Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Just a simple question about energy...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Just a simple question about energy... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/6/2009 8:44:03 PM   
purepleasure


Posts: 6941
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: Lehigh Valley, PA
Status: offline
what are next week's winning lottery numbers?

_____________________________

Patience, grasshopper.

Your stupidity does not impress me.

blame it on your hormones!!! - beerbug aka ydd

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/6/2009 8:47:08 PM   
purepleasure


Posts: 6941
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: Lehigh Valley, PA
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: PanthersMom

i see no reason for nuclear energy or weapons.  there are alternatives to both that have much less risk involved and reduced consequences should something happen that places the population at risk of harm.  we should have been developing them all along and living in harmony with our earth instead of finding new and more "impressive" ways to destroy it.

PM


_____________________________

Patience, grasshopper.

Your stupidity does not impress me.

blame it on your hormones!!! - beerbug aka ydd

(in reply to PanthersMom)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 5:27:06 AM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: purepleasure

what are next week's winning lottery numbers?


Dammit!!!!

Of all the questions you could have asked....you asked the ONE question I don't know the answer to!

Okay....go ahead....ask me anything else....anything at all.

(in reply to purepleasure)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 5:51:32 AM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

IrishKnight... That's true ONLY if nothing goes wrong. Of course, you could ask some of the folks within a 50 mile radius of Chernobyl what they think of the idea of several nuke plants in every city across the globe...

Actually, its true regardless.  Ask all of those born with birth defects or dying of cancer from coal plants if they are safe.  Nuclear remains safer than coal.  Solar, wind and tidal remain safer than both.

_____________________________

What man is a man who does not make his world better?


Soldiers died for your right to be ungrateful.

(in reply to MarsBonfire)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 9:42:22 AM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
"what are next week's winning lottery numbers?"

Oh, that's simple, but I am not sure which week. I only know because I stopped playing, my number was :

3, 5, 9, 23, 39, 43

Anyway, as far as Iran goes, let them have the bomb. Let them use it. Retaliate. Solve several problems at once.

T

(in reply to purepleasure)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 5:03:44 PM   
ArizonaSunSwitch


Posts: 205
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: purepleasure

I support renewable energy sources, such as wind, and biofuels.  However, I do not support nuclear energy.  Remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island?  Sorry, but a nuclear meltdown is something I don't want to have to worry about.


Ted Kennedy has killed more people drunk driving off of bridges than nuclear energy accidents in the United States or the rest of the free world for that matter. All the ignorant anti-nuclear sentiment in this country has prevented our older plants from being replaced with current *safer* technology.

Ie. reactors like these which are passively cooled and could be placed close to or in cities safely (and therefore not require trillions of dollars in long distance transmission line costs). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S.

But no...we'll continue to do stuff like wind farms which can only be connected to power grids in conjunction with conventional gas turbine generators. The gas turbines need to be throttled constantly to even out the power production as every gust or ebb of wind changes the windmill power output. This decreases the gas turbine efficiency so much they burn as much fossil fuel as they would if they were producing the entire load in the first place.

Solar (in AZ) makes some sense but would still be massively more expense than the micro reactor concept. You *STILL* have to have alternate generators available because contrary to popular opinion it does get dark in Arizona at night.

(in reply to purepleasure)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 5:36:57 PM   
ArizonaSunSwitch


Posts: 205
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"what are next week's winning lottery numbers?"

Oh, that's simple, but I am not sure which week. I only know because I stopped playing, my number was :

3, 5, 9, 23, 39, 43

Anyway, as far as Iran goes, let them have the bomb. Let them use it. Retaliate. Solve several problems at once.

T


What particular problem are you talking about ? Maybe our existence ? Seeing you only would need to detonate just *one* warhead high above kansas to fry every single non-hardened integrated circuit on this continent ? Ie. *INSTANTLY*, no electricity, no running water, no radios, no functional transportation (other than horseback), no communication, no working factories, no working hospitals, no way to call the cops, no way for them to get to you even if you could call them, ditto for firefighters and emt's, no way to restock grocery stores so *NO FOOD* except for what you grow or hunt yourself and are able to hold on to through secrecy or violence against other starving people. We would instantly be transported back to the day the first Viking first stepped foot on this land.

The armed forces have done studies on this scenario and 90 percent of us will be dead within the first year. If not by American on American violence, then by famine. The only "bright" side is that modern firearms still aren't electronics dependent.

Oh, and since the initial blast wouldn't harm a single soul in this country, do you really thing the current government would have the balls to retaliate, especially since they'll be dependent on people thousands of miles away to come here and take them back to Europe so they can rejoin a civilized existence ?

The Iranians and North Koreans are developing ballistic missile technology alongside their nuclear arms program. The Koreans latest missile design can likely already reach hawaii. If the Iranians or Koreans intent is to destroy this country they are going about it in a workable way. In all likely hood Israel is going to take care of the Iranians for us. Korea is a different matter.

Or if you weren't talking about solving the problem of our country's "arrogant" existence do you really think millions of dead jews and muslims would be solving a "problem". Are you *that* racist ?

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/7/2009 7:45:43 PM   
samboct


Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
"Still doesn't mean you'd use it.......because once you do all bets are off and chances are the people you'd use it against (or their friends) have more nukes than you and your country would look pretty silly as a big sheet of glass."

