NationStates Jolt Archive

Obama unveils new alt energy plans on Earth Day:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/22/obama.energy/index.html

President Obama marked Earth Day Wednesday by announcing a new initiative to lease federal waters for the purpose of generating electricity from wind and ocean currents.


President Obama unveils a new energy initiative Wednesday in Newton, Iowa.

The president announced the initiative, to be administered by the Interior Department, while reiterating his pledge to push for a comprehensive energy plan that encourages the development of alternative fuel sources, cuts dependence on foreign oil, addresses climate change, and creates new jobs.

Wind power can generate 20 percent of the country's electricity by 2030 and support 250,000 jobs, Obama said during a visit to a wind turbine tower manufacturing plant.



I have heard a little about tapping the Gulfstream for energy. Didnt know is has already come this far along but it sounds awsome.

Wind turbine technology just keeps getting better. They do not have to be spinning very fast (don't need that much wind) to produce a lot of electricity. I heard the ones being built at Cape Cod are taller than the Statue of Liberty!

Think keen! Think Green! :D

Finally!

Think keen!
I so know where you're going with this!

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/08/commanderk.JPG
From now on just call me Ken. Rogers.

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/08/commanderk.JPG

Aha - ha ha ha... what the hell!?!? The dude seriously needs a new helmet... well look, to be more exact.

I so know where you're going with this!

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/08/commanderk.JPG
From now on just call me Ken. Rogers.

Daaaaamm!!!! Sombody get that spaceship a catalytic converter! :gundge:

It may just be my lack of knowledge about US goings on over the last 8 years, but I try to keep a fairly close eye on the news, and I'm quite frankly amazed at how much Obama is actually getting done - well, pledging to get done and actually doing in such a short space of time. An interesting contrast to over here, where the last significant thing I heard on the news was that the chancellor is increasing upper band tax and borrowing ridiculous amounts of money. Hooray!

As for the article itself, it's a genuis relief to see real action being taken towards sustainable every sources. It'd be nice from any government, but from the US government it's... it's like an open window in a small room after someone lets off a really nasty fart.

What's all this about energy from the Gulf Stream by the way? The article itself was somewhat vague about the 'ocean currents' source, and it's the first I've heard of it. Sounds like a bloody good idea though.

As I said in the earth day thread: More power to us!

I have heard a little about tapping the Gulfstream for energy. Didnt know is has already come this far along but it sounds awsome.Thermal warfare - keep europe cold?

Thermal warfare - keep europe cold?

The Battlefield 2042 future will come sooner than we thought!

Tidal energy can generate massive amounts of power and is extraordinary efficient. It also requires a massive amount of money to start up. It's why most private industries haven't bothered. As a taxpayer, I approve of the government picking up part of the tab as long as the government and I get some benefit back once it starts operating in the black.

Tidal energy can generate massive amounts of power and is extraordinary efficient. It also requires a massive amount of money to start up. It's why most private industries haven't bothered. As a taxpayer, I approve of the government picking up part of the tab as long as the government and I get some benefit back once it starts operating in the black.

LG, be honest. How much do you think they'd cut back on taxes, or increase spending on things like Welfare, Health care, or things that aren't already over funded once it started operating in the black?

LG, be honest. How much do you think they'd cut back on taxes, or increase spending on things like Welfare, Health care, or things that aren't already over funded once it started operating in the black?

Way to piss in my cornflakes. :(

Thats awesome that wind energy can supply that much power, but 250,000 jobs, even though it sounds big, isn't that number severely small? It's not much of a fiscal stimulus.

Way to piss in my cornflakes. :(

It's what I do best. :D

What's all this about energy from the Gulf Stream by the way? The article itself was somewhat vague about the 'ocean currents' source, and it's the first I've heard of it. Sounds like a bloody good idea though.
I'm pretty sure he is talking about this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=gulf-stream-renewable-energy

I fully support New Wave Energy:

http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/events/Images/A_Bout_De_Souffle.jpg

Look at me, I'm fookin' cultured!

I fully support New Wave Energy:

http://www.french-ital.ucsb.edu/events/Images/A_Bout_De_Souffle.jpg

Look at me, I'm fookin' cultured!

Well, at least it's better than 'new rave'. :D

Thats awesome that wind energy can supply that much power, but 250,000 jobs, even though it sounds big, isn't that number severely small? It's not much of a fiscal stimulus.

250,000 jobs is a good number for just this one thing. But there are lot's of news jobs on the horizon. 10 high speed railways. Solar power gets cheaper every year so expect a big boom in that industry. Whichever type of biofuel turns out to be the best will create jobs.

NOW we need to get all this in concert with using less energy. (the new light bulbs, better home insulation etc...) The biggest waist of energy is our cars. It only takes 1% or your car's horsepower to move you the driver. 90% to move the car and 9% for passengers and cargo. We have GOT to kick steel to the curb and use that composite stuff. (a plastic that jet wings are made out of which is 10x lighter and 6x stronger than steel)

Well, at least it's better than 'new rave'. :D
Grief, yes.

Tidal energy can generate massive amounts of power and is extraordinary efficient.

not exactly Green though :/

Thats awesome that wind energy can supply that much power, but 250,000 jobs, even though it sounds big, isn't that number severely small? It's not much of a fiscal stimulus.

now now thats going to feed 250,000 Dutch and German families :tongue:

The biggest waist of energy is our cars. It only takes 1% or your car's horsepower to move you the driver. 90% to move the car and 9% for passengers and cargo. We have GOT to kick steel to the curb and use that composite stuff. (a plastic that jet wings are made out of which is 10x lighter and 6x stronger than steel)

I fully agree America should start buying more smart cars and such

American jobs to foreign workers!
American jobs to foreign workers!

250,000 jobs is a good number for just this one thing. But there are lot's of news jobs on the horizon. 10 high speed railways. Solar power gets cheaper every year so expect a big boom in that industry. Whichever type of biofuel turns out to be the best will create jobs.


Sure, but what I'm thinking is, doesn't the fossil fuel energy industries employ people in the millions? I could be wrong, but I think if 20% of that industry is replaced, there will be a net job loss. I don't particularly care, but it may be something to consider.

Hurrah!
Renewable energy : )

(And less global warming.)

Sure, but what I'm thinking is, doesn't the fossil fuel energy industries employ people in the millions? I could be wrong, but I think if 20% of that industry is replaced, there will be a net job loss. I don't particularly care, but it may be something to consider.

Those fosil fuel workers days are numbered anyway. There is just not enough oil in America to keep us going for very long. And what has not been drilled yet, should stay where it is in case the military needs it someday. And there will still be a lot of oil needed for making plastics and such so it's not like the oil industry will crash. Just a downsize.

Those fosil fuel workers days are numbered anyway. There is just not enough oil in America to keep us going for very long. And what has not been drilled yet, should stay where it is in case the military needs it someday. And there will still be a lot of oil needed for making plastics and such so it's not like the oil industry will crash. Just a downsize.

I dunno, they may have a good 100 years or so left.

I so know where you're going with this!

http://cache.kotaku.com/assets/resources/2007/08/commanderk.JPG
From now on just call me Ken. Rogers.

It's my favorite childhood video game star!

Also, Obama keeps impressing me. He's had a few false steps, but on the whole the guy keeps rolling natural twenties. It's enough to make one wonder if he's cheating somehow.

I dunno, they may have a good 100 years or so left.

Oh much longer than that. But the downsize is coming. It wont even have to be global warming that forces it. (unless we want to continue buy the amounts of oil that we do now from overseas which is not a good idea)

LG, be honest. How much do you think they'd cut back on taxes, or increase spending on things like Welfare, Health care, or things that aren't already over funded once it started operating in the black?
They could always just print more money. Honest.

I wonder how long it'll be before the fringe environmentalists start shitting all over the initiative and block it for years on end with lawsuits?

More Nuclear Reactors! SCREW THEM DAMN HIPPIES! TURN THEM INTO FUEL!

I wonder how long it'll be before the fringe environmentalists start shitting all over the initiative and block it for years on end with lawsuits?
Who would do this, and why?

I wonder how long it'll be before the fringe environmentalists start shitting all over the initiative and block it for years on end with lawsuits?

There are some Inuit and other polar dwellers suing oil companies because their land that they have lived in for thousands of years is being forever wiped out by climate change. (less sea ice means less protection from storm surge) The US Supreme Court has already ruled that that global warming is real. (in thier own legal words) Don't see why they would change their mind now.

Who would do this, and why?
It could somehow be mildly disruptive?

The president said there is no "silver bullet" to solving the country's energy needs, and that a variety of energy sources will be required to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
This is an outright lie. Nuclear fission is this silver bullet. It could have practically replaced coal by now and even the waste could be converted into new fuel. The reason that it hasn't is because of political decisions and baseless fears of meltdowns and nuclear terrorism using recovered fuels. In short, people who claim to be for the environment killed the most promising, reliable, efficient answer to electrical energy production problems. When you consider that many of the proponents of the wildly expensive alternatives are also heavily invested in them it seems quite obvious why they pushed for the elimination of their best competitor and why they are now trying to ram down our throats their answers.

Sometimes it isn't even about the power. Picken's plan has at least as much to do with controlling water in the American south west as it does with controlling everyone's power and paying for it with government grants (taxpayer money).

Now that I think of it this sounds like a great idea. Yeah, wind, wave and solar plants are a good investment. And bottled water certainly tastes better and is healthier for you. And maybe some all-natural panaceas? Do you think anyone would pay $5 for a pill called placebex?

It could somehow be mildly disruptive?
I just don't know of many environmental groups, apart from primitivist types, who would oppose further spending in renewables.

Also, you're attributing a quote ("The president said...") to me, when I didn't write it. Could you change it, please.

I just don't know of many environmental groups, apart from primitivist types, who would oppose further spending in renewables.

Also, you're attributing a quote ("The president said...") to me, when I didn't write it. Could you change it, please.
If they oppose Nuclear, solar and the like, there'll be someone who will oppose this and claim it's environmentally disruptive.

Also, I'm not attributing the second quote to you. Go back and look again, it's a blank quote. In the future I'll be trying harder to correctly link each quote to each poster who made it but there is no poster on NSG by the name of "Barack H. Obama" or "The President" and considering that it was part of the linked story I figured it would be acceptable to leave the quote blank.

Also, I'm not attributing the second quote to you...
K.

It just looks a bit like that.

The reason that it hasn't is because of political decisions and baseless fears of meltdowns

Of course - fears of meltdowns are baseless. Wasn't that probably part of what caused Kyshtym and Chernobyl - mindsets? People being careless?

Who would do this, and why?

Sticking a whole lot of dirty great turbines in the middle of the ocean could have some devastating impacts on the flora and fauna in the area. Potentially. I think that's what people will complain about.

Not that I agree with them, this is a fucking brilliant move. About bloody time somebody invested in tidal. Plus, I love Obama's multi-pronged approach to energy. Finally a world leader who realises that a combination of all sorts of renewables, a reduction in consumption, and long term investment and maintenance are needed to ensure relatively cheap, reliable, long term energy supply.

Of course - fears of meltdowns are baseless. Wasn't that probably part of what caused Kyshtym and Chernobyl - mindsets? People being careless?
Chernobyl happened in a time when the Soviets couldn't even throw together a good tractor. Make no mistake, the golden age of Sputnik was over and the country and its holdings were going to hell. No one has been killed in the United States by nuclear power plants and even in the unfortunate incident in Ukraine the UN projects that no more than 4000 people have or will get cancer as a result, the majority of which will probably be thyroid which is operable. Countries like France and Switzerland have gone nuclear and it seems to have worked pretty damned well for them. Certainly better than fixing a wind turbine to the Eiffel Tower and every other building and still having to put up with rolling blackouts, don't you think?

Who would do this, and why?

The same ones who tried to block wind power because they were worried about birds. You've got to be a real dumbass to think the cost of a few hundred, or few thousand, or hell a few million dead birds outweighs the massive disruption and mass extinctions that unchecked climate change could produce in many parts of the world.

This is an outright lie. Nuclear fission is this silver bullet. It could have practically replaced coal by now and even the waste could be converted into new fuel. The reason that it hasn't is because of political decisions and baseless fears of meltdowns and nuclear terrorism using recovered fuels. In short, people who claim to be for the environment killed the most promising, reliable, efficient answer to electrical energy production problems. When you consider that many of the proponents of the wildly expensive alternatives are also heavily invested in them it seems quite obvious why they pushed for the elimination of their best competitor and why they are now trying to ram down our throats their answers.

No, the waste can't be converted into new fuel. Not with any level of efficiency.

The question that we in the ecology movement have always asked and no one has been giving satisfactory answer: where the hell are you going to put the fuckmothering waste? The by products of nuclear fission will be dangerous to human life for millenia.

Nuclear fission is neither promising nor efficient. The massive capital cost of nuclear plants and the massive cost of dealing with the waste obliterates any cost-effectiveness to the technology. Waste we generate today from nuclear reactors we'll have to pay for in the millenia to come.

A nuclear power plant needs expensive techs and a lot of security. A windmill farm needs someone with a shotgun & cellphone that went to trade school.

A nuclear power plant needs water. Climate change has brought about more severe droughts and all the mountian glaciers are melting. (even Glacier Nation Park will soon be glacier free) Some good working plants will have to be shut down.

A nuclear power plant needs water.
Which is run in closed cycle, so the actual need really isn't that huge.

The coolant in open cycle, on the other hand, can be something like sea water which is in not in danger of running out. The plant itself can even be used for desalination - after modification - to provide potable water at relatively cheap cost.

Of course, if the plant is nowhere near a sea or stable river/lake then you might run into problems with water and would have to use other means of cooling the closed cycle coolant, be it water or molten lead. :)


On topic of renewable, I recall reading or seeing somewhere a tidbit about a project in Germany where they were using unstable renewable energy - the real problem of solar, wave & wind power (inefficiency & cost are secondary problems) - to generate more stable energy source: Hydrogen. Couldn't find the link, but did discover this (http://www.solarhydrogen.com/eng/index.htm) regarding solar power.

I just don't know of many environmental groups, apart from primitivist types, who would oppose further spending in renewables.
It depends what you mean by 'envrionmentalist'. There are no shortage of envrionmentalists who support large renewable energy civil engineering projects, such as the Severn Barrage, large wind farms and the like, in order to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and cut Carbon Dioxide emissions. There are also large numbers of envrionmentalists who oppose such projects on grounds of damage to habitats, greenfield sites and the construction industry as a whole. It is for those reasons that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, or possibly even both, oppose tidal power, for example.

A nuclear power plant needs expensive techs and a lot of security. A windmill farm needs someone with a shotgun & cellphone that went to trade school.
On the other hand, nuclear power plants produce a lot more energy than the average wind turbine, so that comparison is not so straight-cut.

I've always felt that nuclear power should be used as a transition energy source while we get the technology for renewable researched. Just IMO.

I've always felt that nuclear power should be used as a transition energy source while we get the technology for renewable researched. Just IMO.
While and if. It can take a lot of time.

Renewable energy is cool and nice, but there's a problem with it, in that it's never as practical to extract, and always takes a lot of land.

Now, we could fill deserts with solar collectors, of course. They don't have almost any ecosystem to lose. But that's it. Elsewhere, renewable energy is environmentally damaging. Hydro power plants ruin river ecosystems, which are important as spawning grounds for many of the most coveted species of sea fish. Wind farms are most effective in areas that are also important for the birds. They're also a severe noise pollution source. Solar plants just take up valuable space if built not in a desert.

It's not as much a question of technology as a question of materials required. Solar and wind power are in fact very low-tech. Solar cells are too impractical to consider, so it boils down to collectors - a mirror and a boiler tower. Wind turbines take lots of steel and other metals - finite resources.

There's not as much improvement to be done here with technology, as there is, say, in nuclear power. Say, there are theoretically researched, technically not practical yet, designs for continuous-cycle nuclear plants, with a fuel burnup ratio about 50 times higher than now, and consequently less than a tenth of the waste.

