NationStates Jolt Archive

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060206/nym150.html?.v=32

It's good to see that some major players in the private sector are backing alternative energy.. not that this should be surprising, since it's something we've been promised more than a few times now, but, as they say, it's not until the money shows up that an idea can be said to have gained real traction, and a solar farm than can power 36,000 homes is no small investment by those involved. The plant mentioned in the article will be the world's largest, and several others are under construction in the western states, including some near me.. As someone who depends on oil to make a living, I'm quite happy to see a shift towards finally stabilizing out domestic energy consumption.. so kudos to PBR and SunEdison for leading the way on that. :)

Well, I don't normally "bump" threads, but I'm not an expert on the topic, and was hoping someone might have an opinion about solar energy.. but this'll be the first and last "bump" that I do, I promise. :)

I know a few profs at UNLV working on alternative energy issues. If I recall, there are a few funded projects for solar. Some are hoping to make it a key part of the Vegas area economy.

I think thats a great idea, but I also think we should bring the brothels into town as well.

I know a few profs at UNLV working on alternative energy issues. If I recall, there are a few funded projects for solar. Some are hoping to make it a key part of the Vegas area economy.

I think thats a great idea, but I also think we should bring the brothels into town as well.

That's cool.. I don't know of anyone working on solar at my school, other than the Solar Car team, which is a big event every year with engineering majors..

I know a few profs at UNLV working on alternative energy issues. If I recall, there are a few funded projects for solar. Some are hoping to make it a key part of the Vegas area economy.

I think thats a great idea, but I also think we should bring the brothels into town as well.

Thats a great idea. Imagine how much energy those prostitues can generate!

I don't like it. It's a waste of money. It would have been better for the money to have been spent in tax or other incentives to promote solar power for individual homes and businesses than to build a big solar farm. we'd have a much more stable grid if there were solar panels on every roof rather than one big plant out in the desert. The problem is, I'm not sure that the amount of money this plant's going to cost would have put individual solar panels on the roofs of a lot more than 36,000 homes and businesses.

I don't like it. It's a waste of money. It would have been better for the money to have been spent in tax or other incentives to promote solar power for individual homes and businesses than to build a big solar farm. we'd have a much more stable grid if there were solar panels on every roof rather than one big plant out in the desert. The problem is, I'm not sure that the amount of money this plant's going to cost would have put individual solar panels on the roofs of a lot more than 36,000 homes and businesses.

A lot of houses in my area have solar equipment on the roofs.. while I'm sure it's a good idea, it looks nothing at all like the solar equipment used at solar plants.. I'm not sure what the difference is, but it could be that one or the other is more efficient.

I don't like it. It's a waste of money. It would have been better for the money to have been spent in tax or other incentives to promote solar power for individual homes and businesses than to build a big solar farm. we'd have a much more stable grid if there were solar panels on every roof rather than one big plant out in the desert. The problem is, I'm not sure that the amount of money this plant's going to cost would have put individual solar panels on the roofs of a lot more than 36,000 homes and businesses.

Still localization and small, modular systems could be a big advantage for solar. Having no loss during distribution and no infrastructure to maintain would be an advantage.

The other day a researcher was talking briefly with me about plastics vs. glass for solar applications. According to him, glass was heavy and fragile but had a better surface energy to overcome the surface tension of water, making the water sheet off rather than bead up. Plastic was light and strong, but he hadn't found a plastic that would sheet off the water the way he wanted.

I agree that decentralisation is important, a battery of solar panels on the roof or a few wind turbines per town makes sense for preventing rolling blackouts and the like. There again, big projects are useful for building recognition for green energy production. Over the Christmas holiday I saw an article on television about a new power production method being employed in the Australian outback- A large, round greenhouse shaped a bit like an overturned wok with a tower extending from the middle heats up the air under the glass, which blows (Due to the shape of the greenhouse) through turbines at the base of the tower, through which the air escapes. Obviously it avoids the burning of fossil fuels, but to me it seems like such a large heat transfer might have its own (Perhaps more local) detrimental environmental effects. Personally, I am more of a wind, solar, tide, and Ocean-current-turbine fan myself. Naturally, conservation and increasing energy efficiency is also important. Low-impact living takes more than just increasing green power production.

Naturally, conservation and increasing energy efficiency is also important. Low-impact living takes more than just increasing green power production.

I'm on board with you there. Attacking the problem from both sides and all.

I wonder what our descendants will think of Nascar in 100 years...

"You...you spent how many kilojoules driving around in circles for entertainment?"

