McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

KurskKnyaz

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

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.

Nice strawman. No, my objection is that once you factor in the cost of transporting water and electricity solar energy becomes inefficient. You understand that the longer the distance electricity has to travel the more of it is lost due to resistance. I am not an engineer so I don't know if it will be efficient for Nevada, but don't count on it being efficient for New York.

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.

I never been there, but i doubt that it's void of life.

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.

We store the waste until we develop a way to use it or dispose it into space. Yes, we have the room and the time, plenty of it. What lawsuits? What are they going to sue a nuclear power plant for?

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,.

As I've said, alternative sources are efficient depending on their geographical location. Just don't count on them replacing nuclear energy any time soon. We will never have a silver bullet. However, nuclear is the most efficient. You can generate an enormous amount of power from a very small amount of nuclear material. Nuclear reactions produce far more energy than any chemical reactions. Eventually nano-technology will bring about super-insulators and super conductors. IMHO nano-tech is the key to all of this. Near-lossless power transport, super-light cars and planes, a space elevator to dispose nuclear waste, and super-conducting\insulating material to achieve fission are all possible with nano-tech.

Ethanol is ridiculous. You need to destroy an enormous amount of food to produce a small amount of fuel. Not a good idea when there are populations that are starving.
 

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: 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.

Very aimster-ish statements! Lol!

1. You never refuted anything I've said. Infact you reinforced what i've said at times.

2. My arguments are not stupid, they are backed up by science. If you need references I can provide them. You don't even have arguments. You have links that do the arguing for you. Do you see me telling you to go read a physics textbook or take an environmental science class to show you that I'm right? All of the evidence is there, but I don't let them anything do the arguing for me.

3. I have enough reading to do right now as it is. You either provide sources for your claims or shut up. I'm still waiting for the "1000Km 3%" source.

4. My reading and thinking is fine. Yours is not. I claimed that nuclear is the most efficient form of energy and the safest. You claimed it has problems. I agreed but pointed out that there are less problems with nuclear than there are with coal/oil. I ended up being called stupid, illiterate, moral swine and nuclear engineers ended up being labeled as soulless, irresponsible, anti-social geeks. Nice work!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
The point at which electric power loss makes it uneconomical to transmit is 4000 miles. New York gets its power from Canada.

There are no solutions to nuclear waste and we won't be waiting for a space elevator to solve our problems. The fact that nuclear energy can create electricity means nothing as nobody wants the waste.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Hafen

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.

Nice strawman. No, my objection is that once you factor in the cost of transporting water and electricity solar energy becomes inefficient. You understand that the longer the distance electricity has to travel the more of it is lost due to resistance. I am not an engineer so I don't know if it will be efficient for Nevada, but don't count on it being efficient for New York.

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.

I never been there, but i doubt that it's void of life.

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.

We store the waste until we develop a way to use it or dispose it into space. Yes, we have the room and the time, plenty of it. What lawsuits? What are they going to sue a nuclear power plant for?

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,.

As I've said, alternative sources are efficient depending on their geographical location. Just don't count on them replacing nuclear energy any time soon. We will never have a silver bullet. However, nuclear is the most efficient. You can generate an enormous amount of power from a very small amount of nuclear material. Nuclear reactions produce far more energy than any chemical reactions. Eventually nano-technology will bring about super-insulators and super conductors. IMHO nano-tech is the key to all of this. Near-lossless power transport, super-light cars and planes, a space elevator to dispose nuclear waste, and super-conducting\insulating material to achieve fission are all possible with nano-tech.

Ethanol is ridiculous. You need to destroy an enormous amount of food to produce a small amount of fuel. Not a good idea when there are populations that are starving.
I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that water would need to be transferred to the solar thermal plant in large quantities? What would all the water be for? The turbine loop would be a closed system, so it's not like it would need to be refilled or anything. The only water needed (that I can think of) would be for the staff, and their needs should be modest.
 

KurskKnyaz

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

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

From the link:

The permit process is long and arduous. Before being considered for licensing and permitting, anyone proposing a solar project must first prove they are ?data adequate,? which basically entails filing complete documentation on the project?s details and environmental impact statement. Becoming ?data adequate? can take a year while licensing and permitting can take another year. There are well over four gigawatts of solar thermal in the pipelines, but much of it remains trapped in bureaucratic paperwork.