There's not as much improvement to be done here with technology, as there is, say, in nuclear power. Say, there are theoretically researched, technically not practical yet, designs for continuous-cycle nuclear plants, with a fuel burnup ratio about 50 times higher than now, and consequently less than a tenth of the waste.
Actually, the USA had a working research reactor until Clinton cut the funding.

On the other hand, nuclear power plants produce a lot more energy than the average wind turbine, so that comparison is not so straight-cut.

So a wind farm can only have one windmill? I want a recount!

No, the waste can't be converted into new fuel. Not with any level of efficiency.
FRANCE DOES IT! WHY WOULD FRANCE LIE?!
WHY?!

The question that we in the ecology movement have always asked and no one has been giving satisfactory answer: where the hell are you going to put the fuckmothering waste? The by products of nuclear fission will be dangerous to human life for millenia.
But it only takes one fucking neutron striking a U-238 nucleus to push it over the edge to Pu-239. Granted there are some intermediate steps and neutron bombardment, like all sub-atomic partical interactions is a shotgun but it works. You just don't want to accept it because you didn't catch the ferry before it set sail. Neither did I but I don't care because it's better than the alternatives that some of the greenies have proposed. I say some because some other greenies are even protesting solar plants because they say it will disrupt the desert by providing shade to everything that has to crawl under a fucking rock during the day.

Nuclear fission is neither promising nor efficient.
But it is. It meats all the criteria: low waste that can be recovered or stored in a mountain, it's reliable, efficient, safe when respected and handled with care (a windmill can explode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ) in severe weather), and costs less than the other "clean" energy sources. Unlike the photovoltaic cells in calculators nuclear can power a fucking city and fit inside an office building or on a ship. It powers naval vessels bigger than battleships at speeds they couldn't have hoped to match and with a range that is practically infinite between refits/refuelings.

The massive capital cost of current ground-based solar, wind, tidal, etc. and the massive cost of dealing with the waste that they do generate obliterates any cost-effectiveness to the technologies.
Fixed.

Which is run in closed cycle, so the actual need really isn't that huge.

The coolant in open cycle, on the other hand, can be something like sea water which is in not in danger of running out. The plant itself can even be used for desalination - after modification - to provide potable water at relatively cheap cost.

Of course, if the plant is nowhere near a sea or stable river/lake then you might run into problems with water and would have to use other means of cooling the closed cycle coolant, be it water or molten lead. :)


http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/got-water-nuclear-power.html
For every three units of energy produced by the reactor core of a U.S. nuclear power plants, two units are discharged to the environment as waste heat. Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the waste heat discharge.



On topic of renewable, I recall reading or seeing somewhere a tidbit about a project in Germany where they were using unstable renewable energy - the real problem of solar, wave & wind power (inefficiency & cost are secondary problems) - to generate more stable energy source: Hydrogen. Couldn't find the link, but did discover this (http://www.solarhydrogen.com/eng/index.htm) regarding solar power.

http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/

I'm sure that building all of these tidal power generators will be an absolutely carbon neutral process, since the sheer amount of material needed to construct them would be huge, and will pose absolutely no threat to marine life in the area.

Or we could just build a far smaller amount of nuclear power stations, like france does.

Sticking a whole lot of dirty great turbines in the middle of the ocean could have some devastating impacts on the flora and fauna in the area. Potentially.


Not necessarily. There's a big range of ways to get energy from the oceans, some having a bad side effect, others not.

Getting energy from the tide (at a river flowing into the ocean): bad for the fishies.
Wind-turbine-like generators in the water: not too bad; since water is denser than air, they rotate more slowly than wind turbines (which tend to shredder birds).
Then there's a type of underwater ocean power plant that features a kind of wing that flaps up and down: Not bad at all
Osmosis power plant: Dunno, I heard they don't need to block the river like my first example, so probably harmless
Using temperature differences to get energy: No clue.

On topic of renewable, I recall reading or seeing somewhere a tidbit about a project in Germany where they were using unstable renewable energy - the real problem of solar, wave & wind power (inefficiency & cost are secondary problems) - to generate more stable energy source: Hydrogen. Couldn't find the link, but did discover this (http://www.solarhydrogen.com/eng/index.htm) regarding solar power.

Now that sounds like a great idea. Have a nice power farm out in the sea that basically just needs a bit of maintenance, produce your hydrogen right there and use that to power the tankers needed to transport your product. Might also use one of these what-was-the-name-again-kite-sail thingies that make your ships both faster and use less power by harnessing wind.

So a wind farm can only have one windmill? I want a recount!
Nope. It can't have even one windmill.

What it has is many wind turbines. That's why a wind farm, counterintuitively, has higher maintenance requirements than a nuclear powerplant. It costs about 1.5 times more to run, per kW, than a nuclear plant. And that's despite maintenance workers earning a lot less than nuclear technicians.


Before you start arguing based on Yahoo Answers, let me show, based on solid numbers, just how many wind turbines there are.

Here is the world's most powerful wind turbine. It is rated at 6 megawatt and costs 20 million dollars.

http://www.metaefficient.com/wp-content/uploads/e-126.jpg


This thing is 190 meters tall - 630 feet. It's based upon a massive tower of reinforced concrete. They're using a special crane - the largest construction crane in the world - to build it. The hub on the top is larger than yours and mine houses combined, and a few more.
But it's not a simple static brick. The turbine's blades spin at 180 mph (~300 km/h), creating more noise than an interstate highway in rush hour. They use powerful motors to change pitch. The turbine stops if the wind is low, and stops again if it's too high, to avoid toppling over or exploding. The hub is filled with a wide spectrum of electronic and mechanical systems, all requiring complicated maintenance by well-equipped, well-trained teams.

So, you think, it must be able to power half a city.

But no.

It can produces 6 megawatts (about as much as 30 car engines) at peak output, and between 1.2 and 2.0 megawatts yearly average.
On the same yearly average, each American, including children, consumes 1,460W of electricity and 10,400W overall (and if you need to ask, it's more than twice less than the world record). This means that the turbine can supply the electrical needs of 1,000-1,300 people, or total energy needs of 150-200 people.

If you built a condominium skyscraper of the same height next to it, this massive wind turbine would not be able to power it. It would take two such turbines, plus an energy storage system, to provide just for the electrical needs. To also provide power for heating, cooking, water pumping and hot water, and perhaps electric cars (you're not driving a regular car if you live next to a huge roaring wind turbine, are you?) would require 8 such turbines.






http://images.townnews.com/nctimes.com/content/articles/2005/08/22/news/top_stories/82105193953.jpg


And these extra-sized boobs are reactor containment buildings. A modern containment building is 42 meters tall (tad bit more with the nipples), and each can house a 1,500 MWe reactor. The reactor itself is much smaller, about 10 times, and the rest 90% of this building are just for protection.
Its walls are stronger than the best of the medieval fortresses. It can survive a direct hit by a fully loaded Airbus A380 without even a serious crack. It can also survive multiple missile hits, or a conventional strategic bomber's payload, or an indirect nuclear explosion without breaking the reactor vessel. Along with the Pyramids, they are the only man-made structures that can survive a Fujita scale 5 tornado, unharmed. And, of course, it could survive anything that can happen inside, or even what can't happen, like a reactor blowing up inside, but modern reactors are passively safe and can't do that. But just to feel safe.

If you built a skyscraper next to it - and why not, because it's clean and silent - the reactor would look insignificant in comparison. However, it could power the skyscraper. Or a hundred of them. Or five hundred - not sure if there are that many skyscrapers, but nice to know that it can. That's a million-sized city.

A full plant, which typically contains four reactors, could be a complete power source to the city; all buildings and systems, and enough power to charge electric cars. And I don't mean some ugly runabouts, I mean these Tesla Roadsters that do 0-60 in 3 seconds and a quarter-mile in 12.
Because you want a roadster in a quiet and clean city. A city much cleaner than the wind-powered one, because you should visit a steel mill someday, and see how clean that is; making enough raw materials for thousands of mills it would take to replace this plant is a big and dirty job.

But, back to the clean city. The reactors can also produce hydrogen. Not from electrolysis, but from the waste heat, so the power is left for the city. Even with all these facilities, the plant will still be just an unnoticeable speck in the city's skyline. And since the scientists, engineers and technicians who build and maintain these plants are way higher in class than the wind farmers, the city will attract more well-off populace, able to afford these Tesla Roadsters.

Now the truth about wind turbines:
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

Now the truth about wind turbines:
http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html
You have fallen down from at least trying to argue your position to screaming "Wind power FTW!" in another thread and posting links without having read them. Neither could you have read my post so quickly - you're posting blind. Are you planning to convince anyone with that?


On your link, as you might have noticed, none of these "myth dispellings" actually contradict anything I've said above. They also use don't really dispel anything. For instance, they say that the main noise of wind turbines comes from the blades now. Yeah, it does. And the noise of huge blades at 180 mph is anything but quiet. Heard a highway? That's 70 mph.

On your link, as you might have noticed, none of these "myth dispellings" actually contradict anything I've said above. .

Except your myth about noise and cost!

You have fallen down from at least trying to argue your position to screaming "Wind power FTW!" in another thread and posting links without having read them. Neither could you have read my post so quickly - you're posting blind. Are you planning to convince anyone with that?


On your link, as you might have noticed, none of these "myth dispellings" actually contradict anything I've said above. They also use don't really dispel anything. For instance, they say that the main noise of wind turbines comes from the blades now. Yeah, it does. And the noise of huge blades at 180 mph is anything but quiet. Heard a highway? That's 70 mph.

Out of interest, what's that in RPM?

Except your myth about noise and cost!
No, it doesn't, and it's not a myth. A myth is an unsubstantiated qualitative public opinion.

What I have done and quoted are calculations. Clear, direct figures. The wind plant costs as much as nuclear for a kilowatt ($16-20M for 6MW) and works 25-30% of the time. The nuclear plant works 95% of the time.

Your source doesn't give clear figures. That's for a good reason: because they are against it. So it prefers to go along the lines of "modern wind turbines are better than old ones". Yes, they are. All modern power plants are better than the old ones. They still aren't good enough. Expensive, massive, noisy, unreliable.


Out of interest, what's that in RPM?
Just 12, if you mean the rotor. But the blades are 200-something feet long, so they go at 180mph.

And these extra-sized boobs are reactor containment buildings. A modern containment building is 42 meters tall (tad bit more with the nipples), and each can house a 1,500 MWe reactor. The reactor itself is much smaller, about 10 times, and the rest 90% of this building are just for protection.

Why do they have nipples?

No, it doesn't, and it's not a myth. A myth is an unsubstantiated qualitative public opinion.

What I have done and quoted are calculations. Clear, direct figures. The wind plant costs as much as nuclear for a kilowatt ($16-20M for 6MW) and works 25-30% of the time. The nuclear plant works 95% of the time.

Your source doesn't give clear figures. That's for a good reason: because they are against it. So it prefers to go along the lines of "modern wind turbines are better than old ones". Yes, they are. All modern power plants are better than the old ones. They still aren't good enough. Expensive, massive, noisy, unreliable.



Just 12, if you mean the rotor. But the blades are 200-something feet long, so they go at 180mph.

http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html#FactorsintheCostofElectricityfromWindTurbines

The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years.

In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced.

Aside from actual cost, wind energy offers other economic benefits which make it even more competitive in the long term:



20-30% of the time is rediculous. Where are your blackout reports from wind towns?

Just 12, if you mean the rotor. But the blades are 200-something feet long, so they go at 180mph.

No they don't, the blade tips would.

Also, that turbine doesn't shut down in high winds.

Why do they have nipples?
The same reason cars in promo pictures always have a naked girl on the hood. You have to look sexy in modern competitive environment - I mean, if you think your john is long, look at that wind turbine! And for the boys, Team Nuclear made these giant boobs.



[ Technically, these house overpressure valves, to let the steam out in the event the reactor has to be cooled by an excessive flow of water, and it is not released otherwise. ]

No they don't, the blade tips would.

Also, that turbine doesn't shut down in high winds.

Ive seen them on TV. They are spinning VERY slow and pumping out plenty of elictricity.

Ive seen them on TV. They are spinning VERY slow and pumping out plenty of elictricity.

Whereas I'm taking my information from the site Vault 10 took the picture from but obviously didn't read.

Whereas I'm taking my information from the site Vault 10 took the picture from but obviously didn't read.

*high-5s* :D

Ive seen them on TV. They are spinning VERY slow and pumping out plenty of elictricity.
That's because they're on TV, filmed from half a mile away. If you were right below, you'd see how fast the blade goes.
And I wonder how you see their electricity. A complement to X-ray vision?


No they don't, the blade tips would.
That's still 90mph for the middle.

Also, that turbine doesn't shut down in high winds.
It does. They all do.
http://www.enercon.de/en/e112.htm

Cut-in wind speed: 2.5 m/s
Cut-out wind speed: 28 - 34 m/s

That's still 90mph for the middle.

No it isn't.


It does. They all do.
http://www.enercon.de/en/e112.htm

Cut-in wind speed: 2.5 m/s
Cut-out wind speed: 28 - 34 m/s

Again like small turbines, this one does not shut right off at a predetermined speed due to gusts or just very high wind speeds. It simply throttles down by turning the blades slightly away from the wind so as to continue to generate power though at a lower production rate. Then the instant the wind is more favorable, it starts back up again. Many smaller wind turbines do something similar except have no blade pitch control, they use a technique called something like “side furling” where the whole machine, excepting the tail, turns “sideways” to catch less wind but continue operating.

http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html

The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped
Again: "The cost has dropped". Sure it has. A commercial wind farm is cheaper per kW than an experimental one, or a backyard unit. It's still too high to make economic sense without subsidies.


20-30% of the time is rediculous. Where are your blackout reports from wind towns?
There are no towns powered solely by wind turbines. They all rely on backups of some sort.
If there were, there wouldn't be blackout reports still, instead, they'd have "we had full power for two hours minutes today!" reports.

Have a llok at the E 126 instead of that 2004 link with the e-112:
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2009/02/worlds-largest-wind-turbine.html

Again:


There are no towns powered solely by wind turbines. They all rely on backups of some sort.

This was the first one:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080715-wind-powered-town.html

Have a llok at the E 126 instead of that 2004 link with the e-112:
I was looking at the E-126 the whole time. The comparison with nuclear involved this one.


This was the first one:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080715-wind-powered-town.html
Now, try to think for a moment.

Either blackout is default state for their grid, or they have a backup. It's the latter. And that backup is the grid. Because there's no way that town would be able to afford four wind turbines. They're there for grid power, and just happen to be in that town.

Wind turbines can't produce power if there's not enough wind.

Now, try to think for a moment.

Either blackout is default state for their grid, or they have a backup. It's the latter. And that backup is the grid. Because there's no way that town would be able to afford four wind turbines. They're there for grid power, and just happen to be in that town.

Wind turbines can't produce power if there's not enough wind.

The backup for a wind turbine is the batteries they charge.

Where are your horror story links?

[ Technically, these house overpressure valves, to let the steam out in the event the reactor has to be cooled by an excessive flow of water, and it is not released otherwise. ]

Ah. *writes that down* Thank you.

The backup for a wind turbine is the batteries they charge.
Where are your horror story links?
Right in your post. Batteries. Lead and sulfuric acid. Gre-een!

Right in your post. Batteries. Lead and sulfuric acid. Gre-een!

Lithium batteries FTW!!!

LG is a physicist as well as clown, I bet he could find a way to harness the power of Awesome and convert it into electricity.

Then we could put Clint Eastwood and Batman in the same room having a stare down; and provide elctricity for the whole human race!

LG is a physicist as well as clown, I bet he could find a way to harness the power of Awesome and convert it into electricity.

I'll donate my George Carlin collection since it's for a good cause. :p

LG is a physicist as well as clown, I bet he could find a way to harness the power of Awesome and convert it into electricity.

Then we could put Clint Eastwood and Batman in the same room having a stare down; and provide elctricity for the whole human race!