EDIT: That's an extreme example. Changes in our daily habits and logistics is really what I'm in favor of.

i think it is bs, first they dont have 36MW, they are just in the planing stages for a project, that would deliver 18MW, all solar plants in the state would then at some point in the future have 36MW if all projects are completed. this is ridiculous compared to what real powerplants provide, the average modern nuclear plant gives above 1000MW, the hoover dam has more than 2000MW, so even if every state in the union would build up as much capacity as nevada plans to do, the power provided by all the solar toys would only be equal to one or two real power plants.
photovoltaic power is no costeffective powersource, it is great for places, where there are no powerlines and you still want energy, like on mt. everest or in the african jungle or in the australian outback, but it is in no way a good way to power cities.

It's admirable that PBR is doing something to further the use of alternative energy but solar energy ,without a huge step forward in technology, is and will remain the least efficient ,current, source of electricity. I recently read that in order to power a large city completely a solar facility would need collection panels about 3/4 of the area the city occupies. Wind needs about six times less space and costs far less and nuclear power about 1/30 of both. PBR and Nevada would have been better served by either in favor of solar.

It's admirable that PBR is doing something to further the use of alternative energy but solar energy ,without a huge step forward in technology, is and will remain the least efficient ,current, source of electricity. I recently read that in order to power a large city completely a solar facility would need collection panels about 3/4 of the area the city occupies. Wind needs about six times less space and costs far less and nuclear power about 1/30 of both. PBR and Nevada would have been better served by either in favor of solar.
Well, space and sun is something we have in spades in Nevada. The sun always shines somwhere in the state during the day, and some 90% of the state is uninhabitied.

Well, space and sun is something we have in spades in Nevada. The sun always shines somwhere in the state during the day, and some 90% of the state is uninhabitied.
The difficulty is that power is lost in transmission to a distribution facility, a huge facility is expensive to maintain and build and if there is a problem at the distribution facility you still get blackouts.

I like this man's thinking, somebody, promote him !


I know a few profs at UNLV working on alternative energy issues. If I recall, there are a few funded projects for solar. Some are hoping to make it a key part of the Vegas area economy.

I think thats a great idea, but I also think we should bring the brothels into town as well.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060206/nym150.html?.v=32

It's good to see that some major players in the private sector are backing alternative energy.. not that this should be surprising, since it's something we've been promised more than a few times now, but, as they say, it's not until the money shows up that an idea can be said to have gained real traction, and a solar farm than can power 36,000 homes is no small investment by those involved. The plant mentioned in the article will be the world's largest, and several others are under construction in the western states, including some near me.. As someone who depends on oil to make a living, I'm quite happy to see a shift towards finally stabilizing out domestic energy consumption.. so kudos to PBR and SunEdison for leading the way on that. :)

It's a good idea, and a good start, but it does demonstrate the idea that solar power at this point can't provide enough energy to support industrial activity.

You would need a solar site with the same area that produced 1 to 5 gigawatts of power - not 36 megawatts.

The difficulty is that power is lost in transmission to a distribution facility, a huge facility is expensive to maintain and build and if there is a problem at the distribution facility you still get blackouts.
Well, right now Nevada is attempting to try alternative power sources. Up north we're using geo-power with all the geothermals we have in the area, it's cranking out a nice bit.

But no, Nevada will NOT use nuclear. We have had enough (and still have) problems from that source. :p

Well, right now Nevada is attempting to try alternative power sources. Up north we're using geo-power with all the geothermals we have in the area, it's cranking out a nice bit.

But no, Nevada will NOT use nuclear. We have had enough (and still have) problems from that source. :p

If they perfect fusion, you'll be using it. Effectively unlimited energy from a glass of water.

If they perfect fusion, you'll be using it. Effectively unlimited energy from a glass of water.
Just as long as they don't try and store the waste in Nevada.

Just as long as they don't try and store the waste in Nevada.
There's no waste from nuclear fusion.

Well, space and sun is something we have in spades in Nevada. The sun always shines somwhere in the state during the day, and some 90% of the state is uninhabitied.
So let's just cover the state in solar panels.

Look, I keep stating this in other threads and people just don't seem to get it. There's no magic. We're not going to solar or wind or tide our way out of oil dependency and the coming scarcity of energy. The money spent on this project would have been much better spent on rehabilitating old rail lines and building new ones, something desperately needed in NV where there are next to none and where, after Peak Oil, people will become increasing isolated from agricultural regions, water and trade. The money should also have been spent on building real mass transportation. Monorails, bus lines and trains would have saved much more energy every year than this plant will produce.

If they perfect fusion, you'll be using it. Effectively unlimited energy from a glass of water.

