt. owned Synthetic Fuel Oil Corp that he/Congress
had set up to make the US energy independent.
It was an $80 Billion fiasco. -- Oil boys won!
.... only nuke energy will perhaps
change the current energy production picture. GW will NOT
have any influence on it, except to make some bread for
Al Gore who sucks and leeches off it for his personal benefit.
In the following link you can see precisely why we have the sorry
current situation over which "Awe Shit" goes "Awe Shit"
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/msg/300a43bcbf8937a1
>
To "Awe Shit"s' credit it must be said and he must be
commended for how masterfully he makes the greenies look
even more stupid then they already are... AHAHAHAHA...
But he never sees that it was his greedy green enviro ilk
that was the fundamental cause and bears the guilt for the
current sorry condition at large, because the enviros were
and are as corrupt as any Enron goon. Here is why:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/ea5b37d3b928ae91
ahahaha... ahahahanson
bill
Either way, a wildly different animal from slapping on a coat of
paint.
> >>> nonreflective coating,
> >> Beer cans get coated inside and outside.
> > Beer cans get sprayed on coatings, the process for pv cells is an
> > electron deposition coating which needs to be done in a cleanroom type
> > environment, again, not even remotely comparable.
>
> Again, electron deposition (by which, in this case, I suspect you mean
> electron beam evaporation) is too expensive for PV. For most solar
> cells, the antireflection coating is grown via plasma-enhanced chemical
> vapor deposition. It's cheaper than evaporation methods mainly because
> it doesn't require as strong a vacuum, can handle many more wafers in a
> single batch, and is faster. Semiconductor-fab-type cleanroom conditions
> are not required, just a coat, booties, and maybe a cap. It's certainly
> no cleaner than a room for painting beer cans should be.
Again, either way, a wildly different animal from spraypainting a
beer can :)
> >>> printed wiring grid,
> >> Beer cans get screen printed in 4 color inks using same silk-screening
> >> technology.
> > No, screen printing is about as comparable to semicondocter
> > electron deposition printing as a model T is to a stealth bomber.
> Actually, the contacts on most solar cells are screen printed in exactly
> the same way designed are printed onto t-shirts (though they are subject
> to tighter tolerances and different optimizations -- you'll get lousy
> results if you use an actual t-shirt printer to make solar cells).
> Evaporated contacts, again, are too expensive for PV.
interesting.
nice. I stand corrected on the risks of HF acid.
> As for added cost beyond the purchase price, you need to have calcium
> gluconate gel in your first aid kit and I suppose your insurance
> premiums might be affected. Beyond that, it's no different than any
> other acid. Mixing it with a base neutralizes it, so it is even disposed
> of the same way as any other acid.
hey, perhaps you're the guy for this, can you give me a quick
overview of the total process? it's REALLY hard to find anything
worthwhile for that on the web.
Aidan Karley
wrote:
> However, the question is about the north west (of Scotland).
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast/tides/scotland_01.shtml gives some
tide tables.
Sound of Mull 10:47 ; Loch Huorn 10:23 ; Portree 11:22 ; Gairloch 11:27
; Ullapool 11:47 ; Stornoway 11:55 ; Durness 12:30 ; Scapa Flow 14:40 ;
Wick 16:20 ; Invergordon 17:01 ; Inverness 17:10.
Plenty of appropriate variation in timing there.
And don't forget that any realistic set of schemes is going to
involve the power lines congregating at either Inverness, Fort Bill, or
possibly Oban, so load balancing equipment, pumped storage or whatever
is put together would be sited in one of those areas.
Can we have the row about pylons versus trenched cables now, or
shall we save it for next month?
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Written at Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:04 GMT, but posted later.
Aidan Karley
> The biggest problem with nuclear power is waste disposal, and that
> really isn't a problem.
>
will pay the bill for maintenance, for fear of being ankle-deep in
glowing green slime.
If Scotland goes independent, build a repository under Holyrood.
Same argument.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland
Alex Terrell
R.H. Allen wrote:
> >
> > economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
> > simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
>
> Actually it's not so simple. Nuclear and PV power are used in two
> completely different circumstances -- base load and peak load,
But that causes a big problem in the northern countries, since peak
load is rarely correlated with sunshine. That's why I think wind energy
is a better investment for the UK - peak load is reasonably correlated
with peak production. In hot countries with a lot of air conditioning,
solar is very effective.
> respectively -- so comparing their costs is meaningless. Compare nuclear
> to coal or biomass, if you must compare it to something, and PV to
> natural gas and hydropower. And in the case of non-utility generation
> (such as residential or commercial PV systems), compare the cost to the
> *retail* cost of electricity, as in those cases the generation cost of
> grid power means nothing to the owner of the PV system.
>
> > but today it isn't feasible to install pv for electricity production
> > where grid energy is available.
>
> I suspect you meant to say that it isn't cost-effective, as the large
> number of grid-connected PV systems around the world attest to its
> feasibility. And even where cost-effectiveness is concerned, it depends
> very much upon where you are and what your situation is. For most of the
> industrialized world, it is still not cost-effective, but exceptions exist.