I'll donate my George Carlin collection since it's for a good cause. :p

We may have to occasionally supplement the supply with occasional applications of Agent Gibbs from NCIS. *nod*

We may have to occasionally supplement the supply with occasional applications of Agent Gibbs from NCIS. *nod*

If we put Mark Harmon (Gibs), Chuck Norris, Batman, and Clint Eastwood into a stare down competition I thoerize that the resulting amount of awesome would cause a massive awesome overload and quite possibly destabilize the fabric of reality and create an energy output far too large to harness properly; and then awesome things would ensue.

If we put Mark Harmon (Gibs), Chuck Norris, Batman, and Clint Eastwood into a stare down competition I thoerize that the resulting amount of awesome would cause a massive awesome overload and quite possibly destabilize the fabric of reality and create an energy output far too large to harness properly; and then awesome things would ensue.

Even if it just heats up the BBQ it's a start! :D

Even if it just heats up the BBQ it's a start! :D

Shit man, I think that if we did that every steak within a 20 mile radius would instantly cook to medium rare.

Shit man, I think that if we did that every steak within a 20 mile radius would instantly cook to medium rare.

*adds extra paper plates to grocery list*

Also, that turbine doesn't shut down in high winds.
Then there is the possibility of an explosion or fire in severe weather. Most commercial wind turbines do shut down in severe weather to avoid serious damage.

Ive seen them on TV. They are spinning VERY slow and pumping out plenty of elictricity.
They low RPM but you have to remember that these things are fucking huge. The nacells of most of those 3-blade turbines are big enough to safely land a helicopter on. The blades move fast enough to cleave large raptors in half even though they're as dull as a car bumber. And they are not pumping out plenty of "elictricity".

Also, NCIS and every other CSI clone sucks donkey balls just like the original.

Then there is the possibility of an explosion or fire in severe weather. Most commercial wind turbines do shut down in severe weather to avoid serious damage.


They low RPM but you have to remember that these things are fucking huge. The nacells of most of those 3-blade turbines are big enough to safely land a helicopter on. The blades move fast enough to cleave large raptors in half even though they're as dull as a car bumber. And they are not pumping out plenty of "elictricity".

Also, NCIS and every other CSI clone sucks donkey balls just like the original.

Which part of the turbine catches on fire?

Which part of the turbine catches on fire?
The hubs of several turbines have caught fire from overheating. It's usually a complete loss because nobody can get up the shafts to the nacell and put it out. If the wind is too strong the turbine could spin out of control and strike its shaft causing a catastrophic failure and collapse. They litterally house tons of machinery at the top, if that fails it could mean serious damage or worse, shrapnel scattering for hundreds of yards.

The hubs of several turbines have caught fire from overheating. It's usually a complete loss because nobody can get up the shafts to the nacell and put it out. If the wind is too strong the turbine could spin out of control and strike its shaft causing a catastrophic failure and collapse. They litterally house tons of machinery at the top, if that fails it could mean serious damage or worse, shrapnel scattering for hundreds of yards.

Do you have a source?

Green will be the next exploding bubble. Bigger than the internet one.

You can't do all your energy with green stuff. The problem with green is that you are never sure what you will get. If you produce too much power or not enough and try do distribute that on the electrical net then the system will collapse. You always, at least for the next 20 or 30 years, need gas or coal turbines or a nuclear power plant.

Green will be the next exploding bubble. Bigger than the internet one.

You can't do all your energy with green stuff. The problem with green is that you are never sure what you will get. If you produce too much power or not enough and try do distribute that on the electrical net then the system will collapse. You always, at least for the next 20 or 30 years, need gas or coal turbines or a nuclear power plant.

I don't believe you.

Also, NCIS and every other CSI clone sucks donkey balls just like the original.

It does, but Mark Harmon kicks ass!

Do you have a source?
Look up wind turbine fire on any major search engine and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Here are just a few examples:
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/1054
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/03/28/wind-turbine-fire/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb4_1204940722 - it's especially shiny if the blades are still spinning.
http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9605354

This one from Snopes is on a video of one of two Danish wind turbines exploding during high winds:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/windmill.asp

Exact figures are a bit difficult to come by since governments are too busy fellating wind power producers to notice when one of these goes up in smoke or spins out of control and crashes into itself.

There is a lot of energy in a hurricane but you can't run the world on a zephyr.

Look up wind turbine fire on any major search engine and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Here are just a few examples:
http://www.windaction.org/pictures/1054

So, this one was in the process of being repaired when some oil caught on fire. In other words, we are talking about an abnormal or exceptional case.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2008/03/28/wind-turbine-fire/

This photo sure gets a lot of play in these 'windwatch' websites. Do you have a link to the attached article?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=eb4_1204940722 - it's especially shiny if the blades are still spinning.

Videos with no accompanying article mean nothing. For all we know, that's a video of a test for fire saftey in windturbines.

http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9605354

Caused by a foreign object, apparently. I wonder if it got there accidentally.

This one from Snopes is on a video of one of two Danish wind turbines exploding during high winds:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/windmill.asp

So, now we know what happens to a small percentage of wind turbines in hurricanes that have not been properly maintained. Problems are to be expected with any new technology. Fortunately, this is not nearly as dire as what would happen if a nuclear reactor went into overdrive. Or caught on fire.

Exact figures are a bit difficult to come by since governments are too busy fellating wind power producers to notice when one of these goes up in smoke or spins out of control and crashes into itself.

There is a lot of energy in a hurricane but you can't run the world on a zephyr.

Yes, yes, those evil government types are in bed with the evil windmill guys in order to rob you of your right to burn carcinogenic fuels. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, this is not nearly as dire as what would happen if a nuclear reactor went into overdrive.

Which, if a proper containment building is constructed over the reactor, not much. Containment buildings are built to withstand that sort of thing. And if you want to bring up Chernobyl, the Soviets skipped building a containment building for that one to begin with I believe.

Also, nuclear reactors going into overdrive, or to be more precise, having a runaway reaction, are usually only possible in the event of incompetent design and incompetent staff. Or having really greedy cost cutters running the show, which I suppose is a valid complaint.

As for catching fire, unless someone is dousing the facility in gasoline and throwing a match, the reactor vessel isn't likely to catch fire unless it melts down, which I've already addressed.

I don't believe you.

Too bad for you, it's the reality. Electricity is a special commodity. You can't store it. What is produced, have to be used right away. Now with green energy you can't do predictions, it's too much depending on the weather, sun, etc... You can use green power, but you always have to use other types of energy sources to avoid unbalances on the high voltage lines.

If you would not do, then or people have no electricity when the wind is down, or when there's too much wind, sun or whatever then the lines would explode.

Now you know why sometimes the street lights are burning in the middle of the day. They just want to get rid of overcapacity.

Which, if a proper containment building is constructed over the reactor, not much. Containment buildings are built to withstand that sort of thing. And if you want to bring up Chernobyl, the Soviets skipped building a containment building for that one to begin with I believe.

Also, nuclear reactors going into overdrive, or to be more precise, having a runaway reaction, are usually only possible in the event of incompetent design and incompetent staff. Or having really greedy cost cutters running the show, which I suppose is a valid complaint.

As for catching fire, unless someone is dousing the facility in gasoline and throwing a match, the reactor vessel isn't likely to catch fire unless it melts down, which I've already addressed.

That's all well and good, but even a contained nuclear meltdown or small case of arson is still going to cause far more damage than even the worst turbine accident.

Too bad for you, it's the reality.

Then provide evidence.

That's all well and good, but even a contained nuclear meltdown or small case of arson is still going to cause far more damage than even the worst turbine accident.



Then provide evidence.

Search for yourself, I gave a decent explanation. But if you want to be ignorant, be my guest.

But you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission

I worked several months for an energy company. Before that, I was not aware of this thing as well.

That's all well and good, but even a contained nuclear meltdown or small case of arson is still going to cause far more damage than even the worst turbine accident.


A contained meltdown, I can concede, if only for the cost of a new reactor. But a small case of arson? Please. At best you'd burn out some wiring and a few fixtures in the outer buildings, no different than if someone tried to set fire to an office building. You can't expect me to buy that your run of the mill arsonist is going to somehow waltz into the containment building and try to set the reactor alight?

Also, I do believe that up to code nuclear power facilities are built to withstand the sort of typhoons that would wreck turbines, giving them greater natural disaster survivability, so you can't really compare the two.

Search for yourself, I gave a decent explanation. But if you want to be ignorant, be my guest.

I worked several months for an energy company. Before that, I was not aware of this thing as well.

No. You made the claim. You provide the evidence. If you are incapable of that, I will simply assume that you are incapable of actually engaging in this debate in some sort of intelligent manner.

No. You made the claim. You provide the evidence. If you are incapable of that, I will simply assume that you are incapable of actually engaging in this debate in some sort of intelligent manner.

Then stay stupid.

Then stay stupid.

I think someone needs a refresher course in NSG 101: How to debate.

That's all well and good, but even a contained nuclear meltdown or small case of arson is still going to cause far more damage than even the worst turbine accident.
An arson is going to only cause economic damage, and have the greenies mentioned how tight the nuclear plant security is?
The risk of a meltdown is extremely small, and outright nonexistent in more contemporary designs. And even if it happens, the pollution doesn't leave the power plant area.



Chernobyl was a result of absolutely criminal carelessness throughout, from design, to maintenance, to operations, to the politicians that put pressure to complete the test in time. And not just carelessness, but also idiocy, lack of even the common sense. They tested a potential new passive safety system by turning off all other safety systems, deliberately provoking an accident, and then, even when it went wrong, overriding the safety and increasing the power.

That's like testing a car's safety by driving it to a crash - and when the airbags go off, throwing them out and crashing again at a higher speed. Captain Obvious says you're not going to be any safer by intentionally crashing. If he was in Chernobyl, he would have saved it.

Chernobyl wasn't an accident, it was a careless experiment that was bound to go wrong, and did so.

A contained meltdown, I can concede, if only for the cost of a new reactor. But a small case of arson? Please. At best you'd burn out some wiring and a few fixtures in the outer buildings, no different than if someone tried to set fire to an office building. You can't expect me to buy that your run of the mill arsonist is going to somehow waltz into the containment building and try to set the reactor alight?

Also, I do believe that up to code nuclear power facilities are built to withstand the sort of typhoons that would wreck turbines, giving them greater natural disaster survivability, so you can't really compare the two.

You don't think a small intentional fire in the right place in a nuclear reactor could easily cause a lot of damage? What if I set fire to the wiring coming out of the different failsafe mechanisms? Or the mechanisms themselves?

I would assume that reinforced concrete static structures are more capable of withstanding typhoon winds than a wind turbine, which is designed to be moved by wind. That has little do with the fact that if a problem does occur, the nuclear reactor will be a far greater problem to deal with.

Also, windmills do no thave to deal with a whole range of other problems associated with nuclear energy. Unless you can think of a way of making a dirty bomb out of windmill waste.

I think someone needs a refresher course in NSG 101: How to debate.

I gave an explantion AND a link. So what's your problem?

An arson is going to only cause economic damage, and have the greenies mentioned how tight the nuclear plant security is?...
Chernobyl wasn't an accident, it was a careless experiment that was bound to go wrong, and did so.

See post 95.

...Electricity is a special commodity. You can't store it.....

Batteries store electricity by converting it into chemical energy. Hydrogen can be used the same way.

So what's your problem?

I'm all giddy and high on energy drinks.

See post 95.



Batteries store electricity by converting it into chemical energy. Hydrogen can be used the same way.

No. For your ordinary purposes, it is possible. But not for high voltage lines.

Do you really think they have a battery system to backup the entire network? :)
How many batteries would that be?

Read the wiki link I provided, then you are able to understand the basics of producing electricity.

You don't think a small intentional fire in the right place in a nuclear reactor could easily cause a lot of damage? What if I set fire to the wiring coming out of the different failsafe mechanisms? Or the mechanisms themselves?

Oh come on. All of these are inside any sensible containment building. The containment building is the final failsafe. A failsafe that sits outside the containment building is a waste of resources. Yes, you could damage the auxiliary facilities, which are not as well protected and outside the containment building, but you wouldn't be able to directly damage any of the key reactor functions without getting into the containment building.

And this doesn't even account for the fact that nuclear power stations are designed with multiple perimeters that are commonly patrolled by armed guards. Chain link fences, alarms, that sort of thing. What kind of arsonist is this supposed to be? A team of SAS operatives?


Also, windmills do no thave to deal with a whole range of other problems associated with nuclear energy. Unless you can think of a way of making a dirty bomb out of windmill waste.

This is countered by the fact that nuclear waste can be recycled with later generation reactors, while having a massively higher output per square meter of land. Windmills have their own problems you know. And they're definitely the worst choice to replace power generation needs in developed countries with small land availability.

No. For your ordinary purposes, it is possible. But not for high voltage lines.

That is why they have transformers.

Do you really think they have a battery system to backup the entire network? :)
How many batteries would that be?

I was not suggesting batteries for the entire network, I was simply pointing out that you are wrong in your belief that electricity can not be stored.

Read the wiki link I provided, then you are able to understand the basics of producing electricity.

I asked for evidence of your previous claims. That link does not provide evidence of such.

Oh come on. All of these are inside any sensible containment building. The containment building is the final failsafe. A failsafe that sits outside the containment building is a waste of resources. Yes, you could damage the auxiliary facilities, which are not as well protected and outside the containment building, but you wouldn't be able to directly damage any of the key reactor functions without getting into the containment building.

And this doesn't even account for the fact that nuclear power stations are designed with multiple perimeters that are commonly patrolled by armed guards. Chain link fences, alarms, that sort of thing. What kind of arsonist is this supposed to be? A team of SAS operatives?

Again, even if all the damage is restricted to within the containment building, it will still cause more damage than a wind turbine that explodes from spinning too fast.

Thank you for reminding me of the additional security costs involved with nuclear energy. Tell me, do you know if these costs are taken into account in the usual comparisons?

This is countered by the fact that nuclear waste can be recycled with later generation reactors, while having a massively higher output per square meter of land. Windmills have their own problems you know. And they're definitely the worst choice to replace power generation needs in developed countries with small land availability.

Please tell me which reactors currently operating are able to recycle all of their fuel. I would not argue that wind power is the only, or even the best, vianble solution. So pointing a situation where it is not ideal does not automatically mean that nuclear power should be used instead of wind in all instances.

That is why they have transformers.



I was not suggesting batteries for the entire network, I was simply pointing out that you are wrong in your belief that electricity can not be stored.



Not for the purpose you intended. You are comparing oranges with lemons.



I asked for evidence of your previous claims. That link does not provide evidence of such.


Yes, it does. But you're too lazy to read about balancing, brown and blackouts.

Here's another link:

The problem is that large quantities of electricity cannot be stored.
This means that the quantity of electricity generated at any given time has to balance demand, which is why the distribution system is crucial to the use of electricity

http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/electricity_02.asp

See post 95.
It was post 95 I've replied to.

If you're making the point through quote-editing, no. A fire isn't capable of causing a meltdown. And comparing Chernobyl to a modern reactor is like comparing a barrel of nitroglycerin to a diesel engine.


You don't think a small intentional fire in the right place in a nuclear reactor could easily cause a lot of damage? What if I set fire to the wiring coming out of the different failsafe mechanisms? Or the mechanisms themselves?
You need a special talent to set fire to steel mechanisms and mineral-insulated armored cables that are physically incapable of burning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral-insulated_copper-clad_cable#Purpose_and_use

Also, many or most safeties don't even use electricity.

So no, a small intentional fire in the right place could not cause a lot of damage. The most damage would be caused by setting fire to an office building, because it at least wouldn't be extinguished there in a minute (or burn out in a few).

That is why they have transformers.


No. Transformers are not used for that but for converting electricity from high to low voltage or vice versa.

Please, can you learn about the elementary basics before you take a position.

So, this one was in the process of being repaired when some oil caught on fire. In other words, we are talking about an abnormal or exceptional case.



This photo sure gets a lot of play in these 'windwatch' websites. Do you have a link to the attached article?



Videos with no accompanying article mean nothing. For all we know, that's a video of a test for fire saftey in windturbines.



Caused by a foreign object, apparently. I wonder if it got there accidentally.