Popular scince myths are so cute.

There's no waste from nuclear fusion.


Ditto.


The chairman of the Physics Depertment at the California Institute of Technology once said that nuclear fusion is the power source of the future...

...and always will be.

They've been saying that nuclear fusion is at least twenty years away for 50 years and it's still 20 years away.

Myth one. Unlimited power from a glass of water. Water cannot be used in nuclear fusion. The hydrogen atoms in water can be used, or hydrogen from any other source as long as it's deuterium or tritium isotopes. Seperating the hydrogen from water taked a lot of electricity and since the two isotopes you are looking for occur in amount measured in parts per billion yo have to electrolize a shit load of glasses of water before you have enough of those isotopes to maintain a meaningful fusion reaction. Also, to generate the electricity you need a primary energy source which will probably generate waste which effectively debunks myth number two.

Stop getting your science from futurist magazines. They are mostly written by people who are not scientists and who have a very poor record in predicting the future.

Popular scince myths are so cute.




Ditto.


The chairman of the Physics Depertment at the California Institute of Technology once said that nuclear fusion is the power source of the future...

...and always will be.

They've been saying that nuclear fusion is at least twenty years away for 50 years and it's still 20 years away.

Myth one. Unlimited power from a glass of water. Water cannot be used in nuclear fusion. The hydrogen atoms in water can be used, or hydrogen from any other source as long as it's deuterium or tritium isotopes. Seperating the hydrogen from water taked a lot of electricity and since the two isotopes you are looking for occur in amount measured in parts per billion yo have to electrolize a shit load of glasses of water before you have enough of those isotopes to maintain a meaningful fusion reaction. Also, to generate the electricity you need a primary energy source which will probably generate waste which effectively debunks myth number two.

Stop getting your science from futurist magazines. They are mostly written by people who are not scientists and who have a very poor record in predicting the future.


Helium-3 works fine, as does deuterium. The only "waste" generated is the irradiated reactor structure. There are other fusion reaction paths for the various isotopes of hydrogen. And different reactor designs - magnetized target fusion, for instance, would eject the plasma directly through an MHD generator - no waste generated there. Sorry to disappoint you.

Nothing from the futurist magazines. I usually read the fusion FAQ by R.F. Heeter.

Or the MTF pages from Los Alamos.

Helium-3 works fine, as does deuterium. The only "waste" generated is the irradiated reactor structure.
The only waste generated at the site. Yo still have to have the infrastructure to generate the fuel. This infrastructure will generate waste, lots of it probably. If you read those publications then you are probably aware that commercial fusion reactors are so far off that to discuss them as a possible remedy to our impending problems is ridiculous.

The only waste generated at the site. Yo still have to have the infrastructure to generate the fuel. This infrastructure will generate waste, lots of it probably. If you read those publications then you are probably aware that commercial fusion reactors are so far off that to discuss them as a possible remedy to our impending problems is ridiculous.

MTF is the closest to being commercial, and yet is the least reported.

Separating deuterium from water doesn't produce nuclear waste, which is what the other poster was worried about.

MTF is the closest to being commercial, and yet is the least reported.How close? Do you think we can start to commercially generate electricity from it in say, 40 years? 50? 70?

Separating deuterium from water doesn't produce nuclear waste, which is what the other poster was worried about.
okay, I'll agree there.

How close? Do you think we can start to commercially generate electricity from it in say, 40 years? 50? 70?

okay, I'll agree there.

I think less than that would be possible, but it's the BIG projects that construct BIG buildings that get the funding. MTF is largely being explored as a means of non-nuclear initiation of a subkiloton nuclear device, space propulsion, and power source for military purposes.

It's much more compact than any other design. There have even been explosive driven models that came close to breakeven.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/jfs_mtf_icc0504.pdf

This one is the most interesting:
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_HTML/PDFfiles/POPpdfs/MTFAppendices.pdf

They are already way beyond proof-of-principle, so that last document is just begging for someone to fund a full-scale commercial model.

I think less than that would be possible, but it's the BIG projects that construct BIG buildings that get the funding. MTF is largely being explored as a means of non-nuclear initiation of a subkiloton nuclear device, space propulsion, and power source for military purposes.

It's much more compact than any other design. There have even been explosive driven models that came close to breakeven. The taurus design has generated surplus energy already, but only for a few seconds.