>
> PV costs are comparable to grid power rates in many parts of Japan, for
> example, and the end of Japan's subsidy program a few years ago hardly
> slowed PV sales there. PV also costs less than California's highest
> utility rates and could be used cost-effectively for certain
> applications there even without the state government's subsidies. And
> there are plenty of niche applications for which PV is ideally suited
> even when grid power is available nearby, though the fastest-growing
> market in the PV industry is for grid-connected systems.
In Germany you get about 50 cents per KWr you sell back to the grid,
and this gives it a payback of a few years. But in northern climates,
no amount of PV is going to reduce the required capacity of other
sources.
bill
Alex Terrell wrote:
> R.H. Allen wrote:
>
> > >
> > > economically, as mass energy production methods go, it's REALLY
> > > simple, pv is 10x as expensive per kwh produced.
> >
> > Actually it's not so simple. Nuclear and PV power are used in two
> > completely different circumstances -- base load and peak load,
>
> But that causes a big problem in the northern countries, since peak
> load is rarely correlated with sunshine. That's why I think wind energy
> is a better investment for the UK - peak load is reasonably correlated
> with peak production. In hot countries with a lot of air conditioning,
> solar is very effective.
well, northern countries don't get much insolation anyway, so it's
a bad application of PV on both fronts. wind is almost always a better
application of energy $, you only have so many of them, it's better to
get as many kwh for them as you can. Note the large number of
multi-megawatt wind installations and the almost total absence of
multimegawatt pv installations.
holy fucksky!! glad I don't live there! at that price, any form
of energy production produces a quick payback.
H2-PV, PV-H2
I just pointed out that 99.9999% purity is even a harder nut to crack
than 99.9% you used, and yet acid washing does it. 40% of the sand is
gone after acid washing, which is no biggie when sand costs $20/ton and
Solar-Grade Si sells for $60/pound.
>
> > > acid washed,
> > Bauxite is acid washed to get alumina before electrolysis
>
> yes, but in different acid, hydrochloric is easy to handle and
> harmless, hydroflouric is lethal.
The acids used in washing bauxite are just as lethal, or would you show
the people how safe they are by publicly taking a bath in them? Dead is
dead, and one is not more dead by one acid than another. More people
are maimed by car battery acid explosions than all other acid related
accidents. Are you suggesting banning car batteries?
WORK is inherently lethal, and every single human being who ever worked
before the year 1900 is now dead. In fact, doctor's agree that the
leading cause of death is birth. Dumbness and carelessness seems part
of the dying causation -- it's nature's way of telling you that your
genes need to leave the genepool.
Hydrofluoric Acid is a byproduct created by making phosphates for
detergents and fertilizers. Are you saying they kill all their workers
all the time? Does OSHA know about this? Shouldn't you be telling the
NY Times?
>
> > > melted into ingots,
> > Aluminum electrolysis product is cast into ingots that must be forged
> > into rolled flat stock
>
> corrrect.
>
> > > wiresawed,
> > Beer cans die-cut into disks, repeatedly stretched into cup shapes,
> > neck trimmed
>
> All of which costs 10% of what a precision wiresawing process
> costs.
Er, that is precisely 10%, not 11% or 9.5%? And you found this number
by a diligent search up your colon carefully examining all brown
numbers did you? So, tell us what the horsepower of your saws are
versus the horsepower of the electric motors doing the die-cutting,
stamping, stretching, forming, riveting on pop tops?
How many horsepower does it take to spin a reel of wire in a saw
machine? Where did you learn this?
> > > p-doped, an n-doped electron deposited coating, a
> > Beercan lids punched discs, shaped, stamped, poptab riveted.
>
> not even remotely comparable.
Screw you with the EXXON DICK IN YOUR MOUTH. You're right it's not
comparable: the aluminum operation has far greater capital costs.
> > > nonreflective coating,
> > Beer cans get coated inside and outside.
>
> Beer cans get sprayed on coatings, the process for pv cells is an
> electron deposition coating which needs to be done in a cleanroom type
> environment, again, not even remotely comparable.
The "clean-room" is a chamber in a box in a machine. You can buy the
machine with the box with the chamber inside and operate it pretty much
on the factory floor.
That EXXON DICK sticking in your face is really pumping hard now.
> > > printed wiring grid,
> > Beer cans get screen printed in 4 color inks using same silk-screening
> > technology.
>
> No, screen printing is about as comparable to semicondocter
> electron deposition printing as a model T is to a stealth bomber.
"Semicondoctor" is that your part-time quack proctologist you hire to
remove Exxon oil-field tools accidently left behind up your behind?
How about you said "printed wiring grid" which is silk screened like
T-shirts and beer can logos. Are those comparable to each other? Most
PV is silk screened paste through silk screens.
> > > an aluminum backing,
> > Beer cans get an aluminum backing <giggle>.
