How the Dems killed Yucca, and the incompetence of Jaczko

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Aw well no answer from Moonbeam. :(

Moonbeam you don't want nuclear and you don't want coal, what do you want?

sunshine, rainbows, and unicorns of course. any other source of power is just an engine of our own self hatred. :wub:
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,571
13,195
146
Yup,

Unfortunately for Moony, every living thing poisons it's own environment, thanks to thermodynamics.

Nice thing about nuclear is it cuts the waste by about a million fold compared to chemical reactions.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
Aw well no answer from Moonbeam. :(

Moonbeam you don't want nuclear and you don't want coal, what do you want?

100 sq miles of solar with cheap catalytic water splitting for hydrogen fuel cell use after dark and most of it on roof tops with the job to do it given to a new CCC. That will supply the nation's needs.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,571
13,195
146
100 sq miles of solar with cheap catalytic water splitting for hydrogen fuel cell use after dark and most of it on roof tops with the job to do it given to a new CCC. That will supply the nation's needs.

I did the math once, it's more like 30,000 square miles if you want to supply power 24/7 and cover transportation.

I personally think local solar coupled with a strong grid is the way to go. Think home-roof mounted solar with fuel-cell storage coupled with a grid powered by the smarter waste burning nuclear technologies.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I did the math once, it's more like 30,000 square miles if you want to supply power 24/7 and cover transportation.

I personally think local solar coupled with a strong grid is the way to go. Think home-roof mounted solar with fuel-cell storage coupled with a grid powered by the smarter waste burning nuclear technologies.
I agree, a web of well-designed, well-built, modern nuclear plants with a smart grid and well-distributed point-of-use solar would be great. The output is already good enough, it's just that the panels are too expensive. Hopefully within the next decade we'll see a breakthrough in manufacturing costs.

Inexpensive solar panels could totally remake Africa too. The main resource they have is the sun.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
I did the math once, it's more like 30,000 square miles if you want to supply power 24/7 and cover transportation.

I personally think local solar coupled with a strong grid is the way to go. Think home-roof mounted solar with fuel-cell storage coupled with a grid powered by the smarter waste burning nuclear technologies.

Oops, make that a 100 mi on edge square.

In the sun belt areas of the US each sq yard of land exposed to direct sunlight receives 833 watts of power in optimal areas for 6 hours a day or 5 KWH a day so 100 sq yards receives over 5000 KWH a day or the average in 1 to 2 days as a normal family uses in a month.

Thus a 30 foot by 30 foot array of solar panels at 15 % efficiency using hydrogen storage and a fuel cell will produce energy independence. Most detached family homes have more roof area than that.

No national security risk to a nuclear reactor attack, or destruction of the power grid, no power outage risks and tons of green local jobs. Nuclear is great for folk who hate themselves and have a deep but unconscious death wish or have their livelihoods and egos connected to it. Nobody wants to live around nuclear. Bad for property values. Solar on your house builds equity and self pride. Mothers can look at their kids and feel good. The invisible death will not haunt their dreams. The only way to go. Psycho Moms against nuclear power really scare me. What they want is fine by me. Fuck the slide rule up their asses engineers who haven't felt any green grass between their toes in a hundred years. Fuck the emotionally dead technocrats who have lost their hearts. Chose Einstein over Edward Teller:


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MsnXiAKP37CEBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBw&dur=4000


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...3gKK3XiAKO25TfBg&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQ9QEwCQ&dur=64

You owe it to children unborn. It's all about ones Being Duty to Live. Wake the fuck up and love.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
LOL @ solar. Where you going to get the money to pay for it? Remember the government already subsidizes like 75% of panel purchases and it's still in the 10s of thousands for the consumer. Such an ignorant statement moon. Lets not forget, why would you want to put so many people out of work? Solar maintenance and installation is a much less labor intensive industry than coal or oil, which employ millions with well paying jobs. Nuke plants and more natural gas plants could help replace the jobs, but the move to green tech will straight fucking kill them on top of being unaffordable.

Moon, you need to come back to Earth. You've been away to long, you don't know what it's like here any longer. PS how is hydrogen any more safe than any other fuel we use? In fact it's probably less safe.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
LOL @ solar. Where you going to get the money to pay for it? Remember the government already subsidizes like 75% of panel purchases and it's still in the 10s of thousands for the consumer. Such an ignorant statement moon. Lets not forget, why would you want to put so many people out of work? Solar maintenance and installation is a much less labor intensive industry than coal or oil, which employ millions with well paying jobs. Nuke plants and more natural gas plants could help replace the jobs, but the move to green tech will straight fucking kill them on top of being unaffordable.

Moon, you need to come back to Earth. You've been away to long, you don't know what it's like here any longer. PS how is hydrogen any more safe than any other fuel we use? In fact it's probably less safe.