Do you really want to bet that a Mideast regime wouldn't use a nuke because they would get turned into glass?  I must admit, I had a certain amount of faith that the Russians weren't going to be pushing the button too quick- they had a lot of cleanup left to go from the little fracas in the 1940s.  Pakistan with a nuke is a scary thought, but amazingly, they've managed not to throw one at India.
 
Our track record is actually pretty good- we managed not to use them after '45 even with a fair amount of provocation by the Russians.
 
"Ted Kennedy has killed more people drunk driving off of bridges than nuclear energy accidents in the United States or the rest of the free world for that matter. All the ignorant anti-nuclear sentiment in this country has prevented our older plants from being replaced with current *safer* technology.
 
Ignorance perhaps, but I'd call it a lack of faith in an industry which is incredibly secretive, often employs undertrained workers, shortcuts safety inspections, and doesn't discuss its mistakes in science journals for open comment.  And yes, they've made a few dillies- like running deuterium through a stainless pipe into the center of a reactor.  (Hydrogen, or deuterium which is just hydrogen with an extra couple of neutrons embrittles steel.  That was an expensive fix.)  Breeder technology was also supposed to generate cheap, endless fuel, and that's been a wopping success now- hasn't it?  (All breeder reactors have been shut down- they've proven to be uneconomical at the very least.)  In terms of their accident record- well, there was also a meltdown back in the 50s in the UK I believe, which probably lead to a few cancer deaths- and IIRC, the Navy's had some fatal oops too.  The civilian industry?  Again, the tight secrecy doesn't lead me to feel warm and fuzzy that if there had been some accidental releases (and isotopes have certainly "wandered") that a fatality would actually be reported.


Ie. reactors like these which are passively cooled and could be placed close to or in cities safely (and therefore not require trillions of dollars in long distance transmission line costs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S.

 
Nonsense.  Transmission lines are in the billions- not trillions, and could probably come on line along with wind turbines a lot faster than nuclear plants which have very long construction times.  The real radical solution I like is using American Superconductor's technology.  Basically a single line of about a meter in diameter (maybe less) could carry all the power needs of the East Coast from the Midwest.  New technology has also allowed a DC line to be tapped, so the line wouldn't have to be dedicated for say OK to NYC- you could tap off lines for Chicago, Michigan (is there anybody left who can pay an electric bill?) Dayton, Columbus, etc.  No massive towers or lots of strings- just underground lines.  (you need to keep things cool with a liquid nitrogen jacket.)
 
 Note that although the nuke industry often claims the delays are due to red tape, the reality is that there are often oops on the construction sites, which then requires engineers to come and certify that the error is not going to have major repercussions.  A standardized design might help reduce costs some, but then that basically doesn't allow for any improvements either.


But no...we'll continue to do stuff like wind farms which can only be connected to power grids in conjunction with conventional gas turbine generators. The gas turbines need to be throttled constantly to even out the power production as every gust or ebb of wind changes the windmill power output. This decreases the gas turbine efficiency so much they burn as much fossil fuel as they would if they were producing the entire load in the first place.

Not quite.  The wind turbine power output is a bit steadier than you think because the farms have a lot of turbines to generate the power.  Other grids such as Norway have been able to use up to 20% wind turbines for power generation. 
 
There are two energy storage problems.   There's the frequency regulation which is very short term- i.e. 15 min or less where loads can spike and need to be leveled out (if we'd ever get something like a smart grid) and Beacon Power has got a few megawatts of load leveling capability coming on line shortly.   This problem exists for any technology. 
 
We also need longer term energy storage- i.e. days.   If we'd start going to some better energy storage technology such as hydro (hydro has a 95% conversion efficiency I think) we'd be in better shape.  Using both these technologies would allow far greater utilization of wind.

Solar (in AZ) makes some sense but would still be massively more expense than the micro reactor concept. You *STILL* have to have alternate generators available because contrary to popular opinion it does get dark in Arizona at night."

That's why the solar plants store heat for several hours and use it when needed.  And contrary to your opinion, the load in sunny states like Az does peak when the sun is out and AC is on full blast.  Nor is solar thermal "massively expensive" - it's already cost effective, which is why they're building hundreds of megawatts now.  It's also a very clean form of power generation.
 
Solar thermal also integrates well with natural gas.  Since the solar thermal plant uses the sun to heat water for a turbine, it's not hard to substitute a gas flame.  The biggest problem with solar thermal is the water requirements, since like any combustion process, you need a supply of water, and Az and CA do seem to have some water issues- don't they?

You also left out geothermal and improvements in hydro which are cost effective and quite clean.

I think its time for some new industries....

Sam

(in reply to ArizonaSunSwitch)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Just a simple question about energy... - 6/8/2009 12:36:19 PM   
Irishknight


Posts: 2016
Joined: 9/30/2007
Status: offline
There are also wind turbines designed in such a way that any wind from any direction causes them to turn.  They need not "face into the wind" and so need no external power source.  Use these in conjunction with solar and there is no need for fossil fuel energy production.  I will be switching to the combination of these technologies very soon and removing myself from the grid completely.
If every new building were required to have a solar panel or a wind turbine, we could close a number of filthy plants that damage the planet and sicken the creatures on it.

_____________________________

What man is a man who does not make his world better?


Soldiers died for your right to be ungrateful.

(in reply to samboct)
Profile   Post #: 29
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Just a simple question about energy... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.172