> > > sintered contacts, hydroflouric acid,
> > Actually HF is an unwanted waste product from some industries -- set up
> > shop next door and they'll give you a bunch for free.
>
> Problem isn't obtaining the acid, it's being in a room with the
> stuff, lethal vapors, explosive vapors, lethal on contact, extremely
> corrosive, expensive to dispose of, nasty stuff. expensive to have
> around.
Yup. So? You wouldn't be posting your shit if Intel didn't use it to
make Pentium chips. Unlike Exxon dicksuckers, the rest of the world
understands that dangerous chemicals are used under controlled
circumstances to make stuff people need and want. Only you dicksuckers
think that products are made out of sugar and spice and everything
nice. If it wasn't for HF acid you wouldn't have so many choices in the
grocery store, because tons and tons and tons of the shit are made in
the process of making fertilizers for farmers to grow stuff. So where's
all your dead fertilizer workers, hummmm?
> > > Hydrogen bromide, and phosphoric
> > > oxide trichloride used in the manufacturing process, silicone hydroxide
> > > as a waste product, ,
> > Alumina bathed in cryolites for electrolysis. Electrolysis tank with
> > complicated disposable liners, consumable carbon electrodes needing
> > regular replacement.
>
> Yot used in beer can manufacture :)
If you don't use aluminum to make your beer cans your statement is
true, otherwise you need crolite bath as solvent for the alumina, which
also dissolves the tank so you need liners that get replaced made of
stuff hot cryolite don't melt, and you need the carbon electrodes to
carbonize the O2 into CO2 to purify the aluminum from alumina. Then you
have something you can go on to make beer cans with.
You are comparing beer cans from Aluminum-rolls-to-cans to PV from
Sand-to-panels. The proper comparison to both starts at sand/bauxite
minerals.
>
> > and you think that's comparable to a beer-can?
> > > what planet do you live on?
> >
> > Beer cans = 16 kilowatthours per kilogram alumina electrolysis.
> >
> > Silicon electromagnetic casting = 12 kilowatthours per kilogram melt
> > and polycrystalization.
> > You have successfully convinced me that PV rightfully should cost
> > considerably less than beer cans on a mass weight comparison of
> > product.
> >
> > Not all of your assumptions are true, by the way, and only apply to
> > certain pathways
>
> The ones that's used by all current manufacturers.
Squirt, Squirt, Squirt goes Exxon's Dick in your paid-lying face.
> Perhaps it would help if you'd post your total process, including
> the chemicals and processes involved in each step.
http://H2-PV.US/wiki/
http://USPTO.com
They are already posted, asshole. Where's yours?
R.H. Allen
>
> hey, perhaps you're the guy for this, can you give me a quick
> overview of the total process? it's REALLY hard to find anything
> worthwhile for that on the web.
Sure. I would characterize this overview as a typical process for making
wafer-based silicon PV, but most manufacturers have their own versions
of the process. Some deviate only slightly, others deviate much more.
The process can be outlines thusly:
1. Grow silicon ingot
2. Slice ingot into wafers
3. Clean wafers
4. Diffuse n-type emitter into wafers
5. Apply antireflection coating
6. Apply front contact
7. Apply rear contact
8. Sinter contacts and form back surface field
9. Apply solder pads
10. Sinter solder pads
11. Test and sort cells
12. Interconnect cells
13. Laminate cells between glass and backing material
14. Apply module frame
15. Test modules
Most PV manufacturers start with raw silicon feedstock -- the same stuff
the IC industry starts with -- and produce finished PV modules. The
silicon feedstock is first melted down and cast into a multicrystalline
ingot or grown into a single-crystal boule (the market is about 2/3
multicrystalline and 1/3 single-crystal). Multicrystalline ingots are
typically grown using a method called directional solidification, and
versions of DS that produce large grain sizes are preferred over those
that produce small ones (that should help if you wish to google for more
details), as the grain boundaries are electrically active in a
detrimental way. Single-crystal boules are almost always grown using the
same Czochralski method that is used in the IC industry. There are also
some novel growth techniques in use, most notably Evergreen Solar's
string ribbon method and Schott Solar's EFG method.
The string ribbon and EFG methods produce flat ribbons of silicon that
can be turned into wafers by simply cutting them into sections so there
is almost no loss of silicon. As you know, ingots and boules are sawed
into wafers using wire saws. This is an area where the PV industry is on
the cutting edge relative to the the IC industry -- even though many IC
manufacturers are now using wire saws, they cut thicker wafers and cut
them more slowly. The PV industry, on the other hand, wants thinner
wafers with minimal loss of silicon and is experimenting with thinner
wires, different cutting materials, and higher cutting speeds.
Unlike IC wafers, PV wafers are not polished. They undergo a series of
short acid baths to clean residual metals and organic materials from the
surfaces, and possibly to etch a light-trapping texture into the
surface. Some manufacturers do all of this with a single NaOH bath,
while other will include sulfuric and hydrochloric acids in the process.
