McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,637
46,327
136
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Wind Can Supply 20% of U.S. Electricity, Report Says


By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2008; Page D07

The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption

Linking to the complete article would be nice...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...2/AR2008051202596.html

The Energy Department said yesterday that the United States has the ability to meet 20 percent of its electricity-generation needs with wind by 2030, enough to displace 50 percent of natural gas consumption and 18 percent of coal consumption.

But in a report drawn up by its national laboratories, the department said that meeting the target would require more improvements in turbine technology, cost reductions, new transmission lines, an expansion of the wind industry and a fivefold increase in the pace of wind-turbine installation.

The report said a boost in wind capacity to 20 percent of electricity generation "could potentially defer the need to build some new coal capacity, avoiding or postponing the associated carbon emissions." The department said that expanding the use of wind to generate power could avert a need for more than 80 gigawatts of new coal-fired generating capacity; its current projections say that new coal-fired plants capable of producing about 140 gigawatts of power could be built by 2030 to meet rising demand.

The report noted that a big expansion of wind-power generation would also cut the amount of water used by the electricity industry by 17 percent by 2030.

The report said that, under "optimistic assumptions," expanding wind generation to meet 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs by 2030 would cost nearly $197 billion, but it said that most of that would be offset by nearly $155 billion in lower fuel expenditures. There would be, it said, other offsetting positive effects.

In a VERY best case scenario such a large scale deployment might meet most of our expected NEW increases in electricity demand.

What about the other 20some percent generated by an aging reactor fleet or the chances that we might have times where the wind network is unable to supply the energy required?
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

I read the article and linked it without editing so as not to present only one side of the story. You did read that the problem of N waste has never been solved anywhere, right.

I know it hasn't. Neither have the problems that arise from burning fossil fuels. Whats your point? My point is that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and most efficient form of energy we have to date.

That big empty space is Nevada and the people of Nevada don't want it there. But if you get enough power you can shove it down their throat. Why not cover the desert with solar cells. The sun can turn turbines as easily as nuclear fuel and there's no radioactivity or CO2.

As I've said a hundred time and so have other forum members: solar energy is too immature for clean and efficient use.

The people in Nevada don't want it because this country has failed in science education. They don't even want it transported because they think if a terrorist attack waste they will have a Hiroshima on their hands. As the article points out, engineers are highly regarded in France and are trusted as they should be. Europeans are very well educated when it comes to science while Americans watch too much science fiction - that is the difference.

Note again how the solutions are always in the future. Tomorrow I clean up says the pig. Sure you will, piggy.

Again, you never provided any evidence of widespread nuclear contamination.

My point is that both coal and nuclear are the wrong direction. Solar in the way to go. Immature in not an issue. We need a Saturn rocket type effort.

As far as nuclear waste is concerned, what evidence do I need. We create it and we have no permanent solution. That means waste is sitting around improperly dealt with.

Again we go in circles. Solar power is immature, environmentally unsafe, not as efficient as nuclear power. Apparently you agree that nuclear > coal. So now you want to move on and see why nuclear > solar?
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam


As far as nuclear waste is concerned, what evidence do I need. We create it and we have no permanent solution. That means waste is sitting around improperly dealt with.

And what about the heavy metals from solar panels that need to be replaced occasionally? Where will they go?
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: daniel49
well here in Washington state we had a govenor who was very pro nuke named dixie lee ray. thus we began the WPPPS (read whoops which it was nicknamed) powerplant at Satsop.
This plant was waaayy over budget from day one and eventually was mothballed without ever producing a KW of power.
WPPPS



Then there's Hanford a contaminated mess of leaky tanks that the Govt likes to play down.
Read esp the cleanup section.

hanford

I would be on board for Nuclear if I could be convinced they had the disposal problem solved, but they do not.
disposal
(The bacteria is an interesting idea ,but far from practical yet.)