So, now we know what happens to a small percentage of wind turbines in hurricanes that have not been properly maintained. Problems are to be expected with any new technology. Fortunately, this is not nearly as dire as what would happen if a nuclear reactor went into overdrive. Or caught on fire.



Yes, yes, those evil government types are in bed with the evil windmill guys in order to rob you of your right to burn carcinogenic fuels. :rolleyes:

Good work. Although from what I have heard, the biggest threat from nuke plants are terrorists. 50 of em (or so) with assault weapons and body armor could make their way in to one and deliberatly cause a meltdown. This can be prevented with even more security but now our light bill gets even higher to pay for the security!

Not for the purpose you intended. You are comparing oranges with lemons.

Which purpose did I intend? I think you will find this difficult to answer, as I didn't intend any purpose for any batteries.

Yes, it does. ...

No. It does not.
I asked you to provide evidence for the following statements:

Green will be the next exploding bubble. Bigger than the internet one.

You can't do all your energy with green stuff.

The problem with green is that you are never sure what you will get.

You always, at least for the next 20 or 30 years, need gas or coal turbines or a nuclear power plant.

A wiki article about power transmission does not constitute evidence for these claims. Try again.

Again, even if all the damage is restricted to within the containment building, it will still cause more damage than a wind turbine that explodes from spinning too fast.
So? What is the problem with that? The damage is contained, it's just an economic loss. Either covered by insurance or taken into account. And that account involves the fact that the chance of said damage is extremely small.


Thank you for reminding me of the additional security costs involved with nuclear energy. Tell me, do you know if these costs are taken into account in the usual comparisons?
Yes.

It was post 95 I've replied to.

If you're making the point through quote-editing, no. A fire isn't capable of causing a meltdown. And comparing Chernobyl to a modern reactor is like comparing a barrel of nitroglycerin to a diesel engine.

You need a special talent to set fire to steel mechanisms and mineral-insulated armored cables that are physically incapable of burning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mineral-insulated_copper-clad_cable#Purpose_and_use

Also, many or most safeties don't even use electricity.

So no, a small intentional fire in the right place could not cause a lot of damage. The most damage would be caused by setting fire to an office building, because it at least wouldn't be extinguished there in a minute (or burn out in a few).

And in post 95, I pointed out everything I need to reply to this, but i shall repeat myself

Even a contained meltdown is worse than a turbine accident.

Even a small fire is worse than a turbine accident.

So? What is the problem with that? The damage is contained, it's just an economic loss. Either covered by insurance or taken into account. And that account involves the fact that the chance of said damage is extremely small.



Yes.

Because I do not want to pay extra. EDIT: And the simple fact that while the reactor is being fixed, we have no power.

And I would like some evidence that security costs are covered in comparisons.

Because I do not want to pay extra.
You won't. You'll pay less than for any other kind of power except coal.

While a single reactor is more expensive than a single turbine, it also produces over-proportionately more power. Hence, there are fewer of them. And the risk of any specific one having an accident is lower than that for any single wind turbine. Do the math. It's cheaper with nuclear.


And I would like some evidence that security costs are covered in comparisons.
They are a subset of Operations&Maintenance.

ex.: http://www.babcock.com/services/nuclear_operations_management/safeguards_security.html

O&M is included in the comparisons.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/finlandpowercosts.jpg



EDIT: And the simple fact that while the reactor is being fixed, we have no power.
You also have no power from the wind turbine while it's being fixed. Or when it's not windy enough or too windy. And that's way more often than with the reactor.

Fortunately, that's why we have an energy grid, and why plants have multiple reactors. They have planned temporary shutdowns too.

Again, even if all the damage is restricted to within the containment building, it will still cause more damage than a wind turbine that explodes from spinning too fast.

Hang on. I talked about the near impossibility for your run of the mill arsonist to do damage to anything inside the containment building, and you're still talking about damage within? Are we on the same page here?


Thank you for reminding me of the additional security costs involved with nuclear energy. Tell me, do you know if these costs are taken into account in the usual comparisons?

Not specifically. Do you?


Please tell me which reactors currently operating are able to recycle all of their fuel.

Correction on my part. It's not the reactor specifically that recycles the waste, but reprocessing nuclear waste to extract say, actinides from it to be used in fast breeder reactors would close the nuclear fuel cycle and reduce total waste produced. Can you eliminate waste entirely? Probably not. But it can be reduced to a fraction of the levels that non-recycling methods do. And if you want to ask for viability, Belgium, France, UK, Italy, India US and Japan, already do operate such facilities.


I would not argue that wind power is the only, or even the best, vianble solution. So pointing a situation where it is not ideal does not automatically mean that nuclear power should be used instead of wind in all instances.

I don't advocate nuclear energy as the be all and end all to energy concerns, nor do I deny that wind energy has its place. But what I do want to point out is that a balanced approach of development of both such technologies and infrastructure is far more preferable than merely focusing on one. Each has its pros and cons and would be better used to supplement each other.

You won't. You'll pay less than for any other kind of power except coal.

While a single reactor is more expensive than a single turbine, it also produces over-proportionately more power. Hence, there are fewer of them. And the risk of any specific one having an accident is lower than that for any single wind turbine. Do the math. It's cheaper with nuclear.


Do you have evidence for that claim that doesn't come from a pro-nuclear site?

I have trouble imagining how a wind turbine, which can be made by my local mechanic out of spare parts and uses a free fuel source can be more expensive
than nuclear. Operation and maintanance costs can not be that high, considering my local mechanic can also fix it, while nuclear technicians are not cheap.

I would like a source that explores Life Cycle Assessment costs. Decommisioning nuclear reactors can't be cheap.

Please provide a source showing levels of risk.

They are a subset of Operations&Maintenance.

ex.: http://www.babcock.com/services/nuclear_operations_management/safeguards_security.html

O&M is included in the comparisons.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/images/info/finlandpowercosts.jpg

Those links do not add up to evidence that security costs are inculded in cost comparisons.

You also have no power from the wind turbine while it's being fixed. Or when it's not windy enough or too windy. And that's way more often than with the reactor.

Fortunately, that's why we have an energy grid, and why plants have multiple reactors. They have planned temporary shutdowns too.

Wind farms have more than one wind turbine.

Are all the reactors in different containment buildings?

Hang on. I talked about the near impossibility for your run of the mill arsonist to do damage to anything inside the containment building, and you're still talking about damage within? Are we on the same page here?

Are you claiming that everything inside the containment building is not flammable?

Not specifically. Do you?

If I had the information, would I be asking for it?

Correction on my part. It's not the reactor specifically that recycles the waste, but reprocessing nuclear waste to extract say, actinides from it to be used in fast breeder reactors would close the nuclear fuel cycle and reduce total waste produced. Can you eliminate waste entirely? Probably not. But it can be reduced to a fraction of the levels that non-recycling methods do. And if you want to ask for viability, Belgium, France, UK, Italy, India US and Japan, already do operate such facilities.

Please provide links showing that there are currently viable systems for using enough of the waste that nuclear proliferation is not a concern.

I don't advocate nuclear energy as the be all and end all to energy concerns, nor do I deny that wind energy has its place. But what I do want to point out is that a balanced approach of development of both such technologies and infrastructure is far more preferable than merely focusing on one. Each has its pros and cons and would be better used to supplement each other.

Shhh. I agree with you, but that doesn't make as fun a debate. Ideally, each community would have several energy producing systems which are all environmentally friendly. Both nuclear and wind have a place in that.

Which purpose did I intend? I think you will find this difficult to answer, as I didn't intend any purpose for any batteries.


Yes, you did. You argued to use bateries to store electricity, while this is not possible for big volumes.



A wiki article about power transmission does not constitute evidence for these claims. Try again.

That wiki page is explaining most of what I said. It's talking about the balance between demand and supply, brown- and blackouts.

About the green bubble. I can't proof that for sure. But the signs are rather obvious. It's very comparable to the internet business. Politicians and companies rumble a lot about the new heaven and are thus inflating the bubble. The human cattle will buy once more enormous amounts of stocks. And suddenly it will explode, because lots of those green solutions will not return a decent ROI.

No you can't use green energy as the only source of energy. At least not with solar and wind energy, which is used the most as the green solution.
This due the technical limitations of the whole electricity grid. I explained before that you can't adjust the demand/supply only with solar or wind energy alone, it's too unpredictable.

To adjust the unpredictable factor, you still need gas turbines and/or nuclear power. Nuclear power has the advantage that the delivery is rather stable. A gas turbine has the advantage that it can produce quick energy and it can be halted fast too.

Maybe we find another solution in 20 or 30 years, but not today.

Do you have evidence for that claim that doesn't come from a pro-nuclear site?
I have trouble imagining how a wind turbine, which can be made by my local mechanic out of spare parts
Your local mechanic has 60-meter composite blades lying around?
6-foot gears?
Huge construction cranes to build 450-feet towers?
Servomechanics sensors and circuitry?
High-power electric inverters the size of a truck?


Operation and maintanance costs can not be that high, considering my local mechanic can also fix it, while nuclear technicians are not cheap.
He probably can turn it on or off, but not fix. To fix something bigger than a software glitch, you need a very tall crane or a helicopter and a team of industrial alpinists specifically trained in working on this turbine.

All of that would be not such a big issue, if you didn't need a thousand wind turbines to replace each reactor.


I would like a source that explores Life Cycle Assessment costs. Decommisioning nuclear reactors can't be cheap.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html
It's not cheap. But it's already in the cost. And not only is it planned somewhere, but the operators are required by law to prepare the money beforehand, as a safeguard against credit availability problems.

In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. As of 2001, $23.7 billion of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving a liability of about $11.6 billion to be covered over the operating lives of 104 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit).


Please provide a source showing levels of risk. You're intentionally stalling the discussion, requiring a source for every detail, aren't you?

Sadly, this is none of your business. Nuclear plants are operating worldwide. Hundreds of them. They are supplying electric power for lower price than the alternatives. This price includes capital costs, operations, maintenance, repairs, decommissioning, insurance, and all other expenses. That's all you need. How specifically they do it, how often do problems occur, and how much they cost to fix is something you have neither the necessary education and dedication to understand, nor the need to know.

When you buy gasoline, you don't request the supplier to tell you how often do oil pumps break down and how much do they cost to fix, "so as not to pay extra". It's all in the price already. It's no different with electricity.


Those links do not add up to evidence that security costs are inculded in cost comparisons.
How about we change the tune? What if you provide figures for the security costs that you consider enormous and don't believe to be part of the comparison already.


Are all the reactors in different containment buildings?
Yes, always. Safety rules.

Yes, you did. You argued to use bateries to store electricity, while this is not possible for big volumes.

Is it? How big avolume?


....

About the green bubble. I can't proof that for sure. But the signs are rather obvious. It's very comparable to the internet business. Politicians and companies rumble a lot about the new heaven and are thus inflating the bubble. The human cattle will buy once more enormous amounts of stocks. And suddenly it will explode, because lots of those green solutions will not return a decent ROI.

I doubt that designs based on sustainability will be so unsustainable.

No you can't use green energy as the only source of energy.....

Maybe we find another solution in 20 or 30 years, but not today.

Please provide evidence instead of simply repeating yourself.

Your local mechanic has 60-meter composite blades lying around?
6-foot gears?
Huge construction cranes to build 450-feet towers?
Servomechanics sensors and circuitry?
High-power electric inverters the size of a truck?

He probably can turn it on or off, but not fix. To fix something bigger than a software glitch, you need a very tall crane or a helicopter and a team of industrial alpinists specifically trained in working on this turbine.

You don't need all that to create wind turbines.

http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/index.html

That guy built one for himself. The best part is the cost. $140.62

All of that would be not such a big issue, if you didn't need a thousand wind turbines to replace each reactor.

I don't see why this is a problem.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf19.html
It's not cheap. But it's already in the cost. And not only is it planned somewhere, but the operators are required by law to prepare the money beforehand, as a safeguard against credit availability problems.

In USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. As of 2001, $23.7 billion of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power plants had been collected, leaving a liability of about $11.6 billion to be covered over the operating lives of 104 reactors (on basis of average $320 million per unit).


Life Cycle assessments include decommisioning as well as other costs. This is why I was looking for a source that shows LCAs for various different types of energy production. A comparison can then be made that shows all the expenses associated with any system during the entire life cycle of the system.

....

Sadly, this is none of your business. Nuclear plants are operating worldwide. Hundreds of them. They are supplying electric power for lower price than the alternatives. This price includes capital costs, operations, maintenance, repairs, decommissioning, insurance, and all other expenses. That's all you need. How specifically they do it, how often do problems occur, and how much they cost to fix is something you have neither the necessary education and dedication to understand, nor the need to know.

That is exactly correct, which is why I asked for LCAs. If you want to talk about risk in particular, you jade a very specific claim and I was wondering where you got the numbers to make such a claim.

When you buy gasoline, you don't request the supplier to tell you how often do oil pumps break down and how much do they cost to fix, "so as not to pay extra". It's all in the price already. It's no different with electricity.

No, it is not all in the price already. For example, the higher medical costs associated with the pulmonary diseases of children living near roads is not included in the price at the pump, but is included in LCAs and other studies that take into account social costs.

How about we change the tune? What if you provide figures for the security costs that you consider enormous and don't believe to be part of the comparison already.

http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm

The fee structure given here only deals with costs of nuclear technicians, not security personnel or even custodial staff.

Yes, always. Safety rules.

You mean, except for vacuum building and double containment systems.

Is it? How big avolume?


I don't know. It's not important either. The electricity companies aren't storing electricity in batteries. What they do is predicting the demand and equalising their supplies. That's how it is working in ALL countries.

I worked on software (ZaiNET) to manage this whole system.
It's rather a complicated business that involves a lot of parameters.

By instance, a nuclear power plant is in the summer producing less power as in the wintertime. Why? Because the water which is needed to cool the generator is hotter. But then you need to use spare capacity by coal or gas turbines and if that is not possible you could buy from the competition.

The demand is forecasted on a hourly basis. The company know weeks in before what the demand will be. Mostly the match is very good, but sometimes it's fucked up. By instance by an abnormal unpredicted hot day in the wintertime.

Why do you fight this?

I gave you a wiki link and another one, where they explain this for you.

But you ignore it, just to hold your extremely silly position.



I doubt that designs based on sustainability will be so unsustainable


You know not that much from the electricity market, so I will not put my money on your horse.

Besides, I'm not the only one who's remarking that the next bubble could be a green one.

On the trail of the next big bubble

Hong thinks the next bubble might be in "green" technology, because someone is going to make a lot of cash off inventing cheap solar energy panels, hydrogen cars or a way to harness Al Gore's glow of self-righteousness. Plus, Hong thinks a lot of the green investment is based on the notion that people can do good and still make money, a faulty theory that's also been exploited by every Nigerian with Internet access.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein20-2008jun20,0,782967.column

"Next Generation Biofuels": Bursting The New "Green" Bubble Letter challenges unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2341

Will green tech be the next investment bubble?

We've seen it in the property sector, in hedge funds. Before that it was dotcoms. It seems to be a cycle as old as banks and financial markets. But could the next victim be green technology?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/eco.greentechbubble/index.html

I don't know. It's not important either. The electricity companies aren't storing electricity in batteries. What they do is predicting the demand and equalising their supplies. That's how it is working in ALL countries.

I see. Tell me, why do you think we should do things exactly the same way we are doing then now? Especially when this whole discussion is about the new wave of green energy.

I worked on software (ZaiNET) to manage this whole system.

I don't believe you.

It's rather a complicated business that involves a lot of parameters.

By instance, a nuclear power plant is in the summer producing less power as in the wintertime. Why? Because the water which is needed to cool the generator is hotter. But then you need to use spare capacity by coal or gas turbines and if that is not possible you could buy from the competition.

The demand is forecasted on a hourly basis. The company know weeks in before what the demand will be. Mostly the match is very good, but sometimes it's fucked up. By instance by an abnormal unpredicted hot day in the wintertime.

Why do you fight this?

I gave you a wiki link and another one, where they explain this for you.

But you ignore it, just to hold your extremely silly position.