If the cleaning step leaves an oxide layer on the surface it is removed
with an HF dip before proceeding.
Emitter diffusion is accomplished using a variety of methods, but the
most common are phosphorus oxychloride gas in a quartz tube furnace (as
is often done in the IC industry) or phosphoric acid-based spray
followed by diffusion in a belt furnace. This process leaves a
phosphorus glass on the surface that is removed by HP dip.
Antireflection coatings nowadays are usually silicon nitride because it
also passivates the surface of the wafer, though titanium dioxide is
still in use. SiN is deposited using plasma-enhanced chemical vapor
deposition, but sputtering is under evaluation as a lower-cost
alternative. When the AR coating is titanium dioxide it is generally
applied later in the process.
Front and rear contacts are applied via screen printing. While it is
based on the same process used in printing t-shirts, it is applied in a
much more precise manner. On the front, too much metal means you're
blocking light that could otherwise be converted to electricity (and
needlessly spending money on expensive silver paste). Too little metal
and you get high resistivity "necks" in the gridlines that cause cell
efficiency to plummet. A lot of work has been done to make the gridlines
as small as possible without making the contacts highly resistive, and
some of that work is now making its way into production.
The rear requires less precision as far as line widths go, and often the
entire rear of the cell is covered with paste. Since this uses so much
paste, though, it does require precision in the thickness in order to
avoid wasting paste. Aluminum is used on the rear because it is much
cheaper than silver and can be diffused into the cell to form a back
surface field. However, you can't solder to aluminum, so a second
printing of silver is done over a limited area in order to form solder pads.
Cell efficiency is extremely sensitive to the quality of the contacts,
so manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure it is consistent.
Manually operated screen printers can be had for less than $20,000, but
most manufacturers gladly pay $100,000 or more for automated,
programmable printers. The difference in yield and more efficient use of
expensive raw materials is typically enough for the pricier models to
pay for themselves in short order.
Sintering of the contacts (and diffusion of the back surface field, if
applicable) is done by firing the wafers for a few minutes in a belt or
tube furnace. Finding just the right firing profile for the contacts is
also crucial to high-quality contacts, and manufacturers guard their
profiles jealously.
With the cells finished, they are tested and sorted so that only cells
with very similar characteristics will end up in the same module
together. Because this is the first time the cells are extensively
handled and probed, breakage rates tend to be higher at this step than
at most others. Some see this as a good thing, since it weeds out
mechanically weak cells before they're put into modules. Others think
they only break because of rough handling....
Next the cells are laid out as they will sit inside the module. Tabs are
soldered to the cells and they are electrically interconnected. The
finished strings of modules are placed between layers of EVA, a silicone
used to protect the cells inside the module, and that in turn is
sandwiched between a sheet of glass and a sheet of polymer backing
material. The whole thing is placed in a laminator that heats the
sandwich and melts the EVA. Once cool, the module is framed and the
external electrical connections are added. Finally, the module is tested.
I don't know if that qualifies as a "quick" overview, but hopefully it
tells you what you want to know....
bill
yep, that was exactly what I was looking for. thank you.
Alex Terrell
That's great. You should paste that somewhere into Wikipedia.
Are the front contacts normally silver, or could Al be used?
Is the Amorhphis Si:H process more like:
1. Get Aluminium foil
2. Vapor deposit Si
3. Diffuse H into Si
4. Apply front contacts
5. Apply anti reflection coating
I understand the efficiency is much less, but the cost is better,
though this might depend on the application..
Hohoho Hanson Loves Brown Turds, not Green Ones
In Northern Climates you just need more PV. The annual sunshine in the
United States is sufficient so that 49 of the 50 states either get 100%
of the power they need from a normal rooftop, or at least pockets in
the states do. Alaska entirely and parts of the Northeast and Great
Lakes states are short one hour per day. 3/4ths of the US is break-even
or better, with the southwest sunbelt being able to export electricity
from all or large parts of 9 states.
This is just for the home rooftops. If you are short on power in an
area, you can have solar farms on land especially used for solar power.
Since electricity flows on wires, 1/6th of the country can power 6/6ths
of the country, and nobody buying electricity would care that it was
made on somebody else's rooftop instead of their own, since they are
buying electricity delivered on wires right now today anyway.
Germany imports electricity from Denmark and Sweden, and could just as
easily import it from the denuded hills of sunny Greece. It's not that
far -- look on the maps.
You forget that the EC is just one big country now, even if the quaint
old country names still exist -- Germany/Greece is like NYC/TVA grid,
about the same miles. Only a right-turd idjit would think in terms of
national boundaries being some kind of obstacle for power delivery.
Alex Terrell
R.H. Allen
> R.H. Allen wrote:
>>
>> tells you what you want to know....
>
> That's great. You should paste that somewhere into Wikipedia.
Thanks. Perhaps I shall. It would need a bit of cleaning up first, though.
> Are the front contacts normally silver, or could Al be used?