France?? ahh the golden example they produce 80% of thier countries power through nuke plants. so surely they have an answer?( actually they have little choice since france has no oil or gas)


Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."
Bataille began working on a new law that he presented to parliament in 1991. It laid plans to build 3-4 research laboratories at various sites. These laboratories would be charged with investigating various options, including deep geological storage, above ground stocking and transmutation and detoxification of waste. The law calls for the labs to be built in the next few years and then, based on the research they yield, parliament will decide its final decision. Bataille's law specifies 2006 as the year in which parliament must decide which laboratory will become the national stocking center


Bataille's plan seems to be working. Several regions have applied to host underground laboratories hoping the labs will bring in money and high prestige scientific jobs. But ultimate success is by no means certain. One of these laboratories will, in effect, become the stocking center for the nation and the local people may find that unacceptable. If protesters organize, they can block shipments on the roads and rail. The situation could quickly get out of hand.


Nuclear waste is an enormously difficult political problem which to date no country has solved. It is, in a sense, the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. Could this issue strike down France's uniquely successful nuclear program? France's politicians and technocrats are in no doubt. If France is unable to solve this issue, says Mandil, then "I do not see how we can continue our nuclear program."

france

They also apparently ship it to russia
russia

I'm glad to hear the French are going research. At least someone is. Keep in mind that nuclear waste takes up a very small volume per Kw of energy produced. We have plenty of empty space in America, more than France. If a single household produces a piece of waste the size of a cigarette lighter over a 20 year period then we could go for 500 years.

The one thing I'm hoping for is that someone will figure out how to manufacture carbon nano-tubes efficiently. Super light and super strong aircraft and cars can cut our oil needs in very significantly. Also it would be nice is people wake up. The building I live in has black tar on the roof. If someone would spend a small amount of money to cover it with a white material in the summer and black in the winter energy costs could be cut. If people did this on all over the country it would be even better.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
This subject is a litmus test that distinguishes the realists from the wishful ones. Nuclear and coal are the only legitimate options at this time...and nuclear is the hands-down winner IMHO.

I'm totally baffled as to why we don't see the MMGW crowd demanding immediate replacement of all coal fired plants with nuclear facilities. I guess they're having trouble deciding which is worse...nuclear waste management or the imminent destruction of all mankind. Hmmmm...tough call. ;)
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam


As far as nuclear waste is concerned, what evidence do I need. We create it and we have no permanent solution. That means waste is sitting around improperly dealt with.

And what about the heavy metals from solar panels that need to be replaced occasionally? Where will they go?

In Moonbeams backyard of course!
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I'm totally baffled as to why we don't see the MMGW crowd demanding immediate replacement of all coal fired plants with nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power can only be delivered through an energy corporation. Because corporations are evil they would not like that.

You ever seen Team America: World Police? Its made by the South Park guys. Aside from being a very funny movie, it is also a very accurate documentary of political sentiment in America.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I'm totally baffled as to why we don't see the MMGW crowd demanding immediate replacement of all coal fired plants with nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power can only be delivered through an energy corporation. Because corporations are evil they would not like that.

You ever seen Team America: World Police? Its made by the South Park guys. Aside from being a very funny movie, it is also a very accurate documentary of political sentiment in America.

Some people are baffled by the fact that 2 + 2 = 4
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam


As far as nuclear waste is concerned, what evidence do I need. We create it and we have no permanent solution. That means waste is sitting around improperly dealt with.

And what about the heavy metals from solar panels that need to be replaced occasionally? Where will they go?

In Moonbeams backyard of course!

It's a pain in the ass when you idiots aren't even reading the thread. What are the toxic elements in mirrors and steam driven turbines that aren't in cars, or for that matter really, stuff in silicon chips that aren't in your computer? Interestingly, when they collect computers for recycling the mats, the workers don't die from radiation.

Ashley Seager The Guardian, Monday November 27, 2006 Article historyIn the desert, just across the Mediterranean sea, is a vast source of energy that holds the promise of a carbon-free, nuclear-free electrical future for the whole of Europe, if not the world.

We are not talking about the vast oil and gas deposits underneath Algeria and Libya, or uranium for nuclear plants, but something far simpler - the sun. And in vast quantities: every year it pours down the equivalent of 1.5m barrels of oil of energy for every square kilometre.

