But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:



At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both
of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that
prove Murphy's law.


There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many
of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the
next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the
front end.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

On 9/12/2012 7:03 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote:

When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar
and wind then I'll be impressed.

That might be possible right now using energy storage technology. It
would not be cost justified at this time however.

Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and
natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power.

There are some very real issues with nuclear power. Fusion is the
big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out.

--------------------------------------------------

I spent a good amount of time during my working career in programs
supporting efforts to achieve nuclear fusion from deuterium, highly
compressed in enormously high powered, multiple beamed lasers. This
technology has been in development for many decades ... going back to
the 50's and 60's. Progress has been made, but unity gain was only
recently achieved ... meaning as much energy was used as produced. The
lasers only fire for a nanosecond before the power supplies that power
them have to be recharged.

It's technically possible, but still a very long way from any form of
commercial applications. It's strictly R&D.

Newest program is "NIF" or National Ignition Facility at Lawrence
Livermore National Labs. Before NIF, research was also conducted at the
Laboratory for Laser Energetics at the University of Rochester. My
company's involvement was building the systems that applied thin-film,
high energy laser coatings on the optics used in the laser bays. NIF
is a very impressive laser system ... details he

https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/about.php





Just spent some time there.. all I can say is "cool"... but not just
cool, like:), really cool...

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

On 9/12/2012 7:08 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:42:19 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:



At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted. Both
of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes that
prove Murphy's law.


There are 3rd and 4th generation reactors now out there that solve many
of those problems. I think we are going to see much more nuclear in the
next decade or two, smaller plants with less capital investment on the
front end.


Maybe even micro (relatively speaking) plants that can be easily
isolated in an emergency... spread around more.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

On 9/12/2012 3:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 21:44:42 +0000 (UTC), thunder
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png

===

At some point environmental, safety and cost all morph into one big
issue. Today's nuclear plants are safe 99.99999% of the time. It
turns out that is not enough however. There are now hundreds of
square miles of land in Japan and the former USSR that are totally
uninhabitable. There are additional thousands of people who will die
prematurely, and/or have their quality of life severely impacted.
Both of those accidents are flukes of course, but they are the flukes
that prove Murphy's law.


And they don't pay for insurance for damages they may cause.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:46:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:32:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on
flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What
if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron.

===

That's a bit optimistic even though the technology is interesting.

One of the credibility problems with solar power is the wildly
optimistic press releases that come out periodically. They raise
expectations to unrealistic levels which casts doubt on the whole
effort. It's always better to under promise and over deliver.

That said, with the price of solar panels down to about $1/watt, we
will be starting to see a lot more of them. I'm in the preliminary
planning stage for a small "proof of concept" project, probably a grid
tied system that will help meet our peak power needs in some small
way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar
and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and
natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power.

I'm sure that when the automobile was invented that backwards thinking
people said about the same thing. I'll also bet that when electricity
became available that a lot of people said that too.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote:

When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar
and wind then I'll be impressed.

That might be possible right now using energy storage technology. It
would not be cost justified at this time however.

Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and
natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power.

There are some very real issues with nuclear power. Fusion is the
big pie in the sky if someone can figure that out.

Yes, indeed.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

In article , says...

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

Can't read, huh?

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

In article , says...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:31:43 -0400, JustWait wrote:

On 9/12/2012 5:44 PM, thunder wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:14:57 -0400, Sarah Ehrett wrote:


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using
solar and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil,
coal, and natural gas because the environmental nutters are against
nuclear power.

It isn't environmental nutters, it is cost. Nuclear is expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nu...ting_costs.png


Nuclear is expensive because of the environmental nutters??

Of the 104 reactors now operating in the U.S., ground was broken on all
of them in 1974 or earlier. There wasn't a large environmental movement
pre-1974. Three Mile Island wasn't until 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States

Scotty can't comprehend anything that doesn't come from some FOX talking
head....

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:41:01 -0400, Sarah Ehrett
wrote:

I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each
barely powering one building.

Wind Turbine Failures
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587

===

There's an interesting and well balanced reliability discussion he

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ox-reliability

Block Island, RI has some of the highest electric rates on the east
coast and also has outstanding average wind velocity. Champlain's
Marina put in their own diesel gensets almost 30 years ago because
they felt they could generate at lower rates than the local muni plant
was charging. The demand there is highly seasonal however and
probably does not justify a big infrastructure investment like a wind
farm.

But the right wing says that these won't work!!!
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:35:46 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:46:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:32:09 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

Even more amazing, they can be suspended in liquids and printed on
flexible materials, allowing the cells to be places on any surface. What
if your entire car was covered in these powerhouses? Bye bye, Chevron.

===

That's a bit optimistic even though the technology is interesting.

One of the credibility problems with solar power is the wildly
optimistic press releases that come out periodically. They raise
expectations to unrealistic levels which casts doubt on the whole
effort. It's always better to under promise and over deliver.

That said, with the price of solar panels down to about $1/watt, we
will be starting to see a lot more of them. I'm in the preliminary
planning stage for a small "proof of concept" project, probably a grid
tied system that will help meet our peak power needs in some small
way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid-tie_inverter


When someone can successfully power a medium sized US city 24/7 using solar
and wind then I'll be impressed. Until then we're tied to oil, coal, and
natural gas because the environmental nutters are against nuclear power.

I'm sure that when the automobile was invented that backwards thinking
people said about the same thing. I'll also bet that when electricity
became available that a lot of people said that too.

I'm sure they did but putting a light bulb in someone's home, or seeing a
car drive down a rutted back road was far easier to do than to power a US
city 24/7 with solar and wind power.

No, not really.

In all the years we've had solar and wind technology, where has anyone ever
used either or both to power a city the size of a medium US city? Any
where in the world, 24/7 ?

Because people are stuck thinking the only energy source is fossil
fuels.

I'm in RI. Three wind turbines here have already failed and they're each
barely powering one building.

I'm in PA and they are putting them up here and in western NY at a
staggering pace.

Wind Turbine Failures
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=...1024&bih =587

What about pollution from oil spills, on land and in oceans? What about
oilfield failures from weather, fire and such?