Yes, they're normally silver. I suppose it might be possible to use Al,
but its conductivity is lower, so the gridlines would have to be wider
and would block more of the incoming light. Plus, Al is a p-type dopant,
which would make it very tricky (if not impossible) to form good
contacts on an n-type surface as you find on the front of most silicon
solar cells. All of the examples I can think of involve the formation of
Schottky barriers rather than Ohmic contacts (and the latter are what
you want for a solar cell).
> Is the Amorhphis Si:H process more like:
>
> 1. Get Aluminium foil
> 2. Vapor deposit Si
> 3. Diffuse H into Si
> 4. Apply front contacts
> 5. Apply anti reflection coating
It depends. Unisolar's roll-to-roll process involves building the cell
from the bottom up, starting with the rear contact. Others build the
cell top-down, starting with the glass cover. Unisolar's process, as I
understand it, works something like this:
1. Start with roll of stainless steel
2. Vapor deposit thin layer of n-type amorphous Si
3. Vapor deposit (relatively) thick layer of undoped a-Si
4. Vapor deposit thin layer of p-type amorphous Si
5. Vapor deposit transparent conducting oxide
6. Apply flexible cover
A glass module would start with the glass cover and reverse those steps,
ending with some sort of metal backing. Some processes also include a
conductive reflector between the metal back and the n-doped layer to
reflect unabsorbed light back into the solar cell.
The transparent conducting oxide acts as both the front contact and the
antireflection coating. Hydrogen is alloyed into the Si during the
deposition process, as the amorphous silicon is produced from silane
(SiH4) and, for the doped layer, its derivatives (e.g., SiBH3).
> I understand the efficiency is much less, but the cost is better,
> though this might depend on the application..
Depends on how you define "better". The cost is less per square meter,
but the cost per watt is about the same as crystalline silicon (and at
least one recent survey found the retail price per watt was higher).
Certainly the cost drivers are different. With crystalline silicon
material costs are responsible for about 2/3 of the total cost of a
module, whereas with amorphous silicon the driver is the capital cost of
the plant (thanks to all the vacuum processing equipment).
One thing that appears to be true is that amorphous silicon will produce
more kWh per rated watt of capacity. It isn't anything underhanded, it
just has to do with the different ways in which amorphous and
crystalline silicon respond to different wavelengths of light.
Crystalline silicon still comes out way ahead in terms of energy yield
per square meter, though....
God
"z" <gzuc...@snail-mail.net> wrote
> Because we don't dispose of it, we just leave it sitting around!
Hiding it won't solve the problem either. And expanding the production of
nuclear waste by a factor of 50,000 if the world is to have a nuclear
powered future, isn't going to help matters any is it?
God
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> Nuclear is the only viable long term solution
> for propulision,
I don't think you are going to have a nuclear powered car any time soon.
<zzbu...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> The moron greenies have delayed it long enough
> now it''ll cost the idiots ten times what it would
> 20 years ago, inflation adjusted,
Which is still less if the industry were not excused from paying for
accident insurance.
I am all in favour of Nuclear power. I just oppose allowing ignorant
monkeys like you from working the control panels.
You are simply too ignorant a species to be trusted.
God
"Aidan Karley" <name1...@email.provider.invalid> wrote
> Bury it under the Houses of Parliament. Then the politicians
> will pay the bill for maintenance, for fear of being ankle-deep in
> glowing green slime.
It will keep them warm.
Eeyore
God wrote:
Where do you get 50,000 from ?
Graham
zzbu...@netscape.net
On Jan 23, 5:27 pm, "God" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > Nuclear is the only viable long term solution
> > for propulision, I don't think you are going to have a nuclear powered car any time soon.
>
> <zzbun...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> > The moron greenies have delayed it long enough
> > now it''ll cost the idiots ten times what it would
> > 20 years ago, inflation adjusted, Which is still less if the industry were not excused from paying for
> accident insurance.
>
> I am all in favour of Nuclear power. I just oppose allowing ignorant
> monkeys like you from working the control panels.
>
> You are simply too ignorant a species to be trusted.
Well, since I seroiusly doubt a ignorant
retard like you has ever seen anything nuclear
and than idiot GE prefabs, it's make no difference.
Since in 100 years retards like GE and Westingtonhouse will
be owned by 7-11, rather than energy companies.
VistaKing
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Where do you get 50,000 from ?
Global energy consumption = U.S. per capita levels.
All energy coming from Nuclear.
Global population 15 billion.
Current Reactor count 400
Eeyore
VistaKing wrote:
You must be crazy to think the world needs US energy consumption levels.You're
the most wateful energy users on the planet !
Graham
zzbu...@netscape.net
On Jan 9, 11:26 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Aidan Karley wrote:
> > In article <njb7q21352bifk553n6g708pigoe6kc...@4ax.com>, David Hansen
> > wrote:
> > > Also note that slack water times are not the same everywhere at the
> > > same time. However, in Scotland there would be a fair variation on
> > > tidal output due to the massive influence of one area of output.