Most people in Britain think of solar power as a few panels on the roof of a house producing hot water or a bit of electricity. But according to two reports prepared for the German government, Europe, the Middle East and North Africa should be building vast solar farms in North Africa's deserts using a simple technology that more resembles using a magnifying glass to burn a hole in a piece of paper than any space age technology.

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

Focusing on Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, they say, Europe should build a new high-voltage direct current electricity grid to allow the easy, efficient transport of electricity from a variety of alternative sources. Britain could put in wind power, Norway hydro, and central Europe biomass and geo-thermal. Together the region could provide all its electricity needs by 2050 with barely any fossil fuels and no nuclear power. This would allow a 70% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from electricity production over the period.

CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.

The mirrors are very large and create shaded areas underneath which can be used for horticulture irrigated by desalinated water generated by the plants. The cold water that can also be produced for air conditioning means there are three benefits. "It is this triple use of the energy which really boost the overall energy efficiency of these kinds of plants up to 80% to 90%," says Dr Knies.

This form of solar power is also attractive because the hot liquid can be stored in large vessels which can keep the turbines running for hours after the sun has gone down, avoiding the problems association with other forms of solar power.

Competitive with oil

The German reports put an approximate cost on power derived from CSP. This is now around $50 per barrel of oil equivalent for the cost of building a plant. That cost is likely to fall sharply, to about $20, as the production of the mirrors reaches industrial levels. It is about half the equivalent cost of using the photovoltaic cells that people have on their roofs. So CSP is competitive with oil, currently priced around $60 a barrel.

Dr Knies says CSP is not yet competitive with natural gas for producing electricity alone. But if desalination and air conditioning are added CSP undercuts gas and that is without taking into account the cost of the carbon emissions from fossil fuels. The researchers say a relatively small amount of the world's hot deserts -only about half a percent - would need to be covered in solar collectors to provide the entire world's electrical needs (see map).

The desert land is plentiful and cheap but, more importantly, there is roughly three times as much sunlight in hot deserts as in northern Europe. This is why the reports recommend a collaboration between countries of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to construct a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) grid for the sharing of carbon-free energy. Alternating current cables, which now form the main electricity grids in Europe, are not suitable for long distance transport of electricity because too much is lost on the way. Dr Trieb, of the German Air and Space Agency, says the advantage of DC cables is that the loss in transport is only about 3% per 1,000 kilometres, meaning losses between North Africa and Britain of about 10%.

"Contrary to what is commonly supposed it is entirely feasible, and cost-effective, to transmit solar electricity over long distances. Solar electricity imported to Europe would be amongst the cheapest source of electricity and that includes transporting it," he says. "CSP imports would be much less vulnerable to interruption than are current imports of gas, oil and uranium."

Algeria already exports huge quantities of oil and gas to Europe via pipelines but has a vast potential resource in sunlight that could make it a complete energy supplier to Europe. Many members of the Opec oil cartel, which have worried that alternative energies would kill demand for their oil, are blessed with hot, sunny deserts that could become a further source of energy income.

The two reports make it clear that an HVDC grid around Europe and North Africa could provide enough electricity by 2050 to make it possible to phase out nuclear power and hugely reduce use of fossil fuels.

An umbrella group of scientists has been formed across the region called the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (Trec) but the idea has yet to excite the imagination of the British government in spite of the recent Stern review on climate change.

Neil Crumpton, renewables specialist at Friends of the Earth, said: "Most politicians on the world stage, particularly Tony Blair and George Bush, appear to have little or no awareness of CSP's potential let alone a strategic vision for using it to help build global energy and climate security."

European commission president José Manuel Barroso said recently that he wanted to see the European Union develop a common energy strategy based on low carbon emissions. The Trec scientists hope German chancellor Angela Merkel will use next year's joint presidency of the EU and Group of Eight leading economies to push for an agreement on a European DC grid and the launch of a widespread CSP programme.

The outlook is not promising. More than 30 countries last week agreed to spend £7bn on an experimental fusion reactor in France which critics say will not produce any electricity for 50 years, if at all.

That amount of money would provide a lot of CSP power, a proven, working and simple technology that would work now, not in 2056.