You seem to think that I have been advancing some sort of complicated notion about how everything operates. Could you please quote the post so that I know what it is I am supposedly arguing?

You know not that much from the electricity market, so I will not put my money on your horse.

Besides, I'm not the only one who's remarking that the next bubble could be a green one.

On the trail of the next big bubble

Hong thinks the next bubble might be in "green" technology, because someone is going to make a lot of cash off inventing cheap solar energy panels, hydrogen cars or a way to harness Al Gore's glow of self-righteousness. Plus, Hong thinks a lot of the green investment is based on the notion that people can do good and still make money, a faulty theory that's also been exploited by every Nigerian with Internet access.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein20-2008jun20,0,782967.column

That is an editorial. Just because one other person shares your opinion doesn't mean that such a thing will occur.

"Next Generation Biofuels": Bursting The New "Green" Bubble Letter challenges unrealistic promises from an unsustainable industry

http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2341

That is a letter by NGOs discussing the effects of large scale bio fuel industry. here's a quote:

"All plants, edible or not, require soils, water, fertilizers and land, all of which are in shortening supply. Yet these unsustainable technologies are commanding the vast majority of renewable energy tax incentives, at the expense of genuine cleaner energy solutions like conservation, efficiency, wind, solar, and ocean power. Additionally, because agrofuel crops rely on fertilizers, 44% of which are imported, they cannot even satisfy the calls for U.S. energy independence."

I bolded the bit where they compare it to other sustainable practices. Just because one aspect of a diverse industry doesn't actually meet the criteria of sustainability does not mean that the whole industry is unsustainable.

Will green tech be the next investment bubble?

We've seen it in the property sector, in hedge funds. Before that it was dotcoms. It seems to be a cycle as old as banks and financial markets. But could the next victim be green technology?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/23/eco.greentechbubble/index.html

From your link:

While many believe that over the long term, the sector is secure, of course some companies will undoubtedly go to the wall and take their investors with them.

"I don't think it's a bubble, I think it's definitely underhyped as a long term fundamental because of some of the technical innovations that are the underpinnings," says Jennifer Fanstad, MD Draper Fisher Jurvetson.

Are you claiming that everything inside the containment building is not flammable?

Most of it isn't. They build reactors and safeties to much higher standards than your run of the mill warehouse. But that's not the point. My point is that your average arsonist isn't going to get anywhere inside the containment building unless it's abandoned, the security locks have been disabled, and there's no security to speak of, which at that point, the reactor has been likely mothballed and shut down, if not removed.


Please provide links showing that there are currently viable systems for using enough of the waste that nuclear proliferation is not a concern.


Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_reprocessing#List_of_nuclear_reprocessing_sites)

Keep in mind that there are currently more reactors and processing facilities than there are reprocessing facilities, and more than a few countries don't reprocess their fuel at all, with a few of them not giving a rats ass over proliferation. So any argument from that angle is about as worthless as preaching the benefits of atheism to the Saudi Arabian hardliner clerics.

Those countries that don't want to their waste going into the wrong hands already do build reprocessing facilities.

You don't need all that to create wind turbines.
http://www.mdpub.com/Wind_Turbine/index.html
That guy built one for himself. The best part is the cost. $140.62
Do you pretend to not understand the difference between a wind turbine that can recharge a laptop battery, and a unit required to provide a meaningful amount of power?

And the best part of the cost is the $0.0 components: what he already had on hands. The value of his labor there, of which he has put in a lot, is also estimated at $0.0.

I don't see why this is a problem.



Life Cycle assessments include decommisioning as well as other costs.
The source I've given includes decommissioning costs.

This is why I was looking for a source that shows LCAs for various different types of energy production.
Unfortunately I haven't found complete lifecycle cost assessment reports freely available online.
This will have to do.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=422
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=424

Or from clearly independent source - environmentalist one, no less:
http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=381&NODE_ID=381&LANG=1


No, it is not all in the price already. For example, the higher medical costs associated with the pulmonary diseases of children living near roads is not included in the price at the pump, but is included in LCAs and other studies that take into account social costs.
This is the part where nuclear power shines, fortunately, for it doesn't cause such negative side effects.

The majority of nuclear costs is high-paid personnel required to design and operate these plants - as far as environmental and social effects go, it doesn't get any better than this - a small number of high-paid specialists produces less pollution and a better society than a large number of unskilled workers.
Nuclear power is a high-tech industry: clean, space-efficient, high-wage.


http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
The fee structure given here only deals with costs of nuclear technicians, not security personnel or even custodial staff.
Good. Isn't that cool? The higher the proportion of salaries and wages in the overall cost, the better.


You mean, except for vacuum building and double containment systems.
Yes, you don't like something about double containment systems? This term normally refers to having two containments for the same reactor, the inner one and an additional outer containment.

But from the mention of a vacuum building, I see what you're referring to. A small number of foreign reactors indeed shares some of the containment systems. This isn't a serious safety concern, however, as these are for steam containment.

I see. Tell me, why do you think we should do things exactly the same way we are doing then now? Especially when this whole discussion is about the new wave of green energy.


And what did I tell? That maybe we have a solution in 20 or 30 years, but not today. There are things to store electricity, but they are all experimental or only usable on a small scale.

But finaly you admit that batteries, currently, are not used to store electricity on a high scale.




I don't believe you.


I don't care.



You seem to think that I have been advancing some sort of complicated notion about how everything operates. Could you please quote the post so that I know what it is I am supposedly arguing?

No, you know nothing, that's why I have to explain the elementary basics to defend my position. Which is so silly.

The other link was about the storing of electricity:

The problem is that large quantities of electricity cannot be stored.
This means that the quantity of electricity generated at any given time has to balance demand, which is why the distribution system is crucial to the use of electricity

http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/electricity_02.asp



That is an editorial. Just because one other person shares your opinion doesn't mean that such a thing will occur.


Oh man, there are rather a lot people that think alike, but probably not enough to stop the cattle. Now, this is an opinion, you don't have to share. It's clear you're part of the cattle and I'm not. Don't forget to sell your green stocks in time! :)

Good work. Although from what I have heard, the biggest threat from nuke plants are terrorists. 50 of em (or so) with assault weapons and body armor could make their way in to one and deliberatly cause a meltdown.
Post-911, there are over 8,000 armed security officers at 104 US reactors, an average of 80 per reactor. (Of course, unamerican power plants usually have significantly less security, as their governments aren't particularly bright, but so why care about them.)
So, in US, a typical 4-reactor plant has about 320 security officers, working 12/6, that is around 140 at any given time. These guards are equipped with body armor, carbines and rifles, have armored firing posts, and most of them are ex-military or ex-police. They are complemented by thousands of access control systems, remotely operated and locked doors, motion detectors, lockdown systems, not to mention more mundane toys like cameras, fences with concrete barriers, and others.

So, it's got to be a very well-trained group. Yes, given proper training, on older reactors they could. Part of the team damaging the reactor's systems to block the safeties, a couple specialists operating the reactor to bring it down. Taking down a containment building would be quite a bit harder, but special drills and a ton of high explosives, strategically placed in the middle of the walls (the base is too thick) would blast a hole. Then, through the hole, tons of radioactive steam would be released from the primary coolant loop, creating significant risk for all exposed power plant employees.

That's why modern reactors are designed to be passively safe: have a naturally negative feedback and be unable to melt down, only stop.




This can be prevented with even more security but now our light bill gets even higher to pay for the security!
Even though the guards are being paid as much as $60,000, their pay only constitutes 0.07¢ out of the 10¢ you pay for each kWh, or 0.07%. Overall security costs are, of course, higher, but again - it's all inclusive.

There are ways to increase security without increasing the cost, however. The current stations are very small, due to low demand. If US is to phase out all fossil fired plants: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html - it will take an extra 760 GW of capacity, or 400-500 GW with storage and renewables' input. That means a lot more power, and hence a lot larger stations make sense.

Right now, we could sensibly shift from 4x1GW to a 8x2 configuration. In the mid-term, US needs 100 quads/year, or 3600 GW, to replace all fossils, so even for half that, 8x8 or even 8x16 (or 16x8) plants make sense, while maintaining a sufficient redundancy level to keep the country fully supplied even with 3 plants offline. They're technically possible, just expensive, but they're also significantly more efficient. It also makes sense to place them in less populated locations, yet at close reach of the military, and use superconducting lines for nationwide transmission.

A 8x2 plant can be guarded, at same per-kWh cost, by 4 times more guards. We can also transfer this task to the military, and, even with less men per buck, we arrive at a 1,000-man Army mechanized infantry battalion stationed at the plant full-time. Automatics-armed patrols, machineguns, pillboxes, concealed snipers, infantry fighting vehicles and armed helicopters on patrol. It would take a Spetsnaz company to even have a shot at getting through that. And all nations that have that kind of forces we have long made friends enough with.
For a larger future 16x8 plant, placement together with a military base makes sense, and that way an entire division will be ready for its defense, along with aerial support. Fort Knox doesn't get robbed often, does it? And the payoff from that is way greater than the terrorists' employers could possibly pay for destroying a few reactors.




The reason I support nuclear power is that it's the only source that leads us to the potential for unlimited economic growth. Thermal fission, fast fission, hybrid cycle fission, tritium and helium fusion, deuterium fusion, hydrogen fusion - the potential even with the known methods is enormous.

And you, like me, do want to live in a large yet very luxurious home, or at least a penthouse in a mile-high tower, and take your flying car to work right from that penthouse. But all that takes energy. The flying car alone will eat more fuel in an hour than a normal one in a month, and oil won't be enough. That amount of power can't be realistically produced through Earth-based renewables. It can, however, at relative ease be generated through fission and fusion of atomic nuclei, as the fuel supply is effectively unlimited, personnel requirements rapidly falling with scale, and land requirements negligible. Wind and solar are extensive development - always taking more area, resources and workforce to expand the capacity. Nuclear is intensive, increasing power primarily through higher sophistication and density.

Or let me put it another way: The power that will take us to the stars won't come from a windmill.

Most of it isn't. They build reactors and safeties to much higher standards than your run of the mill warehouse. But that's not the point. My point is that your average arsonist isn't going to get anywhere inside the containment building unless it's abandoned, the security locks have been disabled, and there's no security to speak of, which at that point, the reactor has been likely mothballed and shut down, if not removed.

Do you feel that it would be impossible for someone with security access to be an arsonist?

Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_reprocessing#List_of_nuclear_reprocessing_sites)

Keep in mind that there are currently more reactors and processing facilities than there are reprocessing facilities, and more than a few countries don't reprocess their fuel at all, with a few of them not giving a rats ass over proliferation. So any argument from that angle is about as worthless as preaching the benefits of atheism to the Saudi Arabian hardliner clerics.

Those countries that don't want to their waste going into the wrong hands already do build reprocessing facilities.

Are you saying that it is impossible to adequately guard against proliferation?

Do you pretend to not understand the difference between a wind turbine that can recharge a laptop battery, and a unit required to provide a meaningful amount of power?

Can you please define meaningful for me?

I ask this because most people who get into this debate seem to be stuck in this paradigm where we do everything exactly the same, except we change our big, remote, industrial sized, unsustainable power generation plant and replace it with another big, remote, industrial sized, less unsustainable power generation plant.

If I have three small windmills on the top of my duplex that provides all the electricity needs for me and my co-owners, is that a 'meaningful' amount of power?

And the best part of the cost is the $0.0 components: what he already had on hands. The value of his labor there, of which he has put in a lot, is also estimated at $0.0.

That's another thing that wind has over nuclear. You're not completely dependent on a very specialised skill set and technology.

The source I've given includes decommissioning costs.


Unfortunately I haven't found complete lifecycle cost assessment reports freely available online.
This will have to do.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=422
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=424

Or from clearly independent source - environmentalist one, no less:
http://www.energy-enviro.fi/index.php?PAGE=381&NODE_ID=381&LANG=1

Thanks for the sources. I especially liked the second one with the LCA comparison between different energy production systems.

Natural gas and solar are far worse than coal. That's interesting. Nuclear, wind and hydro seem to be the best of the different systems.

This is the part where nuclear power shines, fortunately, for it doesn't cause such negative side effects.

The majority of nuclear costs is high-paid personnel required to design and operate these plants - as far as environmental and social effects go, it doesn't get any better than this - a small number of high-paid specialists produces less pollution and a better society than a large number of unskilled workers.
Nuclear power is a high-tech industry: clean, space-efficient, high-wage.

I wish. I really do.

Increased risk (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=33273) for childhood leukemia (http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_leukemias_rising_near_nukes.081111.htm).

Good. Isn't that cool? The higher the proportion of salaries and wages in the overall cost, the better.

Uhm, you were asking me for some sort of indication that security costs are not included in O&M costs of nuclear plants. I have provided evidence for that. This would suggest that the O&M cost comparisons between nuclear and wind may also not include security costs, which would be far more expensive for nuclear than wind.

Yes, you don't like something about double containment systems? This term normally refers to having two containments for the same reactor, the inner one and an additional outer containment.

But from the mention of a vacuum building, I see what you're referring to. A small number of foreign reactors indeed shares some of the containment systems. This isn't a serious safety concern, however, as these are for steam containment.

I thought it meant two reactors in one containment building.

And what did I tell? That maybe we have a solution in 20 or 30 years, but not today. There are things to store electricity, but they are all experimental or only usable on a small scale.

But finaly you admit that batteries, currently, are not used to store electricity on a high scale.

You seem to have difficulty answering questions. What do you mean by 'high scale'?

No, you know nothing, that's why I have to explain the elementary basics to defend my position. Which is so silly.

The other link was about the storing of electricity:

The problem is that large quantities of electricity cannot be stored.
This means that the quantity of electricity generated at any given time has to balance demand, which is why the distribution system is crucial to the use of electricity

http://www.engineering-timelines.com/how/electricity/electricity_02.asp

Again, you seem to think I am arguing something I am not.

Oh man, there are rather a lot people that think alike, but probably not enough to stop the cattle. Now, this is an opinion, you don't have to share. It's clear you're part of the cattle and I'm not. Don't forget to sell your green stocks in time! :)

Yes, it is your opinion, not a fact.

Do you feel that it would be impossible for someone with security access to be an arsonist?
All security and safety design, subsequent tests, drills and exercises actually assume at least one well-infiltrated insider providing active assistance, plus multiple outsiders getting at least into the station's outer ring with his help.

( Active assistance means being on their side all along, as opposed to passive assistance done at gunpoint or with hostages. Passive assistance is assumed from non-security personnel. Although, post-1986 and post-2001, "...and no one will get hurt" may sound unconvincing. )

Defeating the security without insider help is pretty much impossible without being a SEAL or Spetsnaz unit, as monitoring is very thorough, the security post 9/11 is camel toe tight, and there are at least three independent layers to defeat, and local police and military will be scrambled in case of trouble.

However, if succeeding, the arsonists still won't be able to damage any critical equipment. The design is very fire-safe, with a minimum of combustible materials, even these being flame-retardant. They'd have to bring a good load of thermite to start a fire, more than you can sneak in somehow (hence external help is necessary), and even then, it won't damage the safety systems.
Explosives are actually more dangerous. But you still have to place them inside the containment building, and the most you can count on without serious active assistance from specialists is releasing radioactive steam from the coolant loop; harmful, but not far-reaching or particularly dangerous.

Security measures against active assistance include, for instance, important doors (including those separating different rings) having to be opened by two guards from separate locations simultaneously, multiple remote controls enabling lockdown, and compartmentalization of human and electronic security network, so that no single person or point can severely compromise the entire system.


That's not to say that an insider-aided arson heist is impossible to pull off, but you're certainly not surprising the designers and the guards with it.



Can you please define meaningful for me?
Well, let me see what is meaningful for me. What I need and by how much I could potentially reduce that.

