|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 19, 2008 3:35:45 GMT
Actually, I agree (of course you deleted the line to which I'm agreeing! LOL I'll respect your deletion and not repeat what it said). The risk that the AGWers might be right is one major reason we should be building the US Giant Solar Array in the desert southwest, reducing perhaps one day nearly eliminating) the usage of fossil fuels to generate electricity in the country. There are many and varied other reasons for doing it: => Reduction of other forms of pollution => New nukes will take forever to get up and running (if ever) => Abundant and "free" energy going forward => The coming Fossil Fuel Taxes => Reduction of risk of possible AGW => New industrial manufacturing and construction sector => Technology development => Better US "stimulus" than paying for Wiis for Christmas => Concentrated national power source for use in desalinating water for desert communities and/or hydrogen production in geo-stable location or perhaps for national steel production and other heavy industry capabilities I could go on... We MUST stop burning fossil fuels for many reasons, including eventually they will peak and/or run out. Ron, Given the recent snow in Nevada, it looks like there would have to be some back up power generation to heat these states when it is cloudy and all your reflectors have a layer of 3 inches of snow on them - after all when it is cold is when you _need_ the power.
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 19, 2008 3:43:54 GMT
[deletion note deleted] The risk that the AGWers might be right is one major reason we should be building the US Giant Solar Array in the desert southwest, reducing perhaps one day nearly eliminating) the usage of fossil fuels to generate electricity in the country. There are many and varied other reasons for doing it: [ 1 ]=> Reduction of other forms of pollution [ 2 ]=> New nukes will take forever to get up and running (if ever) [ 3 ]=> Abundant and "free" energy going forward [ 4 ]=> The coming Fossil Fuel Taxes [ 5 ]=> Reduction of risk of possible AGW [ 6 ]=> New industrial manufacturing and construction sector [ 7 ]=> Technology development [ 8 ]=> Better US stimulus than paying for Wiis for Christmas [ 9 ]=> Concentrated national power source for use in desalinating water for desert communities and/or hydrogen production in geo-stable location or perhaps for national steel production and other heavy industry capabilities I could go on... We MUST stop burning fossil fuels for many reasons, including eventually they will peak and/or run out. Actually I agree with a lot of that, but I can't buy the whole package. Point by point: [ 1 ] Specifically, what other forms of US pollution need reduction? [ 2 ] New nukes take forever because of permiiting procedures that facilitate econazi obstructionism, not because of any technical problem or commercial drawback. Look at France. [ 3 ] Solar isn't abundant, especially at night, and it's far from free when you account for the cost of necessary capital. If solar energy had a payout, everybody would have panels on their home or garage right now. [ 4 ] Well, maybe. Fossil fuel taxes sound a lot like carbon taxes, but we may be forced to do something similar. I like SUV taxes... [ 5 ] Double counting; you already mentioned AGW above and said this list would be "varied other reasons." [ 6 ] This new sector will be at the expense of other sectors that may be badly needed, especially in the financial crunch we're in now. [ 7 ] Again, this new technology may or may not be in the right field. What is the right field? Nuclear fusion, for one. Or battery development. [ 8 ] A better stimulus than wii's, Mr. Scrooge? Oh, well, maybe so. [ 9 ] Desalination, hydrogen, steel? All either technically or commercially dubious. You could probably do desalination more efficiently without an electric array, but you'd need a nearby source of water to desalinate. Pumping is expensive. What would you do with the hydrogen in the desert? National steel production? There just about isn't any, and not for lack of power, either.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 19, 2008 5:20:54 GMT
When it's snowin' in Nevada, it might jus be sunny in New Mexico or Colorado and it might even be windy in Texas. Yee Hah! Fossil Fuel Taxes are just the name I've put to Carbon taxes. Since they aren't gonna tax wood burning, or methanol et al, the real target is oil/coal/gas -- fossil fuels. The desalination/hydrogen is usually part of my answer to the (almost silly) "what will we do with all that power?" question/objection to building the Large Solar Array. The first part of the answer usually is: "Well after we power all of Southern California and Texas and Las Vegas..." and goes off onto creating a place to generate hydrogen from water to turn the electricity into a fuel that can be physically transported. The desalination would be for the water needs of the cities that -er- spring up to harvest and service the arrays. Heck if we do it right the steam we generate to make electricity can just be captured/condensed/heat-extracted instead of blowing it out of a "smokestack" and adding that AGW water vapor to the environment. So ya almost get a twofer. Solar is abundant, the trick is to find a way to economically store the energy to produce a nice even flow of electricity. My money is on liquid sodium at the moment. Without being an engineer, I have a feeling that an indirect system where the sun's energy is stored in liquid sodium and then the heat for generating electricity is taken from the liquid sodium will prove to be an interesting approach. Essentially you don't use all of the sun's energy during the day, you store all of it into the sodium then you draw some percentage constantly... nights, weekends and solar holidays. Pollution? Lowering acid rain producing compounds (sulphurs?) is a good one, particulate matter, radiation. I don't know, I've never studied all of the pollutants that burning things produce that we allow to escape smokestacks to one degree or another. Nukes: Hey, I'm a pragmatist. The laws and the eco-defenders and NIMBYs are what they are. Until you can show me that it has been changed, it will take decades to build nukes around the country. Even my Solar Array has been stopped by the EPA -- a two year moratorium on applications was announced because all of the applications' environmental impact studies have to be considered in light of each other I kid you not. Anyway, we really should be going at this if not at full speed then at a pretty good clip. It makes sense in so many ways. Imagine if $15 billion of that $150 billion stimulus payment had gone to building that array. THAT is like free energy. Since they're gonna spend $850 or $2 trillion to try to keep us out of a depression, I say "Hey.... I have an idea.. how about a REAL investment... sort of like the Hoover Dam was, but this time in Solar, and by lots of smallish entrepreneurs, not a monolithic approach."