Safer and cheaper

Dan Lewis, energy expert at the Economic Research Council, calculates that CSP costs $3-5m per installed megawatt, one-fifth the cost of fusion. "Fusion is basically a job creation scheme for plasma physicists."

Mr Crumpton agreed: "Nuclear power accounts for just 3.1% of global energy supply and would be hard pushed to provide more. Yet CSP could supply 30% or 300% of future energy demand far more simply, safely and cost effectively. In the wake of the Stern report the enlightened investment is on hot deserts, not uranium mines or oil wells."

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,378
2,579
136
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I'm totally baffled as to why we don't see the MMGW crowd demanding immediate replacement of all coal fired plants with nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power can only be delivered through an energy corporation. Because corporations are evil they would not like that.

You ever seen Team America: World Police? Its made by the South Park guys. Aside from being a very funny movie, it is also a very accurate documentary of political sentiment in America.

The real purpose of the environmental movement is a anti globalization agenda anti capitalism agenda. That is why they do not push for nuclear. They would rather us go back to a hunter gather lifestyle our have the human population on Earth die off.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

I'm totally baffled as to why we don't see the MMGW crowd demanding immediate replacement of all coal fired plants with nuclear facilities.

Nuclear power can only be delivered through an energy corporation. Because corporations are evil they would not like that.

You ever seen Team America: World Police? Its made by the South Park guys. Aside from being a very funny movie, it is also a very accurate documentary of political sentiment in America.

The real purpose of the environmental movement is a anti globalization agenda anti capitalism agenda. That is why they do not push for nuclear. They would rather us go back to a hunter gather lifestyle our have the human population on Earth die off.
cadster been whispering in your ear? hope there's no lingering spittle.
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Meh. It's the usual putting the cart ahead of the horse, like cutting taxes w/o cutting spending.

From the article-

In an appearance before an audience at Missouri State University, McCain also said, "We will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."

Do that first, Mmkay?

Takes a little while to first plan, then build a nuclear power plant. Then it takes a bit to get to the point where disposal is a concern. Perhaps do these things (build, solve problems of movement/storage) in parallel?

 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

Those problems will be solved by wishing on stars and believing in unicorns.

Scientists can't help us. They just want our children to glow.


Edit: Also, covering an desert in solar panels will destroy the local flora and fauna and change weather patterns in surrounding areas. Or do the hippies think that you can remove enough energy to power the entire US population from a small geographical region and think there won't be any consequences?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You aren't reading. The loss in transporting direct current electricity 1000KM is 3%.

The power can be used for desalinization and the land can be used for crops due to shade and irrigation.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You aren't reading. The loss in transporting direct current electricity 1000KM is 3%.

The power can be used for desalinization and the land can be used for crops due to shade and irrigation.

1. You ignored my point about transporting water to the desert that would used to drive the turbine. This costs money and not everyone is near a desert.

2. Where are you getting this "1000Km 3%" number?

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ric_power_transmission

7.2% is a lot and that is for all power. Now imagine the losses of transmitting energy from a desert to NY. Also, electrical resistance increases with temperature which is something that needs to be accounted for when running lines to the desert. You can expect much higher losses. You can drag this along all you want. The fact of the matter is that there is a reason why solar power isn't used. That reason lies with its inefficiency.
 

Stiganator

Platinum Member
Oct 14, 2001
2,492
3
81
As a environmentally concerned person, I applaud McCain for this move.

In the 70s sure things were a little flaky with nuclear power, but modern pebble bed reactors are ridiculously efficient and safe. There is one 20 miles north of me. I had a friend work there. Because of its design there isn't enough fissile material close enough to each other to go critical. Getting rid of the waste is a bit of an issue, but I see no problem with running a few rockets into the sun or for that matter putting it in a 5 ft thick lead coffin in a salt mine or using the radiation eating bacteria.

Obama needs to support this as well.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You aren't reading. The loss in transporting direct current electricity 1000KM is 3%.

The power can be used for desalinization and the land can be used for crops due to shade and irrigation.

1. You ignored my point about transporting water to the desert that would used to drive the turbine. This costs money and not everyone is near a desert.

