Solar and Wind

[Capt Worley PE]

You know, I'm sick of money being thrown at this technology. They need to spend money on developing battery tecgnology. Without a good storage media, solar and wind will never succeed since they can't produce 24/7. But, nooooo, all the money is for freakin' windmills and PV cells.

Why can't they put some money towards developing better batteries?

And, towards passive solar building standards? That would do a good bit of conservation.

 

[Supe]

Or better yet, screw them both, and put the money towards developing a fusion reactor and be done with this nonsense.

 

[chaosiscash]

Or better yet, screw them both, and put the money towards developing a fusion reactor and be done with this nonsense.

When I started my first job, while waiting on access to the area I'd eventually be working, I had an office in a building where they did fusion energy research. Those guys that did that stuff were nuts. They had all these crazy equations posted outside their offices, and some of them had cots in there. They were definately the stereotypical mad scientists.

On topic, its well documented that I'm pro-nuke power. While wind and solar sound good, all you have to do is look at the watts/square foot of a solar array vs. a nuke plant and its pretty clear to me what we should do.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Fusion would solve a lot of problems.

And, yeah, solar is not energy dense at all.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Why can't we do both? The good PV cells need to come down in price a whole lot before people will start taking a serious look at them. But once they reach that price point, and lots of houses start having them installed, the load on power plants (and the grid itself) will be reduced greatly. I really don't understand why PVs aren't used more on big commercial buildings (like Wal-marts). They have large, flat roofs that are largely useless, and they suck up a ton of energy off the grid.

But for the energy demands that remain on the grid, we should advance nuclear energy. Although, we really do need to figure out what do do with the spent fuel before we get too far along that path.

Wind is fairly useless except where it is already prevalent. It's largely impractical for residential and commercial use because wind generators big enough to meet the demands of those buildings would be too large to install in those settings. But out in the middle of nowhere, where there's lots of wind (like just east of the Inland Empire), it makes sense to have some large wind generators.

 

[Freon]

What pisses me off is the "Can power XXX homes" line you always hear. They need to put the figures into industrial and commericail facilities. I'd like to hear "enough power for XXX 200-store indoor shopping malls" or "enough power to supply XXX 10,000 SQFT machine shops". Then people would see how crappy some of the "renewable energy" systems are.

As someone once said "Renewable energy is great for people who are bad at math"

Freon

 

[wilheldp_PE]

What pisses me off is the "Can power XXX homes" line you always hear. They need to put the figures into industrial and commericail facilities. I'd like to hear "enough power for XXX 200-store indoor shopping malls" or "enough power to supply XXX 10,000 SQFT machine shops". Then people would see how crappy some of the "renewable energy" systems are.
As someone once said "Renewable energy is great for people who are bad at math"

Freon

That was my point. We need to focus on making affordable PV systems that can provide "enough power for 1 home"...and install them on all new homes. After a while, the residential load on the power grid will diminish. At the same time, we can focus on better alternatives for providing power to the grid.

 

[Chucktown PE]

If it in fact turns out that PV is an economical way to generate power, then the market will provide this solution. Instead, the government is going to artificially inflate demand through subsidies, and inflate the cost of these technologies such that your average citizen won't be able to afford PV for his/her house without a government grant.

 

[chaosiscash]

But for the energy demands that remain on the grid, we should advance nuclear energy. Although, we really do need to figure out what do do with the spent fuel before we get too far along that path.

Heres a thought. Why don't we put it in a big hole in Nevada. All we need to do is spend the time and money to design and build it.

Oh wait, we already did that. Now we just have to convince the politicians to actually use it.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Here's a question I'd like answered: Why do environmentalists ONLY support wind and solar. And a lot of them don't like wind (kills birdies)?

Nukes? No.

Coal? No.

Natural gas? No.

Are they really that completely clueless?

 

[Flyer_PE]

^ A lot of them are not clueless at all. I think you are misreading their objective. I don't think a lot of them care nearly as much about the environment as they claim. Their objective is that everyone, except the important people(them), restrict our lifestyles and conduct our lives in the manner that is strictly controlled and approved by them.

 

[Chucktown PE]

I have always believed that the environmental movement was the cause that the collectivists/socialists/communists took up when the Soviet utopia crumbled. Since their system failed they are now trying to enact the same system through the guise of environmentalism.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Heres a thought. Why don't we put it in a big hole in Nevada. All we need to do is spend the time and money to design and build it.
Oh wait, we already did that. Now we just have to convince the politicians to actually use it.

Is there really no way to re-refine the spent fuel into future fuel? I seem to remember hearing somewhere that some European nuclear plants recycle their spent fuel rods into new fuel rods. That seems like a much better thing to do with them than simply put them in a big hole in the earth.

 

[chaosiscash]

Actually, a lot of European countries just store it. Its really not as big a deal as the environmentalists and politicians want you to believe.

You can reprocess, but its not 100%. There is still going to be waste. And its cheaper to enrich.

Complete reprocessing (or, conversion from high-level to low-level, which serves the same purpose) is the whole idea behind breeder reactors, which were researched back in the 70's. They were going to build one (here, in Oak Ridge, in fact) back then as a prototype, but Carter killed it.

 

[TXengrChickPE]

store it. eventually, someone will come up with a way to use it.

 

[Supe]

Maybe NASA can put together a vessel that they don't lose, and just launch it all into space. We can put the launch pad in North Dakota. That way, if it crashes, nobody will really care.

 

[Dleg]

I have always believed that the environmental movement was the cause that the collectivists/socialists/communists took up when the Soviet utopia crumbled. Since their system failed they are now trying to enact the same system through the guise of environmentalism.

****, if wasn't for the environmentalists, you wouldn't have a job Chucktown. Your clients would just be discharging raw sewage straight into the river. Screw those expensive treatment plants.

But I know which environmentalists you are talking about - the watermelon kind. But honestly, as much as I despise them, you have to admit that it was them (their forefathers in the 60s and 70s anyway) who started the whole secondary treatment push that has give both you and I our livelihoods.

 

[cement]

I agree. but then water quality is real science, as opposed to man made global warming...

 

[Capt Worley PE]

I try to point that out, but you'd be surprised how many people believe GW is 'science.'

 

[Chucktown PE]

****, if wasn't for the environmentalists, you wouldn't have a job Chucktown. Your clients would just be discharging raw sewage straight into the river. Screw those expensive treatment plants.
But I know which environmentalists you are talking about - the watermelon kind. But honestly, as much as I despise them, you have to admit that it was them (their forefathers in the 60s and 70s anyway) who started the whole secondary treatment push that has give both you and I our livelihoods.

That is absolutely not true.

It would take me a few hours to type the history of property rights in this country but if you get a chance, look up what happened with "public waterways" in the reconstruction south.

Pollution used to be controlled by the citizenry that were looking out for their own property. In the reconstruction south the government made that propery "public" and took away any incentive for private citizens to monitor pollution all in the name of attracting industry. And do you really think that in this day in age the citizenry would not object to wastewater plants discharging raw sewage into surface waters. Also, my company has been in business since 1915, well before the clean water act was in place. I have also worked on many, many plants where secondary treatment was in place before the clean water act. The technology improved because smart people realized they could make money improving treatment plants, not because a bunch of hippies declared that it should be so.

Also, I have a job in this field because I realized the potential to make money. I didn't go to medical school because I knew that by the time I graduated the government would have hijacked the system and I wouldn't be any better off than if I had become an engineer. If there wasn't a potential to make money in this business I would have gone to business school, or become another type of engineer. If the clean water act ended tomorrow, there would still be state regulators that would and could monitor treatment plants.