> > > However, this variation is worth living with.
>
> > If I recall my tide tables correctly (it's been a few years
> > since I looked at a set to predict tides for going diving), there's the
> > best part of 6 hours high tide time difference just between Edinburgh
> > and Aberdeen, so suitable bi-directional tidal power stations at that
> > sort of spacing would be able to pick up the load one from the other
> > and stabilise the power input to the grid considerably.
> > (I'm not proposing this as being workable - it's just an
> > illustration that tidal phase is unlikely to be a total show-stopper
> > for tidal power, just another issue for the engineering to deal with at
> > the design stage.)Tidal power is certainly entirely practical but I believe the capital costs make
> it very expensive.
That's what Exxon would want you to believe.
Since the idiots have so much money
tied up in the Suez Canal, that all other
energy systems, seem very wasteful.
Which is why those idiots invented
propellers, and other people
invented jets, sattelites, computers,
and submarines.
>
> Graham
VistaKing
> VistaKing wrote:
> > Global energy consumption = U.S. per capita levels.
> > All energy coming from Nuclear.
> > Global population 15 billion.
> > Current Reactor count 400
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> You must be crazy to think the world needs US energy consumption
levels.You're
> the most wateful energy users on the planet !
I'm not an AmeriKKKan. I agree with you by the way. But that agreement
is predicated on increasing consumptive efficiency in the rest of the world
so that they aren't as wasteful as the Dung Eating population of the U.S.
But an increase in consumptive efficiency is all that is needed to avoid
the need for producing those nuclear power plants in the first place.
The Nuclear argument goes, "We can't reduce our consumption, hence we must
meet our current energy requirements with Nuclear."
The argument is Hogwash of course. But if true, 200,000 reactors will be
required world wide.
bill
On Jan 25, 1:24 am, "VistaKing" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > VistaKing wrote:
> > > Global energy consumption = U.S. per capita levels.
> > > All energy coming from Nuclear.
> > > Global population 15 billion.
> > > Current Reactor count 400
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > You must be crazy to think the world needs US energy consumption
> levels.You're
> > the most wateful energy users on the planet ! I'm not an AmeriKKKan. I agree with you by the way. But that agreement
> is predicated on increasing consumptive efficiency in the rest of the world
> so that they aren't as wasteful as the Dung Eating population of the U.S.
>
> But an increase in consumptive efficiency is all that is needed to avoid
> the need for producing those nuclear power plants in the first place.
>
> The Nuclear argument goes, "We can't reduce our consumption, hence we must
> meet our current energy requirements with Nuclear."
>
> The argument is Hogwash of course. But if true, 200,000 reactors will be
> required world wide.
15000 to meet TWICE the current demand for both electric and oil
consumption. your 200k number is bullshit.
richard schumacher
More like 50,000. World population will peak at nine billion, and we
can achieve energy efficiency at least as good as that of Europe today.
If not nuclear then a large fraction of our power will have to come from
space-based Solar, which will be cheaper than wind and ground-based
Solar because it is not intermittent and not regional.
Eeyore
richard schumacher wrote:
> > The argument is Hogwash of course. But if true, 200,000 reactors will be
> > required world wide.
>
> More like 50,000.
Less.
> World population will peak at nine billion,
Why as high as that ?
> and we can achieve energy efficiency at least as good as that of Europe today.
Better I'd hope. Energy efficiency is easy.
Graham
VistaKing
"richard schumacher" <no-...@invalid.net> wrote in message news:no-spam-
> More like 50,000. World population will peak at nine billion, and we
> can achieve energy efficiency at least as good as that of Europe today.
This is doable, yes with that population <and> energy efficiency programs
added. But this requires a substantial reduction in U.S. Gluttony. It's
coming either as a result of enlightened self interest or through the
imposition of poverty and death.
The choice is yours.
"richard schumacher" <no-...@invalid.net> wrote in message news:no-spam-
> If not nuclear then a large fraction of our power will have to come from
> space-based Solar, which will be cheaper than wind and ground-based
> Solar because it is not intermittent and not regional.
Energy solutions exist, they simply are impractical without large
improvements in consumptive efficiency and the sociatal restructuring that
will be required and that will put a final end to wage slavery.
VistaKing
Only if the U.S. cut's its energy consumption to 1/8th it's current value.
> > World population will peak at nine billion,
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Why as high as that ?
Because it's already at 7 billion +.
VistaKing
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Energy efficiency is easy.
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:8t8vh.39$ff5...@newsfe05.lga...
> Well shit then, who needs nukular when we can just get a whole lot more
> energy ficient.
Exatly the point kT.
Eeyore
VistaKing wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Less.
>
> Only if the U.S. cut's its energy consumption to 1/8th it's current value.
Why 1/8th ?
Graham
VistaKing
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Why 1/8th ?
250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
30,000 reactors world widw at 1/8th the U.S. consumption rate.
18,000 if you believe the world population will increase to only 8 billion.