2. Where are you getting this "1000Km 3%" number?

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ric_power_transmission

7.2% is a lot and that is for all power. Now imagine the losses of transmitting energy from a desert to NY. Also, electrical resistance increases with temperature which is something that needs to be accounted for when running lines to the desert. You can expect much higher losses. You can drag this along all you want. The fact of the matter is that there is a reason why solar power isn't used. That reason lies with its inefficiency.

If you were reading you'd know where I got the number. If you were reading even my last post you would note that transmission loss is a function of alternating current, not nearly as bad with DC. The loss to NY would be the distance from the desert to NY in KM divided by 1000 and multiplied by .03. The Mojave had many cities. Huge quantities of water are transported from N Calif to the desert down there. How much water do you need if you re-condense the steam?

And, for the love of shit, alternative energy is only inefficient compared to cheap oil and gas. Know where you can get any of that now, in infinite supply? Wind is already cheaper.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You aren't reading. The loss in transporting direct current electricity 1000KM is 3%.

The power can be used for desalinization and the land can be used for crops due to shade and irrigation.

1. You ignored my point about transporting water to the desert that would used to drive the turbine. This costs money and not everyone is near a desert.

2. Where are you getting this "1000Km 3%" number?

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ric_power_transmission

7.2% is a lot and that is for all power. Now imagine the losses of transmitting energy from a desert to NY. Also, electrical resistance increases with temperature which is something that needs to be accounted for when running lines to the desert. You can expect much higher losses. You can drag this along all you want. The fact of the matter is that there is a reason why solar power isn't used. That reason lies with its inefficiency.

If you were reading you'd know where I got the number. If you were reading even my last post you would note that transmission loss is a function of alternating current, not nearly as bad with DC. The loss to NY would be the distance from the desert to NY in KM divided by 1000 and multiplied by .03. The Mojave had many cities. Huge quantities of water are transported from N Calif to the desert down there. How much water do you need if you re-condense the steam?

And, for the love of shit, alternative energy is only inefficient compared to cheap oil and gas. Know where you can get any of that now, in infinite supply? Wind is already cheaper.

Ok, first of all I don't have time to read encyclopedias and long articles. I would like to know a reference for that 3% figure. Second of all, spot arguing by posting articles. I can post articles to on my behalf but you don't see me doing that do you.

Wind requires large open land which is not available everywhere. As for solar thermal energy you would need an engineering miracle that you are completely ignoring. You have to factor in resistance due to distance, resistance due to desert heat, cost of transporting water, maintenance cost, and cost of actually building and wiring the plant. Water vapor does not condense by itself, it needs to be cooled quickly for efficient use. FYI nuclear reactors operate on steam driven turbines and the water vapor is condensed by using a local body of water as a coolant. This is why nuclear reactors are located near rivers.

There are plenty of alternative energy sources, they are just not as efficient as nuclear and coal/oil for that matter because of the cost of implementing them and because of the engineering setbacks that can't be overcome at the moment. It is far more complicated than you make it seem which is why it hasn't been implemented. Do you think high energy prices are helping the U.S. economy? Why do you think alternative energy has not been implemented on a large scale if it is so efficient? Solar thermal energy may be great for the people of Nevada. As for the majority of the country? Don't count on it.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You can't transport water and transmit electricity? That is the crux of your objections? Lame-o. We already transmit elect over vast distances, or maybe you weren't around for the huge blackout of 2003. We already transport water all over the SW from the CO river. We cart oil all over the world and we can't divert a trickle of water and build some powerlines? Oh god, back to the caves then.

As far as environmental... has anyone actually been to the NV/UT deserts? For the most part there is jack-fucking-shit living there. That's why it was acceptable to nuke the shit out of it in the 50s. You are not going to grow crops there in the shade tho, but some jackrabbits and snakes might appreciate it. Coal has to be strip-mined and Uranium needs to be mined as well.

Yucca Mt. Likely to open 2 days after never. Might as well ask IA to give up corn subsidies. We are going to build some new nuke plants, but to really put a dent in total energy generation, by QPs own math, we need several hundred. Where are all these going to go, and where are people going to want them? What to do with all that waste then? Don't forget to add the cost of all those lawsuits to the price of atomic power.