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/presentations/jfs_mtf_icc0504.pdf

This one is the most interesting:
http://www.ofes.fusion.doe.gov/More_HTML/PDFfiles/POPpdfs/MTFAppendices.pdf

They are already way beyond proof-of-principle, so that last document is just begging for someone to fund a full-scale commercial model.Still a long way off and the problem is that Peak Oil is probably here or very soon. After peak, will we have the resources necessary to continue these kinds of exotic experiments? They wreren't possible before oil. There's no reason to believe research like this will be able to be continued for very long after. They require exotic minerals and metals than need to be mined with oil, transported with oil, smelted and constructed and moved around teh globe with oil...


Our money is much better spent not on magic elixers and silver bullets, but on real, energy savings right now. And I don't mean magifuel injectors in cars. I mean less cars. Take the billions people are proposing for nuclear fusion research and criss cross the continent with rail. Put all of our goods on rail cars and get rid of big trucks for anything other than moving around goods on a very local level. Build light rail lines from all those outer suburban bands of development going in and out of the central cities. Build buses, not to bring people from one side of the city to the other, but just for short hops from rail lnes to street stops. Doing these things will save far more energy than any of these wishful technologies can generate.

The taurus design has generated surplus energy already, but only for a few seconds.

Still a long way off and the problem is that Peak Oil is probably here or very soon. After peak, will we have the resources necessary to continue these kinds of exotic experiments? They wreren't possible before oil. There's no reason to believe research like this will be able to be continued for very long after. They require exotic minerals and metals than need to be mined with oil, transported with oil, smelted and constructed and moved around teh globe with oil...


Our money is much better spent not on magic elixers and silver bullets, but on real, energy savings right now. And I don't mean magifuel injectors in cars. I mean less cars. Take the billions people are proposing for nuclear fusion research and criss cross the continent with rail. Put all of our goods on rail cars and get rid of big trucks for anything other than moving around goods on a very local level. Build light rail lines from all those outer suburban bands of development going in and out of the central cities. Build buses, not to bring people from one side of the city to the other, but just for short hops from rail lnes to street stops. Doing these things will save far more energy than any of these wishful technologies can generate.


Well, there's no replacement for:

plastic
fertilizer
industrial power generation
portable power (cars)

not any practical ones.

Well, there's no replacement for:

plastic
fertilizer
industrial power generation
portable power (cars)

not any practical ones.
Exactly. Which is why we need to conserve the hydrocarbons we have left. Actually, we'll be conserving them wether we like it or not.

Exactly. Which is why we need to conserve the hydrocarbons we have left. Actually, we'll be conserving them wether we like it or not.

The one thing I've wondered:

Solar, wind, etc., can't produce enough to sustain an industrial society.

If we suddenly all had electric cars, demand would double or triple - even with the powerplants we have now, demand would not be met at all.

So, we have to double or triple our electrical output if we want electric cars to replace gasoline/diesel cars. And keep our standard of living.

Nothing produces food like petrochemical fertilizers. Nothing.

Insecticides, plastics, etc. BTW, most plastic bottles are made from natural gas, which has gotten really expensive of late.

We'll need more fission plants, and probably something like the orbital solar platforms - but we should already have begun building them.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060206/nym150.html?.v=32

It's good to see that some major players in the private sector are backing alternative energy.. not that this should be surprising, since it's something we've been promised more than a few times now, but, as they say, it's not until the money shows up that an idea can be said to have gained real traction, and a solar farm than can power 36,000 homes is no small investment by those involved. The plant mentioned in the article will be the world's largest, and several others are under construction in the western states, including some near me.. As someone who depends on oil to make a living, I'm quite happy to see a shift towards finally stabilizing out domestic energy consumption.. so kudos to PBR and SunEdison for leading the way on that. :)

No offense, but.... 36 MW is a joke as far as electrical production. That is less than 1/20th of the produced power of our local Nuclear plant... It would take roughly 51 of these proposed "solar stations" to replace the local plant, using up a hell of alot more room.

So let's just cover the state in solar panels.

Look, I keep stating this in other threads and people just don't seem to get it. There's no magic. We're not going to solar or wind or tide our way out of oil dependency and the coming scarcity of energy. The money spent on this project would have been much better spent on rehabilitating old rail lines and building new ones, something desperately needed in NV where there are next to none and where, after Peak Oil, people will become increasing isolated from agricultural regions, water and trade. The money should also have been spent on building real mass transportation. Monorails, bus lines and trains would have saved much more energy every year than this plant will produce.
Um... the reason why there are no rail lines beyond the few already established, or bus lines is that very few people live in the middle of Nevada. There's a lot around the edges, there the rail and other public transportation goes (excpet in Vegas. Vegas seems to have devloped an allergy against public transportation for some reason).