First, I need about 300 to 600 watts for interior and exterior lighting, most of that is power-saving lamps already.
Then, cooking. Assuming only one appliance at a time, it's about 2-3 kW, though intermittent. Washing machine, dishwasher, hoover, trimmer, etc., another 2 kilos each of very intermittent load.
For HVAC I have a pretty modern all-Japanese system, ozone-safe, multi-zonal, with inverter pumps, and advanced electronic control for maximum economy. It's three times more efficient than modern American ones (not to mention old ones), and still that's about 5 kilowatts when it's summer and people are at home, more at peak.
Then the entertainment systems. 600W for two full-time computers, 800W CRT projector, 1100W audio amplifiers, say 100W the rest. All that is running when watching a movie.
Let's see, what else... Well, I won't go petty counting small stuff, but the fridges, the water filter, the alarm system, the other things, they do add another 200-500W.

Can go down to 400 with all-CCFL perhaps. The absolutely latest Mitsubishi or Daikin HVAC could perhaps save 10%, but that's it, not worth upgrading. Ductless splits can advertise higher SEER, but you have to open the windows to ventilate, and it all goes out of it. Cooking and high-power appliances, I could lower the peak load by never running two at a time, nothing to do with the average. Could cut audio power in half by switching to all-AB class. No savings possible for the small stuff.
I'd say I'm about as green as I could be, within ten percent of the maximum.

That is a multi-hour-sustained peak load, on a hot summer or cold winter, watching a movie while a supper is being made, of about 600 constant+4,700 HVAC+2,600 electronics+2,000 cooking, around 9,900 watts, or 10 kW roughly.
edit: Forgot water heating. With that, 11 kilowatts is long-sustained. Total peak is perhaps over 15 kW.
On the average I think I use perhaps 40% of this sustained high load, maybe 50%. Don't recall my power bill exactly, but it was about 2-3-something a year, so the load % seems about right. So, to power the home, I'd need 4-5 kW average with very good storage. A typical wind turbine averages about 20-25% peak power, so I'd need a 16-25 kW one.



Now let's see the cost...
http://engineeredwindsystems.com/twenty-kw-wind-turbine.html
http://solzar.amazonwebstore.com/20KW-Wind-Turbine/M/B001IF9YRG.htm?traffic_src=froogle&utm_medium=organic&utm_source=froogle
$50,000. Plus taxes and delivery. And, seeing as it's 75 feet high, weighs 3 tons, and the wind momentum on it, if I know anything about helicopters, is 60 ton-feet, I need to invite guys with construction machines to dig up the land, build a foundation, and install it. Then I need an inverter for stable voltage and the control system so I don't overload it or can combine with other power source, plus the batteries, especially if not relying on the grid most of the time. Without batteries, that's 80 grand raw minimum.

If I want to save some meaningful energy, say to last a windless day or two low-wind ones, I need 100 kWh worth of batteries. The lead-acid batteries will be just 20 grand, but they're dirty, and clean ones are 60 grand ((costs) (http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/02/viva_the_cleantech_revolution_1.html). Dang, I'd have to go with lead, at which point I'm perhaps dirtier than using the grid. The batteries, their reserve for the losses, and the more complicated control systems involved, all in all it will total about 120 grand initial investment.
Plus, I'll have to service it and have it repaired when it breaks down. I can't service it, because it's not as simple as it may seem, plus I still want to live and not die falling from 60 feet, so that's at least $1,000 a year for servicing, and if cars are any indication, at least $1,000 average for repairs, if I'm very lucky. And the acid batteries will have to be replaced in 10 years.

$120,000 initial and another 60 over 20-year lifetime. If I just invest the initial cost in blue chips and bonds - and I've been investing my money with much higher risk and yield for over a decade - I'll get 6% APR. This means I'd be effectively paying 10 grand a year for wind power, 7 grand more than for grid power, and in the end I'd be left with a dead turbine to dismantle instead of 120 grand still in equity.

How about... no?



I ask this because most people who get into this debate seem to be stuck in this paradigm where we do everything exactly the same, except we change our big, remote, industrial sized, unsustainable power generation plant and replace it with another big, remote, industrial sized, less unsustainable power generation plant.
There's no infinitely sustainable power. Steel rusts, polymers outgas, alloys oxidize. Not all materials are recyclable, so any power source, even one needing no fuel, still consumes non-renewable resources.

We can only talk about more or less sustainable. Nuclear is way more sustainable than burning fossil fuels. If nothing else, uranium can be extracted out of seawater, where it's nearly limitless, and with full fuel cycle, it will still be well energy-positive. But practically, nuclear fission will eventually be complemented and then phased out by fusion, except for the smaller plants. Same field of technology, still nuclear, sharing most components, just the following generation, further cleaner, further more sustainable.


If I have three small windmills on the top of my duplex that provides all the electricity needs for me and my co-owners, is that a 'meaningful' amount of power?
Yes, but for that either your duplex must be built with thick stone walls, so as not to collapse under the weight and wind load of the turbines, or your electricity needs have to be limited to charging laptops and cell phones, maybe a couple 15 watt CCFLs thoroughly kept off unless necessary.

You could save as much power as that small turbine produces by simply replacing a few incandescent bulbs by CCFL ones. Or by replacing your computer PSU with an ultra-efficient 85%+ unit; I have. That doesn't count as a meaningful amount of power to expect from a generator.


That's another thing that wind has over nuclear. You're not completely dependent on a very specialised skill set and technology.
Actually, I could work as an engineer for the design of nuclear power plants right now. Mechanical engineering, pressure vessels, tubing, fire safety, nuclear safety, security, that's included in my naval architect master's and Navy training. After all, only a small number of people work explicitly on the core operating principles.
If necessary, I could also work as an operator or a technician (even though that would be a waste of human resources) after a bit of on-job training. It's how the Navy does it, they don't require a degree to be an operator, they train you. Yes, it's thanks to me already having extensive education, but isn't education good?

I couldn't, however, build a wind turbine like he did. No, my hands are in the right place, I can easily fix and service a car, or repair a broken radio, or even make a simple one out of parts salvaged from any non-integrated-circuit electronic device. But that control module he made, wow. Just wow. I maybe could make that given the plans, but develop it, or even adapt it to my specific turbine, no. I'm way above the average as far as electronics and just crafting skills go, but that's still clearly above my level. And an average person won't even solder it properly.


Thanks for the sources. I especially liked the second one with the LCA comparison between different energy production systems.
Natural gas and solar are far worse than coal. That's interesting. Nuclear, wind and hydro seem to be the best of the different systems.
The primary issue with gas is that it's too expensive to use more than a small fraction of the time.


I wish. I really do.
Increased risk (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=33273) for childhood leukemia (http://www.precaution.org/lib/08/prn_leukemias_rising_near_nukes.081111.htm).

So...
Child leukemia has an incidence of 3.3 in 100,000 to 5.1 in 100,000, having risen 1975-2005 by 54%.
The study has examined 67 counties. A typical US county is small enough to statistically have just a couple cases of leukemia, with 1 out of 7 fatal. I'd say the study of a 10% change in a number so small that it's often 0 is not very statistically sound.
It's not too conclusive also if one compares the 5-9-13% figure with the 54% overall incidence increase (over a longer period). Correlation and causation are not so clear here.

I'm not going to dismiss it entirely, however. It's known that exposure can cause leukemia. It's likely that some of the facilities had some leaks somewhere. Particularly, pre-1986 nuclear safety was taken very lightly, and the levels of isolation weren't so high.
The plants in question are old or very old. So, we know that old, not very well built and maintained power plants can cause a just-above-statistic-noise percentage increase in the incidence of a very rare disease. Is it a case against them? Not a particularly strong one, even if other sources were pristine-clean.
But they aren't, coal is way more harmful, and we still have to measure the negative effects of alternative energy. They do exist, the factories for building solar and wind systems aren't the cleanest things in the world. Polymers always involve poisonous chemicals, fiberglass has dangerous dust, PV cells chemicals again, metal production is far from clean. And the alternative energy sources require the greatest amounts of materials out of all.


Uhm, you were asking me for some sort of indication that security costs are not included in O&M costs of nuclear plants. I have provided evidence for that.
That source only doesn't explicitly say that security costs are included in some reports, presumably the ones it uses.
The security costs aren't generally externalized, and I don't see a reason why they would be for nuclear plants. Nonetheless, based even on post-9/11 security personnel numbers, and $80,000 a year expenses for each, these costs arrive at around $0.0007/kWh. That's a fairly small fraction.


I thought it meant two reactors in one containment building.
Well, in US and other countries with often excessive nuclear safety regulations it doesn't. There's only a very small number of reactors worldwide where two are housed in a single containment. It can be called double containment too. But generally the term applies to extended safety designs with two buildings one inside another.

All security and safety design, subsequent tests, drills and exercises actually assume at least one well-infiltrated insider providing actively assistance, plus multiple outsiders getting at least into the station's outer ring with his help.
....It can be called double containment too. But generally the term applies to extended safety designs with two buildings one inside another.

Ouch. You completely owned me.

Thanks for all the information.

.....

Well, let me see what is meaningful for me. What I need and by how much I could potentially reduce that.

First, I need about 300 to 600 watts for interior and exterior lighting, most of that is power-saving lamps already.
Then, cooking. Assuming only one appliance at a time, it's about 2-3 kW, though intermittent. Washing machine, dishwasher, hoover, trimmer, etc., another 2 kilos each of very intermittent load.
For HVAC I have a pretty modern all-Japanese system, ozone-safe, multi-zonal, with inverter pumps, and advanced electronic control for maximum economy. It's three times more efficient than modern American ones (not to mention old ones), and still that's about 5 kilowatts when it's summer and people are at home, more at peak.
Then the entertainment systems. 600W for two full-time computers, 800W CRT projector, 1100W audio amplifiers, say 100W the rest. All that is running when watching a movie.
Let's see, what else... Well, I won't go petty counting small stuff, but the fridges, the water filter, the alarm system, the other things, they do add another 200-500W.

Can go down to 400 with all-CCFL perhaps. The absolutely latest Mitsubishi or Daikin HVAC could perhaps save 10%, but that's it, not worth upgrading. Ductless splits can advertise higher SEER, but you have Cooking and high-power appliances, I could lower the peak load by never running two at a time, nothing to do with the average. Could cut audio power in half by switching to all-AB class. No savings possible for the small stuff.
I'd say I'm about as green as I could be, within ten percent of the maximum.

That is a multi-hour-sustained peak load, on a hot summer or cold winter, watching a movie while a supper is being made, of about 600 constant+4,700 HVAC+2,600 electronics+2,000 cooking, around 9,900 watts, or 10 kW roughly.
edit: Forgot water heating. With that, 11 kilowatts is long-sustained. Total peak is perhaps over 15 kW.
On the average I think I use perhaps 40% of this sustained high load, maybe 50%. Don't recall my power bill exactly, but it was about 2-3-something a year, so the load % seems about right. So, to power the home, I'd need 4-5 kW average with very good storage. A typical wind turbine averages about 20-25% peak power, so I'd need a 16-25 kW one.

.....

How does one go about actually figuring out what their maximum and average loads are?

How does one go about actually figuring out what their maximum and average loads are?
Well, you could calculate the average load from the energy bills. I just don't because the utility bills are pretty convoluted, and I don't need to know how much I use to reduce it.
For maximum theoretical load, you could add up the rated power of all devices, but that will be a gross overestimation. So unless you know their actual power draw (I've measured it), the easiest way is to record the electricity meter's display hourly for a part of the day, or daily, or otherwise as required. That allows to come up with the meaningful figures for peaks sustained for a certain time. To calculate the consumption of specific devices, a watt-meter can be used, or monitoring the meter.


My power draw is quite above average, but that's due to a relatively large house that's not occupied to full capacity (otherwise it would be well below average per capita). However, modern HVAC equipment is a major power-saver, the old system used to actually dim the lights a bit, and still not reach the set temperature.

Well, you could calculate the average load from the energy bills. I just don't because the utility bills are pretty convoluted, and I don't need to know how much I use to reduce it.
For maximum theoretical load, you could add up the rated power of all devices, but that will be a gross overestimation. So unless you know their actual power draw (I've measured it), the easiest way is to record the electricity meter's display hourly for a part of the day, or daily, or otherwise as required. That allows to come up with the meaningful figures for peaks sustained for a certain time. To calculate the consumption of specific devices, a watt-meter can be used, or monitoring the meter.


My power draw is quite above average, but that's due to a relatively large house that's not occupied to full capacity (otherwise it would be well below average per capita). However, modern HVAC equipment is a major power-saver, the old system used to actually dim the lights a bit, and still not reach the set temperature.

Yeah, when I looked at my electric bill in the vain attempt at defeating ypur argument, I noticed you spend a lot more than I do. I assumed it was due to a bigger family (we're three).

So the best is pencil, paper, and standing by the meter when I turn stuff off and on. How do I know if my water heater's on?

Yeah, when I looked at my electric bill in the vain attempt at defeating ypur argument, I noticed you spend a lot more than I do. I assumed it was due to a bigger family (we're three).
Well, it's supposed to be a bigger family, but my parents and technically me (I try not to leave) are in the military, so someone is always away, my SO comes and leaves, and so it's hard to tell how many people are in. While theoretically unoccupied rooms could be not cooled or heated, in practice only a couple are left locked, and they still leak heat or cold to the rest of the house.
Then it's the high-power electronics, the computers that seed torrents around the clock, a CRT projector home theater, class A audio amplifiers. Most of these things are not present in a typical home.

But otherwise, I'm using much more efficient systems and appliances than common. So I could only cut the consumption by about 10%, at a disproportionate expense (and producing them would harm the environment more than producing the power saved), if not sacrificing the things that have no such replacements.


So the best is pencil, paper, and standing by the meter when I turn stuff off and on. How do I know if my water heater's on?
The water heater is easy, it should actually match its stated power consumption. All heating appliances consume exactly as much as they say. It switches on and off, though (if it's one with a tank), so the better way is to measure how much a day without it saves. Insulating their tanks can save over 70% of the average power consumption, unless you're using hot water all the time.

It's the electronics that overstate consumption, often grossly. Say, a performance PC actually consumes only 200-250W even during a game, despite 1000W+ PSU common. B, C and especially D and beyond class amplifiers overstate it even more, as they state the peak that is never reached in practice. Other electronics also state the absolute peak rather than the actual consumption.
Looking at a wattmeter or a good multimeter can be a better way to measure their consumption, though, practically, electronics aren't something you're going to switch off to save power, and their efficiency can't be improved anyway.
Otherwise, for the average, it's the meter and measuring the consumption over a few hours or a day.

Do you feel that it would be impossible for someone with security access to be an arsonist?

A would be arsonist? No. A successful arsonist? No. One man isn't going to be able to do much with all the safety systems and other security personnel in place. You'd need a whole bunch. A whole bunch who would not only pass psychological certification, but stringent background checks. And let's not forget that most of the building and all its internal components are built out of materials that generally don't burn. And if you want to argue that those fail, you might as well argue that the president, and all the missile bases could also choose to nuke the country for lulz.

It's a ludicrous stretch of coincidences.


Are you saying that it is impossible to adequately guard against proliferation?


Answer me this first. Is it possible to adequately ban all guns when anyone with a bit of knowledge and a machine shop can make their own?

Same thing.

You're trying to take a muddy issue dealing with how people do things in other countries and lump nuclear energy in the same ball. If Russia decides to leave the non-proliferation treaty and hold a garage sale for leftover nuclear waste, are you going to say that recycling fails because they don't do it?

....
The water heater is easy, it should actually match its stated power consumption. All heating appliances consume exactly as much as they say. It switches on and off, though (if it's one with a tank), so the better way is to measure how much a day without it saves. Insulating their tanks can save over 70% of the average power consumption, unless you're using hot water all the time....
Otherwise, for the average, it's the meter and measuring the consumption over a few hours or a day.

Yeah. I have a laptop and an old stereo and an old TV, and a DVD player. But I can replace everything but the stereo with a laptop with a DVD player in it. EDIT: Thanks for the water heater info. I realised why I quoted it. Can you replace electrical water heating with geothermal?

Now I want to know about electrical loads of geothermal systems. Is running the pump the only electrical load, or are there other loads that have to be calculated?

Can a geothermal system replace your electrical HVAC unit (assuming that all environmental considerations, like having enough land for the system, are satsified)?

....