That is just a euphemism for "complying with environmental standards takes too long and is expensive." Nuclear power wouldn't be as safe as it is today if it wasn't for "bureaucratic paperwork"

I doubt you read that.

Why are we arguing when all you keep doing is providing me with links that support my arguments, lol.
 

KurskKnyaz

Senior member
Dec 1, 2003
880
1
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The point at which electric power loss makes it uneconomical to transmit is 4000 miles. New York gets its power from Canada.

Uh yeah, and Canada is not 4000 miles away from NY.

There are no solutions to nuclear waste and we won't be waiting for a space elevator to solve our problems. The fact that nuclear energy can create electricity means nothing as nobody wants the waste.

No there aren't. But we have lots of room and time all we need now is to re-educate the public on nuclear waste. We can start by throwing the notion that radioactive material explodes out the window. Then we can move on to explaining that the pollution for coal/oil is wore than from nuclear. Please refer back to this post for my response once you repeat yourself for the 10th time.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Here is a repost of a previous post you didn't read. I bolded what you need:

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Hafen

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.

Nice strawman. No, my objection is that once you factor in the cost of transporting water and electricity solar energy becomes inefficient. You understand that the longer the distance electricity has to travel the more of it is lost due to resistance. I am not an engineer so I don't know if it will be efficient for Nevada, but don't count on it being efficient for New York.

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.

I never been there, but i doubt that it's void of life.

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.

We store the waste until we develop a way to use it or dispose it into space. Yes, we have the room and the time, plenty of it. What lawsuits? What are they going to sue a nuclear power plant for?

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,.

As I've said, alternative sources are efficient depending on their geographical location. Just don't count on them replacing nuclear energy any time soon. We will never have a silver bullet. However, nuclear is the most efficient. You can generate an enormous amount of power from a very small amount of nuclear material. Nuclear reactions produce far more energy than any chemical reactions. Eventually nano-technology will bring about super-insulators and super conductors. IMHO nano-tech is the key to all of this. Near-lossless power transport, super-light cars and planes, a space elevator to dispose nuclear waste, and super-conducting\insulating material to achieve fission are all possible with nano-tech.

Ethanol is ridiculous. You need to destroy an enormous amount of food to produce a small amount of fuel. Not a good idea when there are populations that are starving.
I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that water would need to be transferred to the solar thermal plant in large quantities? What would all the water be for? The turbine loop would be a closed system, so it's not like it would need to be refilled or anything. The only water needed (that I can think of) would be for the staff, and their needs should be modest.

One thing we do know is that water doesn't seem to be stopping companies from building plants.
 

KurskKnyaz

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

I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that water would need to be transferred to the solar thermal plant in large quantities? What would all the water be for? The turbine loop would be a closed system, so it's not like it would need to be refilled or anything. The only water needed (that I can think of) would be for the staff, and their needs should be modest.

Water is heated up to steam that drives turbines. It is a closed system. However, you now need the steam to condense back into water at 100+ Fahrenheit temperatures. To achieve it you need to create a condenser. At desert temperatures you would need the condenser to be cooled by water and not air. Water would need to be pumped to do this.

Essentially, it works like a nuclear plant except that the source of heat is the sun and not radioactive rods. However, nuclear plants use local bodies of water to cool their condensers. There are no lakes or rivers in the desert.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

From the link:

The permit process is long and arduous. Before being considered for licensing and permitting, anyone proposing a solar project must first prove they are ?data adequate,? which basically entails filing complete documentation on the project?s details and environmental impact statement. Becoming ?data adequate? can take a year while licensing and permitting can take another year. There are well over four gigawatts of solar thermal in the pipelines, but much of it remains trapped in bureaucratic paperwork.

That is just a euphemism for "complying with environmental standards takes too long and is expensive." Nuclear power wouldn't be as safe as it is today if it wasn't for "bureaucratic paperwork"

I doubt you read that.

Why are we arguing when all you keep doing is providing me with links that support my arguments, lol.

Hehe, I do read what I post and again you appear not to be able to think. If it's going to take a day to make lemonade or a day to make shit, are you going to go lemonade or shit? If you chose shit doubtless you'll go for nuclear power.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Look, I can cut and paste too!