Change won't start for anoother 5 years minimum with 2% compounded growth
since 1998 = 29% output growth. = 23,000 required reactors.
So it's not a cut to 1/8th it's a cut to 1/4.
dave.w...@comcast.net
> But an increase in consumptive efficiency is all that is needed to avoid
> the need for producing those nuclear power plants in the first place.
>
> The Nuclear argument goes, "We can't reduce our consumption, hence we must
> meet our current energy requirements with Nuclear."
>
> The argument is Hogwash of course. But if true, 200,000 reactors will be
> required world wide.
Do you make these numbers up out of thin air? Perhaps you'd like us to
go back to plowing land with mules and a iron-plow? At *most* we're
talking about 4,000 new reactors (that is, 10 times the number we have
today at between 1000 and 1500 MWs) worldwide. No one has any plans to
reduce consumptions and lower our standard of living because the
Chinese and Indians are headlong to RAISE the standard of living of
their people. The more nukes the Chinese build, the more old coal-
fired plants they can shutdown. Without an alternative to coal, you
can kiss any 'savings' good-bye.
David Walters
Eeyore
VistaKing wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > Why 1/8th ?
>
> 250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
US rates of consumption are no basis for intelligent planning.
Graham
Eeyore
dave.w...@comcast.net wrote:
> No one has any plans to reduce consumption
No ? Europe has.
> and lower our standard of living
'Standard of living' is an inappropriate measure. It assumes energy wastefulness
is good.
Graham
nada
On Jan 28, 6:09 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> dave.walt...@comcast.net wrote:
> > No one has any plans to reduce consumptionNo ? Europe has.
>
> > and lower our standard of living'Standard of living' is an inappropriate measure. It assumes energy wastefulness
> is good.
>
> Graham
Europe has by inceasing efficiences. I have not problem with this. But
the overall net gain is cancelled by the increasing demand from more
people seeking a 'higher standard of living' and general expansion of
the economy. By and large, even in Europe, there are ZERO plans for
reduced consumption of electrical power only incremental plans to
reduce the *increase* in demand for electrical power.
Aging coal plants, for example, have to be replaced. This is the big
debate. Right now, French nuclear power is subsidizing Danish and
Dutch windpower and much of northwest Italy. What is the plan to
substitute 100,000 megawatts of fossil power?
David Walters
VistaKing
> VistaKing wrote:
> > 250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> US rates of consumption are no basis for intelligent planning.
Yes, U.S. rates of consumption will have to be vastly reduced. This is
very self evident once one sees the reactor counts required. As such they
form a good basis to start from. A nice impossible to achieve benchmark.
Yet AmeriKKKans who are chipper to promote Nuclear Power as the solution to
all the worlds energy problems, just dont' seem capable of grasping the
magnitude of the problem.
How many reactor facilities are you willing to tollerate in the world? 10
times current levels? 100 times? 500 times?
Can't stomach 500 times the current number where Iran, North Korea, Syria
and Lebanon each have 500? Then you had better start talking about very
serious reductions in energy consumption on the order of 75 to 90 percent.
Or put your bets on as yet unproven technologies like Fusion. Or start
getting serious about PV, Wind, Geothermal, and wave power.
.
nada
reactors NOW. The world could use 6,000 or so. What's too much for
you? At the end of the day, nuclear power is cheapest, from mining to
disposal of the little waste that is produced in we close the fuel
cycle, like the French have.
Why 'reduce concumption'? I'm all for more efficiency, who isn't? But
that's different than reducing consumption. Why reduced 'consumption'
when we can expand it at not ecological costs?
David Walters
On Jan 28, 7:07 pm, "VistaKing" <BushIsATrai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > VistaKing wrote:
> > > 250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Dan Bloomquist
What planning?
Dan Bloomquist
Eeyore wrote:
>
> dave.w...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
>>No one has any plans to reduce consumption
>
>
> No ? Europe has.
>
>
>
>>and lower our standard of living
>
>
> 'Standard of living'....
Economies are what count, not usenet interpretations......
Dan Bloomquist
nada wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 6:09 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>dave.walt...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>>No one has any plans to reduce consumptionNo ? Europe has.
>>
>>>and lower our standard of living'Standard of living' is an inappropriate measure. It assumes energy wastefulness
>>
>>is good.
>>
>>Graham
>
>
> Europe has by inceasing efficiences.....
And when the Russians cut you off.......
Dan Bloomquist
VistaKing wrote:
>>VistaKing wrote:
>>
>>>250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
>
>
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>US rates of consumption are no basis for intelligent planning.
>
>
> Yes, U.S. rates of consumption will have to be vastly reduced....
By what plan? When do we start??????????
Dan Bloomquist
nada wrote:
> Bsically it's back 1910 for you, huh? No, the US can use 500 new
> reactors NOW........
When do we start? How does this solve our liquid fuel challenge??????
nada
On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
> nada wrote:
> > Bsically it's back 1910 for you, huh? No, the US can use 500 new
> > reactors NOW........When do we start? How does this solve our liquid fuel challenge??????