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 19, 2008 10:36:24 GMT
Here's a fun one that seems intent on keeping us all focused on the CO2 driving climate change dogma. Next we will be told to wear wide brimmed hats and to avert our eyes from the sky lest impure thoughts infect us "Researchers believe that reforestation of agricultural lands in the Americas -- abandoned as the population collapsed -- pulled so much carbon out of the atmosphere that it helped trigger a period of global cooling, at its most intense from approximately 1500 to 1750, known as the Little Ice Age" www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081218094551.htm
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 19, 2008 19:26:49 GMT
When it's snowin' in Nevada, it might jus be sunny in New Mexico or Colorado and it might even be windy in Texas. Yee Hah! True. Remember, though, that when the weather is not right, the cost of the capital investment is still piling up. The clock is ticking all the time. [/quote]Fossil Fuel Taxes are just the name I've put to Carbon taxes. Since they aren't gonna tax wood burning, or methanol et al, the real target is oil/coal/gas -- fossil fuels.[/quote] I suspected as much. I have to heat my house with gas. I can't use wood; that's illegal. Even after the 1.6°C (Oh, the humanity!) of global warming, houses will still have to be heated somehow, and an across-the-board fossil fuel tax would be letting hordes of goriffic politicians and bureaucrats put their hands in all our pockets. Somehow, I don't trust them as far as I can throw a wet mattress up an elevator shaft. [/quote]The desalination/hydrogen is usually part of my answer to the (almost silly) "what will we do with all that power?" question/objection to building the Large Solar Array. The first part of the answer usually is: "Well after we power all of Southern California and Texas and Las Vegas..." and goes off onto creating a place to generate hydrogen from water to turn the electricity into a fuel that can be physically transported.[/quote] A solar array to power TX and CA would be about 1000 square miles in size. At current costs, that's something in the neighborhood of 333 BILLION dollars, and you haven't even built the distribution grid yet. Figure $1,000,000,000,000 by the time you're done. Reference: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23464740/[/quote]The desalination would be for the water needs of the cities that -er- spring up to harvest and service the arrays. Heck if we do it right the steam we generate to make electricity can just be captured/condensed/heat-extracted instead of blowing it out of a "smokestack" and adding that AGW water vapor to the environment. So ya almost get a twofer. [/quote] Harvest? What means this 'harvest' word you are using? Also, condensing that much steam, again, inflates the capital cost immensely. Where are you getting that water from? There is no twofer, here. Not even a oneandahaffer [/quote]Solar is abundant, the trick is to find a way to economically store the energy to produce a nice even flow of electricity. My money is on liquid sodium at the moment. Without being an engineer, I have a feeling that an indirect system where the sun's energy is stored in liquid sodium and then the heat for generating electricity is taken from the liquid sodium will prove to be an interesting approach. Essentially you don't use all of the sun's energy during the day, you store all of it into the sodium then you draw some percentage constantly... nights, weekends and solar holidays.[/quote] Yes, that's the trick. And I sure wouldn't rule out liquid sodium cycle plants. But they cost money! Cubic yards of cash. [/quote]Pollution? Lowering acid rain producing compounds (sulphurs?) is a good one, particulate matter, radiation. I don't know, I've never studied all of the pollutants that burning things produce that we allow to escape smokestacks to one degree or another.[/quote] Acid rain has been addressed by putting scrubbers on power plants. I'm not aware of any in the US that haven't either been converted to sulfurless coal or scrubbed. You have a list? Particulates, similarly. Radiation? What radiation? [/quote]Nukes: Hey, I'm a pragmatist. The laws and the eco-defenders and NIMBYs are what they are. Until you can show me that it has been changed, it will take decades to build nukes around the country. Even my Solar Array has been stopped by the EPA -- a two year moratorium on applications was announced because all of the applications' environmental impact studies have to be considered in light of each other I kid you not.[/quote] Yes, I agree. it's not just the nukes, it's an across the board problem. Paralysis by analysis. An epidemic of proctocraniosis. [/quote]Anyway, we really should be going at this if not at full speed then at a pretty good clip. It makes sense in so many ways. Imagine if $15 billion of that $150 billion stimulus payment had gone to building that array. THAT is like free energy. Since they're gonna spend $850 or $2 trillion to try to keep us out of a depression, I say "Hey.... I have an idea.. how about a REAL investment... sort of like the Hoover Dam was, but this time in Solar, and by lots of smallish entrepreneurs, not a monolithic approach."[/quote] The concept makes sense, but not yet in the way that counts: economically. Full speed? Definitely not until we know what we're doing. And we don't! That array, as cited above, would cost closer to $1000 billion than $15 billion by the time it's actually built. TANSTAAFL! There ain't no such thing as a free lunch! Or free power, either. And imagine trying to administer an ellipse-whack of 1000 smallish entremanures. Oy!