Answer me this first. Is it possible to adequately ban all guns when anyone with a bit of knowledge and a machine shop can make their own?

Same thing.

You're trying to take a muddy issue dealing with how people do things in other countries and lump nuclear energy in the same ball. If Russia decides to leave the non-proliferation treaty and hold a garage sale for leftover nuclear waste, are you going to say that recycling fails because they don't do it?

If the intent of recycling is to keep dangerous waste from being proliferated, then yes, I would say it has failed.

Thermal warfare - keep europe cold?

This means we don't get heatwaves anymore? :D

If the intent of recycling is to keep dangerous waste from being proliferated, then yes, I would say it has failed.

By that same reasoning, green energy fails because not everyone uses it, and recycling fails because not everyone does it. Democracy fails because not everyone in a democratic society participates in it.

I expected better than that sort of fallacious reasoning from you GoG.

By that same reasoning, green energy fails because not everyone uses it, and recycling fails because not everyone does it. Democracy fails because not everyone in a democratic society participates in it.

I expected better than that sort of fallacious reasoning from you GoG.

Well, if current recycling systems don't actually divert significant amounts of waste from landfill sites, they have failed.

Other green energy systems don't fail simply because not everyone is using it. Solar power would not work in areas with lots of cloud coverage, so solar can still be said to be working iof not everyone uses it.

It depends on the system. Some systems need everyone to work together, and some don't.

In terms of proliferation of nuclear materials, we have to look at the security of the entire system, as it makes no sense to have a huge security presence at every US installation if the same materials can be purchased at the Kiev K-Mart.

Yeah. I have a laptop and an old stereo and an old TV, and a DVD player. But I can replace everything but the stereo with a laptop with a DVD player in it.
That won't have much effect really, maybe only the TV consumes something considerable, still very little.
Audio/video equipment tends to be very economical, an exception is amplifiers in hi-fi systems, particularly class A: it basically produces full power all the time, and redistributes it between the speakers and a dummy load. That minimizes distortion at the expense of consumption. Modern high-bias class AB systems, though, are rapidly approaching class A quality at 1/4 the power usage. I only use class A for the high frequency drivers, where the power need is small.


EDIT: Thanks for the water heater info. I realised why I quoted it. Can you replace electrical water heating with geothermal?
Don't think so if doing it directly. The temperatures at remotely reasonable depth are too low to produce even warm water. And heat pumps might be too complicated a solution for water heating. They rapidly lose efficiency if they need to produce a high temperature difference.

However, in summer, a much simpler way is to place a black-painted water tank outside on the sunny side, pour or plug water into it, and run a hose from it to the heater. The water heats up enough that the heater is basically not needed. But it's a bit dangerous in case the tank grows some infection, so it should be cleaned, and the water not used for drinking (generally not a good idea to drink water from the heater anyway unless it's kept really hot at all times).

One could do without heater altogether if running water through the external HVAC unit's radiators, which heat up above 200 degrees in summer, and simultaneously lower the AC consumption, but that requires some care not to damage it, and make sure you don't get steam instead of water. I don't want to experiment on my system as it has very fine radiators and might be running at a high temperature.


Now I want to know about electrical loads of geothermal systems. Is running the pump the only electrical load, or are there other loads that have to be calculated?
The loop pump is the only major additional load. You still need to run the heat pump and the ventilation.


Can a geothermal system replace your electrical HVAC unit (assuming that all environmental considerations, like having enough land for the system, are satsified)?
Geothermal heating and A/C don't replace the electric parts of the system, they augment them. It's just that the HVAC system now has a cooler place to dump the heat into, or a warmer one to get it from.

It's probably not worth the effort for a private home. Fully custom geothermals offer SEER as high as 27-30, but they have the same issue as with ductless HAC splits, it doesn't take ventilation into account. A ductless will offer a SEER of 23 or even 26 (not in practice), but that's only as long as the windows are sealed airtight. Once you let fresh air in to take a breath, the cold or heat from the ductless goes out the window. A ducted HVAC system rather supplies fresh air already cooled or warmed as necessary, so its advertised efficiency is actually achieved.

The practical SEER for geothermal heat pumps used with ventilation is only about 18 to 24. This isn't much of a gain as you get 22 SEER from high-end Japanese HVAC systems that still cost much less than installing the geothermal.
On the other hand, if replacing an older American system that has a practical SEER of 5-8, or even a more modern one that advertise 13 to pass the regulations and deliver 10-11, a geothermal is a major leap ahead.

In a large house, zoning is rather a more significant improvement. If you only set the constantly inhabited rooms to be maintained at the perfect temperature, and the rest at a wide tolerance, that can save a lot of energy, especially with an inverter heat pump. Zoning works even better in winter, when you don't need to heat the kitchen that's heated by the cooking anyway.

Some higher-end modern systems also use motion detectors and infrared sensors to detect the presence, the number, the activity level and the location of humans, to direct cool air to them, rather than cool everything in bulk. It's not reflected in the SEER rating, for it just produces less cold, but in practice such a system saves half the energy or more, at the cost of having the kitchen a bit hot when you're not in there, and empty rooms at outside temperature.

Well, if current recycling systems don't actually divert significant amounts of waste from landfill sites, they have failed.

Other green energy systems don't fail simply because not everyone is using it.


Green energy systems fail because they don't provide significant amount of energy versus global demand. See how that reasoning works?

The idea of recycling nuclear waste material is not, I repeat, NOT to stop proliferation anymore than banning guns puts a stop to crime. It's a retarded premise and a dishonest one thrown about by greenies in an attempt to make things worse than they really are. If Russia or North Korea decides to set up a store called Nukes R Us, what are the greenies going to do then? Wail about how American non proliferation from their end doesn't work? It's idiotic.

Fuel reprocessing is meant to mitigate the long term storage problems of waste materials by reducing the total waste to output ratio. That's it.

That won't have much effect really, maybe only the TV consumes something considerable, still very little.
Audio/video equipment tends to be very economical, an exception is amplifiers in hi-fi systems, particularly class A: it basically produces full power all the time, and redistributes it between the speakers and a dummy load. That minimizes distortion at the expense of consumption. Modern high-bias class AB systems, though, are rapidly approaching class A quality at 1/4 the power usage. I only use class A for the high frequency drivers, where the power need is small.



Don't think so if doing it directly. The temperatures at remotely reasonable depth are too low to produce even warm water. And heat pumps might be too complicated a solution for water heating. They rapidly lose efficiency if they need to produce a high temperature difference.

However, in summer, a much simpler way is to place a black-painted water tank outside on the sunny side, pour or plug water into it, and run a hose from it to the heater. The water heats up enough that the heater is basically not needed. But it's a bit dangerous in case the tank grows some infection, so it should be cleaned, and the water not used for drinking (generally not a good idea to drink water from the heater anyway unless it's kept really hot at all times).

One could do without heater altogether if running water through the external HVAC unit's radiators, which heat up above 200 degrees in summer, and simultaneously lower the AC consumption, but that requires some care not to damage it, and make sure you don't get steam instead of water. I don't want to experiment on my system as it has very fine radiators and might be running at a high temperature.



The loop pump is the only major additional load. You still need to run the heat pump and the ventilation.



Geothermal heating and A/C don't replace the electric parts of the system, they augment them. It's just that the HVAC system now has a cooler place to dump the heat into, or a warmer one to get it from.

It's probably not worth the effort for a private home. Fully custom geothermals offer SEER as high as 27-30, but they have the same issue as with ductless HAC splits, it doesn't take ventilation into account. A ductless will offer a SEER of 23 or even 26 (not in practice), but that's only as long as the windows are sealed airtight. Once you let fresh air in take a breath, the cold or heat from the ductless goes out the window. A ducted HVAC system rather supplies fresh air already cooled or warmed as necessary, so its advertised efficiency is actually achieved.

The practical SEER for geothermal heat pumps used with ventilation is only about 18 to 24. This isn't much of a gain as you get 22 SEER from high-end Japanese HVAC systems that still cost much less than installing the geothermal.
On the other hand, if replacing an older American system that has a practical SEER of 5-8, or even a more modern one that advertise 13 to pass the regulations and deliver 10-11, a geothermal is a major leap ahead.

In a large house, zoning is rather a more significant improvement. If you only set the constantly inhabited rooms to be maintained at the perfect temperature, and the rest at a wide tolerance, that can save a lot of energy, especially with an inverter heat pump. Zoning works even better in winter, when you don't need to heat the kitchen that's heated by the cooking anyway.

Some higher-end modern systems also use motion detectors and infrared sensors to detect the presence, the number, the activity level and the location of humans, to direct cool air to them, rather than cool everything in bulk. It's not reflected in the SEER rating, for it just produces less cold, but in practice such a system saves half the energy or more, at the cost of having the kitchen a bit hot when you're not in there, and empty rooms at outside temperature.

You have opened Pandora's box...

In terms of load reduction, I want to look more at space and water heating, as the load from information processing equipment is smaller and smaller with each year. The environmental problems associated with DVD players etc. are in a different field. But space and water heating (or cooling, but I live in Canada, so I can simply open a window instread of installing A/C) are the big energy users in a residential or office building, am I right?

Now, you seenm to be indicating that geothermal is no good for heating water because the temperature difference (I wanted to write delta-T, just to be science geeky) between the earth, about 12 degress celsius and the required temperature (60 deg.C to avoid legionnaires disease) is too high to be efficiently done with just geothermal. So, if you do it with solar, as you suggest, how much of your water heating load are you saving?

Now, back to geothermal, you have the loop pump that is pumping the fluid through the loop; the heat pump which is transferring the heat from the loop-fluid to the air; and then you have the venitlation system itself. Am I envisioning this correctly? How does the electrical load of this system compare to your system?

To be honest, I'm not so worried about cooling, so I wouldn't need a split system. Currently I'm using electric baseboards for heating with separate thermostats in each room. How would a geothermal system compare to this?

Am I annoying you with my questions?

....

The idea of recycling nuclear waste material is not, I repeat, NOT to stop proliferation anymore than banning guns puts a stop to crime. It's a retarded premise and a dishonest one thrown about by greenies in an attempt to make things worse than they really are. If Russia or North Korea decides to set up a store called Nukes R Us, what are the greenies going to do then? Wail about how American non proliferation from their end doesn't work? It's idiotic.

Fuel reprocessing is meant to mitigate the long term storage problems of waste materials by reducing the total waste to output ratio. That's it.

I went back and loked at our conversation, because I was under the impression that you had advocated recycling as a means to reduce proliferation. When I looked back, I realised that there must have been some miscommunication as you had not.

However, it is still a concern when it comes to nuclear power.

A fully closed loop system would get rid of the problem of dangerous waste and the subsequent dangers of disposal and security concerns. Two birds with one stone. Until such a system exists and is implemented wolrdwide, we all will have to live with the risks associated.

It's good when the government sponsors scientific research, but this is just a waste of money. I say, let the private companies appease our demands for renewable energy, not the taxpayers.

A fully closed loop system would...

Require magic. Seriously. You're asking for a recycling system that produces no waste material whatsoever with a 100% recovery rate. That violates a few physical laws I think.


Until such a system exists and is implemented wolrdwide, we all will have to live with the risks associated.

There's risk in everything. Even breathing. Never know when you might inhale lead particles or something.

The only thing worth asking is the probability of the risk actualizing and how to mitigate it. In this case, the question is how to minimize waste output and how best to store it so that it will pose no long term threat. Recycling and secure storage facilities are the best solutions in keeping the amount low and manageable.

Require magic. Seriously. You're asking for a recycling system that produces no waste material whatsoever with a 100% recovery rate. That violates a few physical laws I think.

Then I would guess that all ecologies violate physical laws because in nature, all waste material is 100% recovered. In fact, it often provides food for other consumers.

But you are correct in that nuclear technology is nowhere near that level of sustainability. The question is how close does nuclear get in comparison to other technologies.

There's risk in everything. Even breathing. Never know when you might inhale lead particles or something.

The only thing worth asking is the probability of the risk actualizing and how to mitigate it. In this case, the question is how to minimize waste output and how best to store it so that it will pose no long term threat. Recycling and secure storage facilities are the best solutions in keeping the amount low and manageable.

Well, reducing the amount of nuclear facilities would also help minimise waste output. And also reduce the risk.

You have opened Pandora's box...
In terms of load reduction, I want to look more at space and water heating, as the load from information processing equipment is smaller and smaller with each year. The environmental problems associated with DVD players etc. are in a different field. But space and water heating (or cooling, but I live in Canada, so I can simply open a window instead of installing A/C) are the big energy users in a residential or office building, am I right?
Yes. It's the most major consumer, especially without good insulation.


Now, you seem to be indicating that geothermal is no good for heating water because the temperature difference (I wanted to write delta-T, just to be science geeky) between the earth, about 12 degress celsius and the required temperature (60 deg.C to avoid legionnaires disease) is too high to be efficiently done with just geothermal. So, if you do it with solar, as you suggest, how much of your water heating load are you saving?
On a hot summer, up to the entire load. I only keep the heater on to know the temperature and get it right, otherwise it can be kept off for most purposes.
The savings rapidly decrease if it's colder, and once the outside temperature is +10C or less, it has no noticeable effect.


Now, back to geothermal, you have the loop pump that is pumping the fluid through the loop; the heat pump which is transferring the heat from the loop-fluid to the air; and then you have the venitlation system itself. Am I envisioning this correctly? How does the electrical load of this system compare to your system?
I don't know for sure, never had a chance to actually measure one in detail.

HVAC systems are also extremely individual depending on the location, the home, and just personal preferences. For instance, I feel most comfortable at 55-60F (12-15C), while most people find it cold, so I need less power in the winter and more in the summer. I also live in a brick and concrete house, which has worse insulation properties than a good light-frame, but a much greater heat capacity, so less energy is spent equalizing day-night differences in the spring and autumn, but more in the summer and winter. And, as it conducts a lot of heat/cold from the ground, the convective heat/cold dominate over conductive, so limiting air exchange when it's not needed and zoning the system become more important than otherwise. There are also some specialized parts of the system, such as the cold storage room, or the partitioned electronic rack with its own in and out air vents. All that saves the energy sometimes, spends it other times.
Thus, it's hard to compare it to any other house. It's also hard to compare HVAC in any house to any other one, unless they're identical and built next to one another, and even then the systems will probably have their own specifics.


What I can say is that people who have installed a geothermal seem to all report good savings, but so do those who have replaced an old HVAC system with a modern one. I've heard some disappointment with the results being not as good as expected, though, in both cases. It's hard to compare, as it's very individual. But in general geothermals as it is now appears to be a more expensive option compared to better electronics, with similar savings. Again it will depend, say, if you really need full-time, full-power heating/cooling, a geothermal should fare better, while otherwise electronics that provide the comfort with less heat/cold produced are a better and cheaper option.


To be honest, I'm not so worried about cooling, so I wouldn't need a split system. Currently I'm using electric baseboards for heating with separate thermostats in each room. How would a geothermal system compare to this?
Actually, an electric split HVC/HVAC system offers up to 550% efficiency for heating, compared to using electric radiators. This ratio is only achieved when it's above 0C outside, but even in the winter, some modern systems advertise and deliver at least 300% or even 350% efficiency down to -20 or -25C. Below -30C they don't work at all, however. Electric radiators in comparison only offer 98%-99% efficiency.
These 550% are not actual efficiency, of course, as that's impossible, but it's how it performs like. The outside cold air is made even colder and the heat pumped inside. The actual economy improvement can be even more than 5 times if the system is controlled properly, switching off when you're away.

A geothermal system, coupled to such a heat pump, could theoretically extend the 550% efficiency down to any temperature, instead of in the 0-20C range only. Practically, however, it uses specialized HVAC equipment, which won't be as efficient, so you can expect 400% if it has an inverter, or 250% otherwise.
So a geothermal makes sense if you need efficient heating in extremely low temperatures, below -15C, where an air-to-air heat pump loses efficiency. Otherwise a highly efficient inverter HVAC is probably better.