Good question. The less fossil we put into the grid, the more we can
use it for liquid/transport fuel, including CNG. If we elinited all NG
electircal production and used it for CNG, we could END the use of oil
for automobiles (actually not, but close).
Secondly, nuclear energy, especialy the high - temperatuee pebble bed
types (all 3 types) could be used for the direct production of H2.
Thirdly, with battery technology developing as it is, the 300 mile
electric car is available just about now.
David Walters
nada
On Jan 28, 9:53 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
When do we start??????????
Forgot to anwer this. If we take the money spent on the war in Iraq,
submit, say, 50 *new* applications for reactor expansions (new
greenfield, plus add ons to present dual-unit sites, which is what the
S. Koreans do) we could have those 50 built by 2013. That's 50 to 75
THOUSAND megawatts of new carbon-free power.
If we actually did use the money from the fossil-fuel war in
Iraq...then what's the 'cost' to consumer to build these plants?
NOTHING. To cheap to meter reality.
The cost of nukes comes down as more units are built of the same
design. Most of the newer Gen III plants are modular in design.
David Walters
VistaKing
"Dan Bloomquist" <publ...@lakeweb.com> wrote
> By what plan? When do we start??????????
Mine by default. Right now.
I started years ago but I don't hold that against you.
Dave Head
wrote:
>
>> VistaKing wrote:
>> > 250,000 reactors for 15 billion at U.S. rates of consumption 1998.
>
>
>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriend...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> US rates of consumption are no basis for intelligent planning.
>
> Yes, U.S. rates of consumption will have to be vastly reduced.
Sure. And we'll have to reduce that 30% of the world's GDP that we use that
energy to produce, too. Sounds like yet another scheme to move jobs out of the
USA...
>This is
>very self evident once one sees the reactor counts required. As such they
>form a good basis to start from. A nice impossible to achieve benchmark.
What's impossible? No such thing - we can build as many as we care to. Each
one will be paid for by paying electrical customers. There's going to be a lot
of 'em 'cuz we're about to make electric cars a reality.
> Yet AmeriKKKans who are chipper to promote Nuclear Power as the solution to
>all the worlds energy problems, just dont' seem capable of grasping the
>magnitude of the problem.
What problem? A lack of imagination, perhaps? Unjustified pessimism, perhaps?
> How many reactor facilities are you willing to tollerate in the world? 10
>times current levels? 100 times? 500 times?
As many as it takes...
> Can't stomach 500 times the current number where Iran, North Korea, Syria
>and Lebanon each have 500?
They can have reactors. They just can't refine nuclear fuel... all the way to
bomb-grade, which is what they would do.
>Then you had better start talking about very
>serious reductions in energy consumption on the order of 75 to 90 percent.
Sure. First, eliminate all the work people do - the economy collapses and
everyone attempts to live off the land. Second, we figure out that living off
the land hasn't been possible for about 150 years, and most everyone that
depends on bad old energy intensive farming dies. Population reduced by 90%.
Energy consumption reduced by 90%. Problem solved.
>Or put your bets on as yet unproven technologies like Fusion. Or start
>getting serious about PV, Wind, Geothermal, and wave power.
That last set is _also_ unproven technologies. Wind is the most well
developed, but if you build a wind turbine for ever possible area that could
support one, that still wouldn't support present electrical energy consumption
levels, and those are going to go up as electric cars start consuming
electrical power.
Dave Head
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
So-called 'standard of living' is still a daft measure. Ppl falsely imagine it
has some relation to human happiness. It has no such thing.
Graham
Eeyore
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Your negativity shines through again.
How about you make a suggestion ?
Graham
Dan Bloomquist
nada wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 9:59 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
>
>>nada wrote:
>>
>>>Bsically it's back 1910 for you, huh? No, the US can use 500 new
>>>reactors NOW........When do we start? How does this solve our liquid fuel challenge??????
>
>
> Good question. The less fossil we put into the grid, the more we can
> use it for liquid/transport fuel, including CNG. If we elinited all NG
> electircal production and used it for CNG, we could END the use of oil
> for automobiles (actually not, but close).
http://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php
We have coal, so NG input to the grid is 1.8 exajoules. I don't know the
ratio of simple peakers to CC but I'll call it .7 exajoules at the
output, 300 gigawatts. (check my numbers). But that is just 4% of our
liquid input. BTW, GTL is mature, no need for CNG. But this is not
likely to even offset declines in NG production.
> Secondly, nuclear energy, especialy the high - temperatuee pebble bed
> types (all 3 types) could be used for the direct production of H2.
How does a nuclear hydrogen infrastructure compare to the cost of CTL?
> Thirdly, with battery technology developing as it is, the 300 mile
> electric car is available just about now.
Sure, and at the rate we are going it won't have a 5% impact in even
decades.
See that is the catch. It is not what we could do, it is what we are doing.