I doubt there is one silver bullet, but we'll have to rely on many sources of E; nuke, wind solar, cellulosic ethanol, old fossil fuels etc,.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,739
6,760
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
More from WIKI

At an installed at cost of 2 to 2.5X per kWh that of nuclear energy....

Really?:

The southwestern United States is one of the world's best areas for insolation, and the Mojave Desert receives up to twice the sunlight received in other regions of the country. This abundance of solar energy makes solar power plants an attractive alternative to traditional power plants, which burn polluting fossil fuels such as oil and coal.[5] Unlike traditional power plants, solar power stations provide an environmentally benign source of energy, produce virtually no emissions, and consume no fuel other than sunlight.[5]

Currently, the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, many economists predict that this price will gradually drop over the next ten years to 6 cents per kWh, as a result of economies of scale and technological improvements.[4]

While many of the costs of fossil fuels are well known, others (pollution related health problems, environmental degradation, the impact on national security from relying on foreign energy sources) are indirect and difficult to calculate. These are traditionally external to the pricing system, and are thus often referred to as externalities. A corrective pricing mechanism, such as a carbon tax, could lead to renewable energy, such as solar thermal power, becoming cheaper to the consumer than fossil fuel based energy.[4]

Solar thermal power plants can generally be built in a few years because solar plants are built almost entirely with modular, readily available materials. In contrast, many types of conventional power projects, especially coal and nuclear plants, require long lead times.[4]

You don't account for the logistics and cost of transporting water to the desert and then the power loss of transporting electricity to residential areas due to wire resistance. It's not as simple as they make it sound.

You aren't reading. The loss in transporting direct current electricity 1000KM is 3%.

The power can be used for desalinization and the land can be used for crops due to shade and irrigation.

1. You ignored my point about transporting water to the desert that would used to drive the turbine. This costs money and not everyone is near a desert.

2. Where are you getting this "1000Km 3%" number?

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...ric_power_transmission

7.2% is a lot and that is for all power. Now imagine the losses of transmitting energy from a desert to NY. Also, electrical resistance increases with temperature which is something that needs to be accounted for when running lines to the desert. You can expect much higher losses. You can drag this along all you want. The fact of the matter is that there is a reason why solar power isn't used. That reason lies with its inefficiency.

If you were reading you'd know where I got the number. If you were reading even my last post you would note that transmission loss is a function of alternating current, not nearly as bad with DC. The loss to NY would be the distance from the desert to NY in KM divided by 1000 and multiplied by .03. The Mojave had many cities. Huge quantities of water are transported from N Calif to the desert down there. How much water do you need if you re-condense the steam?

And, for the love of shit, alternative energy is only inefficient compared to cheap oil and gas. Know where you can get any of that now, in infinite supply? Wind is already cheaper.

Ok, first of all I don't have time to read encyclopedias and long articles. I would like to know a reference for that 3% figure. Second of all, spot arguing by posting articles. I can post articles to on my behalf but you don't see me doing that do you.

Wind requires large open land which is not available everywhere. As for solar thermal energy you would need an engineering miracle that you are completely ignoring. You have to factor in resistance due to distance, resistance due to desert heat, cost of transporting water, maintenance cost, and cost of actually building and wiring the plant. Water vapor does not condense by itself, it needs to be cooled quickly for efficient use. FYI nuclear reactors operate on steam driven turbines and the water vapor is condensed by using a local body of water as a coolant. This is why nuclear reactors are located near rivers.

There are plenty of alternative energy sources, they are just not as efficient as nuclear and coal/oil for that matter because of the cost of implementing them and because of the engineering setbacks that can't be overcome at the moment. It is far more complicated than you make it seem which is why it hasn't been implemented. Do you think high energy prices are helping the U.S. economy? Why do you think alternative energy has not been implemented on a large scale if it is so efficient? Solar thermal energy may be great for the people of Nevada. As for the majority of the country? Don't count on it.

Got ya, thanks. I will stop wasting my time refuting all of your stupid arguments with actual facts since you clearly can't read or think.

Here, however, is some evidence for you to ponder on why such solar plants will never be built.