There's a lot around the edges, there the rail and other public transportation goes (excpet in Vegas. Vegas seems to have devloped an allergy against public transportation for some reason).

True story, right there. Public transportation is horrible here. Last I heard, the monorail was dropping parts onto the street below...

Then, during a test, the emergency handles came off in people's hands. Evidently, the cleaning solution they were using degraded the plastic...

I stress UNLV is not responsible for this. Christ, I hope.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060206/nym150.html?.v=32

It's good to see that some major players in the private sector are backing alternative energy.. not that this should be surprising, since it's something we've been promised more than a few times now, but, as they say, it's not until the money shows up that an idea can be said to have gained real traction, and a solar farm than can power 36,000 homes is no small investment by those involved. The plant mentioned in the article will be the world's largest, and several others are under construction in the western states, including some near me.. As someone who depends on oil to make a living, I'm quite happy to see a shift towards finally stabilizing out domestic energy consumption.. so kudos to PBR and SunEdison for leading the way on that. :)
Nevada huh? Check this out (http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew4.html):

Unlike wind power capacity, new solar power capacity is triple the cost of new gas-generated electricity and quadruple the cost of surplus power. Solar power, like most other renewables, is geographically limited for the foreseeable future. In the United States, central-station solar is limited to the desert Southwest and other selected locales, which often involve transmission investments that custom-sited gas-fired plants can avoid. States such as California and Nevada are swimming in 2-cent-per-kwh economy energy, an insurmountable barrier for cost-effective central-station solar under any conditions..

Seems like solar power in NV would be kinda a waste of money and resources?

Nevada huh? Check this out (http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/studies/renew/renew4.html):

Unlike wind power capacity, new solar power capacity is triple the cost of new gas-generated electricity and quadruple the cost of surplus power. Solar power, like most other renewables, is geographically limited for the foreseeable future. In the United States, central-station solar is limited to the desert Southwest and other selected locales, which often involve transmission investments that custom-sited gas-fired plants can avoid. States such as California and Nevada are swimming in 2-cent-per-kwh economy energy, an insurmountable barrier for cost-effective central-station solar under any conditions..

Seems like solar power in NV would be kinda a waste of money and resources?

I guess the hope is that, as the technology improves, the cost will drop (although I don't know if it will, or at what rate). Then as gas/oil become more expensive, at some point it will make more sense to use solar/wind/whatever.

Big "if", though, as to whether solar/whatever will increase in effectiveness and drop in cost the same way some technologies do.

True story, right there. Public transportation is horrible here. Last I heard, the monorail was dropping parts onto the street below...

Then, during a test, the emergency handles came off in people's hands. Evidently, the cleaning solution they were using degraded the plastic...

I stress UNLV is not responsible for this. Christ, I hope.
I remember one time when I suggested that we should take CitiFare, Reno's bus system somewhere instead of driving as it would save on parking fees. My friends from Vegas looked at me as if I had grown an extra head. None of them had ever ridden a bus before. ;)

I remember one time when I suggested that we should take CitiFare, Reno's bus system somewhere instead of driving as it would save on parking fees. My friends from Vegas looked at me as if I had grown an extra head. None of them had ever ridden a bus before. ;)

Isn't vegas a low density development for the most part though? I mean, that could be a large part of the poor public transport system, it just doesn't work that well in traditional suburban areas. (Like most of long island or westchester).

Isn't vegas a low density development for the most part though? I mean, that could be a large part of the poor public transport system, it just doesn't work that well in traditional suburban areas. (Like most of long island or westchester).
You could have a point there. It sprawls like there's no tomorrow.

You could have a point there. It sprawls like there's no tomorrow.

Yeah. I mean if you look at the NYC metro area, the parts with good public transport are high-density (apartment buildings, small lots, 2-3 family homes), so it's really economical to serve them.

And it's really hard to fit an efficient transit system into a low density area, because either people have to walk for miles (which is probably not going to happen in the desert) or loads of empty buses have to drive around.

Mind you, if gas prices continue to rise, the US is going to have to address its model of town planning at some point, and return to higher density development.

Um... the reason why there are no rail lines beyond the few already established, or bus lines is that very few people live in the middle of Nevada. There's a lot around the edges, there the rail and other public transportation goes (excpet in Vegas. Vegas seems to have devloped an allergy against public transportation for some reason).
Aside form heavy rail going to their population centers, which will be needed, for Nevada I was actually talking more about light rail public transportation. Las Vegas is ridiculous. It takes as long as an hour to go the three miles from one end of the strip to the other. I know there is some rail up the strip, but there needs to be more and not just up teh strip, but to the strip from the outskirts.