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 19, 2008 20:01:56 GMT
There's an interesting diagram here, www.theoildrum.com/node/2320Don't know how accurate it is, but I appreciate the attempt to provide a visual comparison of different power sources.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 19, 2008 20:18:39 GMT
"Solar is abundant"I take it you haven't lived in North West Europe . There are also times in the mid-West that it appears the Sun has gone. People make a fortune in winter selling (electrically powered) lamps that emulate the wavelengths of the Sun to reduce 'Seasonal Affective Disorder'. It is in this sunless winterland that a lot of power is required. The only real way out is for small pebble bed nuclear reactors. It may be that the environmentalists will start muting their response if it gets really cold and there are power outs.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 20, 2008 0:26:05 GMT
nautonnier; I am speaking solely of the US desert southwest. Saudi Arabia has also been planning to build a giant solar array in their desert. jorgekafkazar; Regarding your link about the $1 billion solar plant, based on 280mW for $1 billion, that is actually cheap compared to the last (?) nuclear plant to come online in the US. Seabrook cost $7 for 1,400mW to construct. In all fairness (if nothing else I am fair!) they were permitted for two reactors and had completed a large percentage of reactor 2 before giving up and scrapping it. If completed let's assume it would have been producing 2,800 mW for somewhere near $10 billion. Amazingly similar watts per dollar as the solar plant. But that was 20 to 30 years ago between construction starting and generating power.) I don't know about ongoing operational costs. The number for building either 10,000 or 30,000 (I don't recall which) square miles of thermal solar collection plus the distribution system including 5,000 miles of higher-tech backbone across the US was estimated by Scientific American to be $450 billion. I think they opted for compressed air storage, but I'm not sure. I'll have to re-dig up the article. I don't have any idea how much it will actually cost. I hope they don't hire Boston's Big Dig contractors to do the job. However, all of that is pretty much a red-herring, sorta kinda. We don't need to make these decisions and investments in full all at once. We just need to start in a substantial way to see what will happen going forward. We have current needs (no pun intended) for the power. If AGW turns out to be correct, we will have an N-year head start on learning to do what will be necessary. Besides as I've said 2600 times now.... FOSSIL FUEL TAXES ARE COMING. There isn't enough time to sway public opinion before the FFT will be in place. The cost to burn coal for electricity will be astronomical the taxes will be designed from the get go to be increasing over time so the investment in solar at current energy costs compared to future energy costs will look tiny, and will have proved to be a superb investment. Once the FFT is in place it will NEVER be removed. Trust me, I'm a pragmatist! lol
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Dec 20, 2008 7:25:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Dec 20, 2008 8:06:30 GMT
Re: Storing collected energy in (liquid) sodium, and assuming that the intent is to convert thermal energy to electricity in a steam turbine generator. Best not to let the liquid sodium leak. In air, it burns. In contact with water, the same, albeit more vigorously. A solution to contain leaks is being worked on: www.igcar.ernet.in/benchmark/Engg/16-engg.pdfI think I recall that one of the barriers to fast breeder reactors is leakage of sodium, and that the result is we are not making more nuclear fuel than we use. (And, yes, another barrier is that the fuel created is plutonium which scares the wits out of some factions. However, when used as fuel, the plutonium ceases to be plutonium.) For more entertainment, see: www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=liquid+sodium+%22fast+breeder+reactor%22+seal&as_q=leak&btnG=Search%C2%A0within%C2%A0results
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 20, 2008 8:09:51 GMT
I signed on - & I'm planning on advertising it on at least 7 other blogs - I think it's worth doing. Let's see how 2500 mixed bureaucrats, administrators, secretaries and scientists of the IPCC stack up against the already impressive swell of non-believers.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Dec 21, 2008 5:28:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Dec 21, 2008 5:29:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 21, 2008 6:16:34 GMT
I signed on - & I'm planning on advertising it on at least 7 other blogs - I think it's worth doing. Let's see how 2500 mixed bureaucrats, administrators, secretaries and scientists of the IPCC stack up against the already impressive swell of non-believers. Now it's up to 68 pages and over 1400 posts. Hey, that's more than "the great consensus!"