Why would I consider the tardguements of somebody who can't wait to destroy the earth so we can colonize the galaxies. You are around the bend and feel no being duty? Eat your own pig slop.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
However it doesn't change the fact that in an appropriate storage container an exploding rocket will not disperse solid nuclear material.

We'll see. Anything economically viable enough to actually build would have to be able to hold a lot of radioactive waste from not just nuclear reactors. "Appropriate storage container" may not be as appropriate.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Um...you've spectacularly missed the point. Maybe you should re-read my post.

I missed nothing. You're saying there really isn't any waste to be sent to the sun once its reprocessed to recover fuel. What does that matter if we're not doing the reprocessing?

Since we (the US) really aren't, it doesn't... and a primary concern/problem with just shooting it all toward the sun is exactly as I mentioned.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I agree, a web of well-designed, well-built, modern nuclear plants with a smart grid and well-distributed point-of-use solar would be great. The output is already good enough, it's just that the panels are too expensive. Hopefully within the next decade we'll see a breakthrough in manufacturing costs.

Inexpensive solar panels could totally remake Africa too. The main resource they have is the sun.

Yeah, there's two main hurdles solar has to overcome... cost and efficiency (converting more of the energy received into electricity). Fortunately, there's good news on that front... and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see both of those things solved sooner rather than later.. maybe even in as few as 5 years.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Oops, make that a 100 mi on edge square.

In the sun belt areas of the US each sq yard of land exposed to direct sunlight receives 833 watts of power in optimal areas for 6 hours a day or 5 KWH a day so 100 sq yards receives over 5000 KWH a day or the average in 1 to 2 days as a normal family uses in a month.

Thus a 30 foot by 30 foot array of solar panels at 15 % efficiency using hydrogen storage and a fuel cell will produce energy independence. Most detached family homes have more roof area than that.

No national security risk to a nuclear reactor attack, or destruction of the power grid, no power outage risks and tons of green local jobs. Nuclear is great for folk who hate themselves and have a deep but unconscious death wish or have their livelihoods and egos connected to it. Nobody wants to live around nuclear. Bad for property values. Solar on your house builds equity and self pride. Mothers can look at their kids and feel good. The invisible death will not haunt their dreams. The only way to go. Psycho Moms against nuclear power really scare me. What they want is fine by me. Fuck the slide rule up their asses engineers who haven't felt any green grass between their toes in a hundred years. Fuck the emotionally dead technocrats who have lost their hearts. Chose Einstein over Edward Teller:


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MsnXiAKP37CEBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBw&dur=4000


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...3gKK3XiAKO25TfBg&sqi=2&ved=0CEcQ9QEwCQ&dur=64

You owe it to children unborn. It's all about ones Being Duty to Live. Wake the fuck up and love.

By my math your plan would cost $87 trillion, which is about six times the entire US economy.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Inexpensive solar panels could totally remake Africa too. The main resource they have is the sun.
Africa is actually a very resource rich area. They have coal, gas, ore, and lots of fresh water. African countries could be super rich if it were possible to have a solid government.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
By my math your plan would cost $87 trillion, which is about six times the entire US economy.

Cool, just imagine how rich we will be when we've paid our economy 87 trillion for free energy. Not only will it cost nothing for the electricity to manufacture 87 trillion in goods, but we will have the money to buy them. Talk about stimulus. And no nuclear waste.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Cool, just imagine how rich we will be when we've paid our economy 87 trillion for free energy. Not only will it cost nothing for the electricity to manufacture 87 trillion in goods, but we will have the money to buy them. Talk about stimulus. And no nuclear waste.

um no, solar panels have a fixed life time and require maintenance. It would be like 87 trillion every 15 years. 6 trillion per year, or about 50% of the US's GDP. Current energy spending is about 10% of GDP. So you're looking at a fivefold increase in the price of energy, and thus everything across the board.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Should have thought of that when building the plants.

There is not a single nuclear plant in NV, so why should they be the nuclear dumpster of the US?

Does your state produce oil? If not then why are you getting any of my oil?

Most states refuse to allow gasoline refineries in their states, we have them all over the place.

If you don't have a refinery in your state then you should better be horse shopping or own a bicycle.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Cool, just imagine how rich we will be when we've paid our economy 87 trillion for free energy. Not only will it cost nothing for the electricity to manufacture 87 trillion in goods, but we will have the money to buy them. Talk about stimulus. And no nuclear waste.

Talk about a failure in logic. So I guess if I said it would cost $150 trillion you would say that's even better.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,495
31,885
136
Cool, just imagine how rich we will be when we've paid our economy 87 trillion for free energy. Not only will it cost nothing for the electricity to manufacture 87 trillion in goods, but we will have the money to buy them. Talk about stimulus. And no nuclear waste.

Er...there are other costs like physical plant, labor, materials, insurance, environmental, etc....just to name a few minor ones.