The reason for this isn't the geothermal principle, it's great, but it's rather that the normal systems are being developed so much faster that they have come to largely surpass the geothermals that still use older technologies. If someone could be bothered to put all the new tech into a geothermal, it would be better, of course, but I haven't heard of such systems on the market.

But anyway even the simplest geothermal or HVAC/HAC is going to be much, more than twice more efficient than direct heating with radiators. If you don't have an old ventilation network already in place, it will likely be just HAC.


Am I annoying you with my questions?
Not at all.

....
The savings rapidly decrease if it's colder, and once the outside temperature is +10C or less, it has no noticeable effect.

Does the tank have to be 10C, or the ambient air?

I don't know for sure, never had a chance to actually measure one in detail.
..... It's also hard to compare HVAC in any house to any other one, unless they're identical and built next to one another, and even then the systems will probably have their own specifics.

I guess what I would then need is some way to calculate my required Btu, then calculate the required electricity to satisfy the load using the two systems.

....Again it will depend, say, if you really need full-time, full-power heating/cooling, a geothermal should fare better, while otherwise electronics that provide the comfort with less heat/cold produced are a better and cheaper option.

Why would you suggest geothermal for full time full power? Are electronics better for intermittent use?

Actually, an electric split HVC/HVAC system offers up to 550% efficiency for heating, compared to using electric radiators. This ratio is only achieved when it's above 0C outside, but even in the winter, some modern systems advertise and deliver at least 300% or even 350% efficiency down to -20 or -25C. Below -30C they don't work at all, however.

And that's where it becomes useless in Canada.

Electric radiators in comparison only offer 98%-99% efficiency.
These 550% are not actual efficiency, of course, as that's impossible, but it's how it performs like. The outside cold air is made even colder and the heat pumped inside. The actual economy improvement can be even more than 5 times if the system is controlled properly, switching off when you're away.

I don't understand how efficiency is being measured here.

A geothermal system, coupled to such a heat pump, could theoretically extend the 550% efficiency down to any temperature, instead of in the 0-20C range only.

Because of the fact that it's always the same temperature undergournd, right?

Practically, however, it uses specialized HVAC equipment, which won't be as efficient, so you can expect 400% if it has an inverter, or 250% otherwise.

What's an inverter? I mean, I know what it is, as in the piece of electrical equipment, but are you talking about needing an electrical inverter in the system, or is there some other inverter?

So a geothermal makes sense if you need efficient heating in extremely low temperatures, below -15C, where an air-to-air heat pump loses efficiency. Otherwise a highly efficient inverter HVAC is probably better.

That's interesting. I know some people who will be very interested in that.

The reason for this isn't the geothermal principle, it's great, but it's rather that the normal systems are being developed so much faster that they have come to largely surpass the geothermals that still use older technologies. If someone could be bothered to put all the new tech into a geothermal, it would be better, of course, but I haven't heard of such systems on the market.

Perhpas with some of the government subsidies alluded to in the OP.

Not at all.

Good. I have more.

Does the tank have to be 10C, or the ambient air?
The ambient air, I mean. It's not about the temperature itself, just an observation that when it drops to 10C or lower, the tank is barely warm. May be different elsewhere.
What's really important is solar input, because that's what heats up the water. The external tank should be greenhoused for the best effect, behind transparent film or glass.


I guess what I would then need is some way to calculate my required Btu, then calculate the required electricity to satisfy the load using the two systems.
It's pretty hard to calculate. Usually it has to be done on the spot, by specialists, and still is not precise. Calculating the *average* electric load of the system is also difficult.


Why would you suggest geothermal for full time full power? Are electronics better for intermittent use?
A geothermal system has a potential to be more efficient, but since there's way fewer on the market, you won't find one as advanced as the best air-to-air systems. These advanced systems are particularly good at providing exactly as much heat/cold as is needed, and not more.
The geothermal one will probably be nowhere as good at it, so, while (and if) more efficient, it will still likely use more power. There may be geothermal HVAC systems with modern electronics, it's just that I haven't seen or heard of any yet.


And that's where it becomes useless in Canada.
Is it below -20C for long? If so, yes. If that's just a month or two, you could use the old radiators for that time.


I don't understand how efficiency is being measured here.
As a ratio to energy used to heat produced. A more precise term is COP, coefficient of performance.
A radiator using 2,500W of electricity will output about 2,470W of heat (a little bit lost in the wiring). An inverter heat pump using 2,500W of electricity will output 10,000+W of heat.
Or, to output the same 2,470W of heat, it will only need 600W of electricity.

That is possible because it doesn't directly heat the room, but rather pumps heat from the outside to the inside, even if the outside is colder.


Because of the fact that it's always the same temperature undergournd, right?
Yes. So it doesn't have the problem of being unable to cool the external unit below the outside temperature. At -50C (for the modern Japanese units, much higher for old or American ones), the refrigerant can no longer boil, so that's the absolute minimum the A/C can cool it down to. The outside has to be considerably warmer to be able to extract heat from it.


What's an inverter? I mean, I know what it is, as in the piece of electrical equipment, but are you talking about needing an electrical inverter in the system, or is there some other inverter?
Part of the HVAC exterior unit. The A/C can have a fixed speed compressor, which always uses the same power, runs at the same speed, etc., and can only go on and off, or a variable speed compressor, which is powered by direct current using an inverter. Variable speed compressors are a different type altogether, actually, and they are more efficient, more reliable and quieter.
The inverter is not a separate device, it's a feature of the HVAC system. If you want to use it for heating, an inverter is pretty much a must.


Perhpas with some of the government subsidies alluded to in the OP.
Specific subsidies indeed might help to alleviate the cost of the geothermal system. I'd check for what they are first.

Then I would guess that all ecologies violate physical laws because in nature, all waste material is 100% recovered. In fact, it often provides food for other consumers.

Nope. None of the known ecologies are closed systems that recycle 100% of all materials. Energy is provided by external means, namely sunlight, and the existence of oil should tell you just how ineffective ecologies are at recovering 100% of biomatter since they don't naturally show up in the ecology again, being buried deep as they are. You can get close, but not 100%.


But you are correct in that nuclear technology is nowhere near that level of sustainability. The question is how close does nuclear get in comparison to other technologies.

A lot better than coal or oil, and I suspect less in sheer bulk of waste produced than replacement parts for wind power.


Well, reducing the amount of nuclear facilities would also help minimise waste output. And also reduce the risk.

Wrong sort of answer. You didn't go "We can stop Somalian piracy by stopping international shipping" did you?

This is exciting news for my little town:
http://www.al.com/business/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/business/1241774146272350.xml&coll=1
Mayor Tommy Battle wants Huntsville to become known as a "green" city. On Thursday he unveiled his team charged with that task.

Battle's "Green 13," a baker's dozen of local professionals, will spend nine months studying how the city can become more environmentally sustainable. The team will evaluate what's working now and design ways that Huntsville can be more green.

The first report is due in February, Battle said.

"The community," he said, "wants this."

Rodney Pennywell of Magnacom and co-founder of Falcon List is the chairman. The other members are: Randall Boyd, Fuqua & Partners Architects; Micah Bullard, Turner Universal; Jerry Cargile, 4Site; Gregory Cox, Cox International; Mike Dalen, Solid Earth; Dr. Kathleen Felker, Radiology of Huntsville; Mark Harris, Mark Harris Homes; Dick Reeves, Huntsville Angel Network; Ruchi Singhal, Renewable Energy Outreach; Dawn Stanley, NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center; and Cole Walker, United Properties.

Irma Tuder, chairwoman of the Huntsville/Madison County Chamber, serves as an adviser.

The group's first order of business is to host a Green City Summit, an invitation-only event scheduled Monday at the U.S. Space & Rocket Center. More than 200 attendees will participate in brainstorming sessions that will lay the groundwork for designing and implementing sustainability programs in Huntsville.

"A lot of projects," Battle said, "you won't see. If we build a building that needs less water, we use smaller water and sewer pipes."



There is no telling what Research Park (a sea of think tanks in West Huntsville) will come up with. Here's to hoping the world will one day conscider Huntsville as "The Green Store" and do all their green shopping here.
:D

The ambient air, I mean. It's not about the temperature itself, just an observation that when it drops to 10C or lower, the tank is barely warm. May be different elsewhere.
What's really important is solar input, because that's what heats up the water. The external tank should be greenhoused for the best effect, behind transparent film or glass.

I guess you want to maximise Langleys, if I recall that is the unit for solar gain. Which is defined mostly by angle, I think. However, it would only really be useful in areas where there's a lot of sunny days. Washington State, for example would not profit as much from this as Arizona, say.

Still, a passive heating system for water would greatly reduce the electrical load of a single family dwelling.

It's pretty hard to calculate. Usually it has to be done on the spot, by specialists, and still is not precise. Calculating the *average* electric load of the system is also difficult.

I know a mechanical engineer who teaches people how to do the calculations. A bottle of something good could make my work part of the curriculum...

A geothermal system has a potential to be more efficient, but since there's way fewer on the market, you won't find one as advanced as the best air-to-air systems. These advanced systems are particularly good at providing exactly as much heat/cold as is needed, and not more.
The geothermal one will probably be nowhere as good at it, so, while (and if) more efficient, it will still likely use more power. There may be geothermal HVAC systems with modern electronics, it's just that I haven't seen or heard of any yet.

Which brings up the issue of subsidies. One of the reason that nuclear does so much better than other systems is because of the massive amount of funding that has gone into nuclear research as compared to other types of energy production. When one thinks about the simple fact that you can't make a huge bomb out of a windmill or a solar panel, it makes sense.

Is it below -20C for long? If so, yes. If that's just a month or two, you could use the old radiators for that time.

In BC, you could get away with it, but in most of Canada, it's -20 to -40 for at least three months of the year.

As a ratio to energy used to heat produced. A more precise term is COP, coefficient of performance.
A radiator using 2,500W of electricity will output about 2,470W of heat (a little bit lost in the wiring). An inverter heat pump using 2,500W of electricity will output 10,000+W of heat.
Or, to output the same 2,470W of heat, it will only need 600W of electricity.

That is possible because it doesn't directly heat the room, but rather pumps heat from the outside to the inside, even if the outside is colder.

Got it. thanks.

Yes. So it doesn't have the problem of being unable to cool the external unit below the outside temperature. At -50C (for the modern Japanese units, much higher for old or American ones), the refrigerant can no longer boil, so that's the absolute minimum the A/C can cool it down to. The outside has to be considerably warmer to be able to extract heat from it.

So, in terms of heating, how warm does the outside air have to be? You said the system you use is no good below -20C; is that what you meant? If it is, couldn't you use geothermal for those lower temperatures, as underground it never gets that cold?

Part of the HVAC exterior unit. The A/C can have a fixed speed compressor, which always uses the same power, runs at the same speed, etc., and can only go on and off, or a variable speed compressor, which is powered by direct current using an inverter. Variable speed compressors are a different type altogether, actually, and they are more efficient, more reliable and quieter.
The inverter is not a separate device, it's a feature of the HVAC system. If you want to use it for heating, an inverter is pretty much a must.

Okay. I get it. That reminds me. I need a new fridge.

Specific subsidies indeed might help to alleviate the cost of the geothermal system. I'd check for what they are first.

I know other professionals who could help. I'll need another bottle.

Nope. None of the known ecologies are closed systems that recycle 100% of all materials. Energy is provided by external means, namely sunlight, and the existence of oil should tell you just how ineffective ecologies are at recovering 100% of biomatter since they don't naturally show up in the ecology again, being buried deep as they are. You can get close, but not 100%.

Except of course, where you have synergistic effects. Like bees pollinating flowers. The bees expend a certain amount of energy food gathering. The flowers expend a certain amount of breeding. But because the same energy expenditure can do both of these things, so we have a net energy savings due to the interdependence.

A lot better than coal or oil, and I suspect less in sheer bulk of waste produced than replacement parts for wind power.

If you look at the life cycle assessments posted upthread, you would see that wind and nuclear are pretty even. The information came from a source that supports nuclear energy research, but unfortunately it didn't break things down in terms of energy consumed in each part of the life cycle.

Wrong sort of answer. You didn't go "We can stop Somalian piracy by stopping international shipping" did you?

Actually, environmentalists were trying to stop Somalian piracy along time ago by trying to limit international fishing in the area. The idea was that if we did things in a sustainable manner, we wouldn't have issues of violence later. Unfortunately, it was impossible and overfishing occurred. The loss of livelihood for Somali fishermen has increased the rate of piracy. But that has nothing to do with it.

I don't think your analogy works because international shipping can not be used for creating weapons. No, that is not exactly correct. if Somali pirates were able to, for example, take over a nuclear powered vessel, then that would be a worry. But the very rarity of such vessels greatly reduces the risk of such a thing. Which of course only supports my point that reducing the number of nuclear reactors would reduce the risk of proliferation.

I guess you want to maximise Langleys, if I recall that is the unit for solar gain. Which is defined mostly by angle, I think. However, it would only really be useful in areas where there's a lot of sunny days. Washington State, for example would not profit as much from this as Arizona, say.
If going all scientific, yes. Practically, the main factor will be minimal work for plumbing the external tank.

The gains depend on how do you use the water. In most areas, this won't produce the same hot water as from a heater. However, throughout the spring and autumn, you won't need to run the heater just to get water that doesn't freeze the fingers. And in the summer, with the heater off, I even have to open the cold tap somewhat to shower. Regularly one would waste a good bit of energy for that. It's not really major savings, but it adds up to well compensate for the expense, as long as you're doing most of the work yourself.


I know a mechanical engineer who teaches people how to do the calculations.
It doesn't work like that. Sure, I could do the calculations too. But HVAC systems are way too individual. It takes an experienced person inspecting the place to at least take a decent guess. There are too many factors that a regular homeowner doesn't even know about. Such a small detail as relative locations of the sleeping rooms, the cabinet and the kitchen can change the power draw by as much as 30%.

Many companies offer these services for free anyway, and even the first estimate will be better than a theoretical calculation.
Developing a proper zoned configuration, on the other hand, is rather expensive work, but it tends to be included in the price of the installation and well worth it.


Which brings up the issue of subsidies. One of the reason that nuclear does so much better than other systems is because of the massive amount of funding that has gone into nuclear research as compared to other types of energy production.
Of course it had funding in its research, so did other sources. And it will take a lot more research, too.

Nuclear power is yet in early infancy. It didn't belong in the '50s, the very thought of developing something with a fraction of its complexity without all-through computerization would look ridiculous today. Nuclear reactors in 50s-70s were an anachronism, like if someone put a McLaren F1 into the 19th century. They were pushed through ahead of the time together with the nuclear weapons, demanded by the war, with no regard for cost and safety.

The early ones did work, but so did the first steam engine where you manually heated the boiler with a campfire and then extinguished it with a bucket. Even today we're a decade away from putting on the grid reactors with the relative sophistication and efficiency of an 1860 steam locomotive. Modern reactors work at an overall efficiency of 0.15% to 0.20%. In theory we know how to reach 20%-30%, and we know exactly why we can't do it yet. [Although it's not as bad as with steam engines; 98% of the fuel is just left unburned, rather than burned and wasted.] It's a long way to go. It will take active research to get close to there by 2040-2050. And research doesn't stop there, as by 2080 we will likely start deploying fusion cores.

But having a major fraction of its costs in research and development isn't necessarily a bad thing for an industry.


When one thinks about the simple fact that you can't make a huge bomb out of a windmill or a solar panel, it makes sense.
You can't make one out of a reactor either. Some reactors can work as an intermediary stage in the process, but there's a lot more high technology involved to bring it to a bomb. Some obsolete reactors can be turned into weak and localized dirty bombs, but that's it. The technology and the materials used are completely different. There are more complicated issues in making a bomb, such as refinement and building the extremely precise detonator.


So, in terms of heating, how warm does the outside air have to be? You said the system you use is no good below -20C; is that what you meant? If it is, couldn't you use geothermal for those lower temperatures, as underground it never gets that cold?
Yes, below -20C, the efficiency drops enough that it's better to use a simple heater instead, rather than put wear on the compressors for a small efficiency gain.

Geothermal systems can overcome this limitation. There is some gain between -15C and upwards too, but not major.