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Dec 21, 2008 17:49:18 GMT
[trimmed] ... jorgekafkazar; Regarding your link about the $1 billion solar plant, based on 280mW for $1 billion, that is actually cheap compared to the last (?) nuclear plant to come online in the US. Seabrook cost $7 for 1,400mW to construct. In all fairness (if nothing else I am fair!) they were permitted for two reactors and had completed a large percentage of reactor 2 before giving up and scrapping it. If completed let's assume it would have been producing 2,800 mW for somewhere near $10 billion. Amazingly similar watts per dollar as the solar plant. But that was 20 to 30 years ago between construction starting and generating power.) I don't know about ongoing operational costs. The number for building either 10,000 or 30,000 (I don't recall which) square miles of thermal solar collection plus the distribution system including 5,000 miles of higher-tech backbone across the US was estimated by Scientific American to be $450 billion. I think they opted for compressed air storage, but I'm not sure. I'll have to re-dig up the article. [trimmed] However, all of that is pretty much a red-herring, sorta kinda. We don't need to make these decisions and investments in full all at once. We just need to start in a substantial way to see what will happen going forward. We have current needs (no pun intended) for the power. If AGW turns out to be correct, we will have an N-year head start on learning to do what will be necessary. Besides as I've said 2600 times now.... FOSSIL FUEL TAXES ARE COMING. There isn't enough time to sway public opinion before the FFT will be in place. The cost to burn coal for electricity will be astronomical the taxes will be designed from the get go to be increasing over time so the investment in solar at current energy costs compared to future energy costs will look tiny, and will have proved to be a superb investment. Once the FFT is in place it will NEVER be removed. Trust me, I'm a pragmatist! lol Supprt your neighborhood pragmatist! Yes, that solar plant does sound cheap compared to Seabrook, but it hasn't been built yet. There are always surprises. Seabrook itself was a megatarget for protests. strikes, and other obstacles, and took something like 18 years to bring online: "Seabrook was one of the nuclear plants that the so-called environmentalists used...to justify opposition to coal-fired units that some Northeast utilities planned to bring on line to displace the use of fuel oil, which was often used in plants in that region at that time. They told utilities that investing in nuclear units was a preferred alternative to constructing coal-fired plants. Then those same "environmentalist" groups turned around and stabbed Seabrook in the back by filing motion after motion, delay after delay, to drive its cost up. A bunch of liars and backstabbers, the lot of them." ^(from neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/05/looking-back-at-seabrook.html)I'm sure operating costs would be a lot less for solar plants. You'd need an army of squeegee guys, but what the heck--fight unemployment. Adding a liquid sodium cycle would push operating costs up substantially, but I still wouldn't rule it out at this stage. Yes, let's have some of the SciAmer article. I find their estimated cost low by orders of magnitude. But let's take a peek at it. I agree, a measured and steady development of various power sources seems wise. There are already many governmental subsidy/tax credit schemes in force to do just that. I just don't want to see gigabuck boondoggles with no payout springing up all over the place. Regarding FFT: Confucius Adam Smith (1776) say: 'There is no art which one government sooner learns of another than draining money from the pockets of the people." That doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose FFT's. In fact, we should vigorously oppose them in any form. Inevitable? Sure, if we roll over. Don't roll over! FFT's will destroy us faster than GW. Write your congressman early and often. Right now would be a good time.
|
|