Advocating a total solar solution with present technology is untenable and fiscally irresponsible. Significant investment should be made into more R&D to push up efficency and reduce fabrication cost before any solar technology is deployed so widely.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
Er...there are other costs like physical plant, labor, materials, insurance, environmental, etc....just to name a few minor ones.

Advocating a total solar solution with present technology is untenable and fiscally irresponsible. Significant investment should be made into more R&D to push up efficency and reduce fabrication cost before any solar technology is deployed so widely.

No, you won't get efficiency until you scale up production and focus on research and development. What is needed is government commitment to conversion to solar power now. Nobody is going to spend all the money today on current technology. I just listed the sq miles needed for total self reliance on solar for the whole country with current technology, not that the whole thing be built with it. Before H. Ford, nobody could afford a car. This is why an 87 trillion bill is ludicrous.

And don't give me that crap about minor ones, you listed the best you could. Hehe
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
No, you won't get efficiency until you scale up production and focus on research and development. What is needed is government commitment to conversion to solar power now. Nobody is going to spend all the money today on current technology. I just listed the sq miles needed for total self reliance on solar for the whole country with current technology, not that the whole thing be built with it. Before H. Ford, nobody could afford a car. This is why an 87 trillion bill is ludicrous.

And don't give me that crap about minor ones, you listed the best you could. Hehe

There is no scaling up of efficiency for solar power. That is its inherent flaw - it has a low energy density. It's the same for wind power. You can't make the wind blow any harder or more consistently and you can't make the sun any brighter. You are limited by the sun's output and the laws of thermodynamics.

Repeat after me. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

While it is physically possible to harness vast amounts of solar energy by covering substantial portions of the earth with solar panels, it is currently beyond humanity's technological capacity.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
There is no scaling up of efficiency for solar power. That is its inherent flaw - it has a low energy density. It's the same for wind power. You can't make the wind blow any harder or more consistently and you can't make the sun any brighter. You are limited by the sun's output and the laws of thermodynamics.

Repeat after me. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

While it is physically possible to harness vast amounts of solar energy by covering substantial portions of the earth with solar panels, it is currently beyond humanity's technological capacity.

You are using big words, Moonie is going to get confused and hate himself more.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,038
36
86
I guess I don't understand the logic of building modern nuke plants, some which can 'eat' the spent fuel of others (whether the others be new or old, doesn't matter). Why just not do that, let those roll for the next 40-60 years, and then by then, solar/geo/whatever will be perfected enough - and cheap enough - to quite possibly not necessitate the building of another nuke plant (which itself would be even more advanced than what we could build now)? (holy run on sentence batman)

This seems like the only realistic decision we can make for very large portions of the country...just not sure why we're holding up? For what?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
There is no scaling up of efficiency for solar power. That is its inherent flaw - it has a low energy density. It's the same for wind power. You can't make the wind blow any harder or more consistently and you can't make the sun any brighter. You are limited by the sun's output and the laws of thermodynamics.

Repeat after me. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

While it is physically possible to harness vast amounts of solar energy by covering substantial portions of the earth with solar panels, it is currently beyond humanity's technological capacity.
This is true, and I don't think that solar is going to replace combustion or nuclear power in centralized energy plants. If nothing else, solar's inherently low output voltages limit its ability to drive long distances from central locations. Yes, you can chain them to get higher output voltages, and that's definitely the current trend; but any cell that fails is a resistor, and the more cells one chains in series, the larger the chance of individual failures. To get to transmission voltages with solar power, as a practical matter one has to use transformers with all their inherent losses. Better to use solar evaporation steam plants for centralized energy production, and those will probably never be practical except in the tropics and in subtropical and near subtropical deserts.

But even at current efficiencies, point-of-use solar makes a lot of sense if we can cut the installed costs by two-thirds. Right now we're using government subsidies to reduce the price to an ROI point acceptable to most companies. Considering that installation and transportation costs are largely fixed and will probably increase, solar cells need to decrease probably 75% or more to be truly practical. And to be a fix for our petroleum-based economy, they need to be produced in America; otherwise we're simply paying a Chinese rather than Middle Eastern/Mexican/Canadian overlord. And THAT is a tall order indeed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,131
5,985
126
There is no scaling up of efficiency for solar power. That is its inherent flaw - it has a low energy density. It's the same for wind power. You can't make the wind blow any harder or more consistently and you can't make the sun any brighter. You are limited by the sun's output and the laws of thermodynamics.

Repeat after me. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

While it is physically possible to harness vast amounts of solar energy by covering substantial portions of the earth with solar panels, it is currently beyond humanity's technological capacity.

What the crap are you talking about. I'm not talking about scaling up the efficiency of solar cells, that is being done and that has theoretical limits. I am talking about the cost per item of special order one of a kind vs the cost per millions. Didn't I mention Henry Ford and the cost reduction of mass production.