Dr Gerry Wolff's claims would be wonderful news if they were true, but they are simply part of a misinformation campaign:

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm

In reality, CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!

Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.

Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/elect...ross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.

Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/elect...comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.

Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!

Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNu.../tabid/66/Default.aspx
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: frostedflakes

I'm wondering where you're getting the idea that water would need to be transferred to the solar thermal plant in large quantities? What would all the water be for? The turbine loop would be a closed system, so it's not like it would need to be refilled or anything. The only water needed (that I can think of) would be for the staff, and their needs should be modest.

Water is heated up to steam that drives turbines. It is a closed system. However, you now need the steam to condense back into water at 100+ Fahrenheit temperatures. To achieve it you need to create a condenser. At desert temperatures you would need the condenser to be cooled by water and not air. Water would need to be pumped to do this.

Essentially, it works like a nuclear plant except that the source of heat is the sun and not radioactive rods. However, nuclear plants use local bodies of water to cool their condensers. There are no lakes or rivers in the desert.
Ah my bad, I understand now. Although if these designs really took off and there was enough energy potential in deserts, building a water pipeline might start to make a lot of sense. I don't think this is reason enough to completely discredit the idea.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Look, I can cut and paste too!


Dr Gerry Wolff's claims would be wonderful news if they were true, but they are simply part of a misinformation campaign:

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm

In reality, CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!

Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.

Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/elect...ross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state's electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.

Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/elect...comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What's more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.

Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are "hybridized" with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!

Nevertheless, concentrating solar technology, along with many other renewable power sources such as wind, tidal, and geothermal, should continue to be supported in hopes that a breakthrough will someday allow them to be a significant source of energy generation. Today however, CSP is no replacement for baseload energy generation sources. In the medium term, we cannot abandon the proven, effective, and efficient source of low-emission energy that nuclear power has to offer. To learn more about the benefits of nuclear energy, check out http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=1&catid=11 and http://www.casenergy.org/WhyNu.../tabid/66/Default.aspx

Michael Stuartmale
Location: Beaverdam : Virginia : United States
Interests: Singing, reading, H2G2, nuclear nerd, 3D photography, MST3K, fun socks, Zero G, calculator watches, treehouse building
 

KurskKnyaz

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

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

From the link:

The permit process is long and arduous. Before being considered for licensing and permitting, anyone proposing a solar project must first prove they are ?data adequate,? which basically entails filing complete documentation on the project?s details and environmental impact statement. Becoming ?data adequate? can take a year while licensing and permitting can take another year. There are well over four gigawatts of solar thermal in the pipelines, but much of it remains trapped in bureaucratic paperwork.

That is just a euphemism for "complying with environmental standards takes too long and is expensive." Nuclear power wouldn't be as safe as it is today if it wasn't for "bureaucratic paperwork"

I doubt you read that.

Why are we arguing when all you keep doing is providing me with links that support my arguments, lol.

Hehe, I do read what I post and again you appear not to be able to think. If it's going to take a day to make lemonade or a day to make shit, are you going to go lemonade or shit? If you chose shit doubtless you'll go for nuclear power.

WTF? That analogy doesn't even work.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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

From the link:

The permit process is long and arduous. Before being considered for licensing and permitting, anyone proposing a solar project must first prove they are ?data adequate,? which basically entails filing complete documentation on the project?s details and environmental impact statement. Becoming ?data adequate? can take a year while licensing and permitting can take another year. There are well over four gigawatts of solar thermal in the pipelines, but much of it remains trapped in bureaucratic paperwork.

That is just a euphemism for "complying with environmental standards takes too long and is expensive." Nuclear power wouldn't be as safe as it is today if it wasn't for "bureaucratic paperwork"

I doubt you read that.

Why are we arguing when all you keep doing is providing me with links that support my arguments, lol.

Hehe, I do read what I post and again you appear not to be able to think. If it's going to take a day to make lemonade or a day to make shit, are you going to go lemonade or shit? If you chose shit doubtless you'll go for nuclear power.

WTF? That analogy doesn't even work.

I show you a bunch of solar power plants actually build and being built in the Mojavi while you tell me they can't be built because they need water, and you say my analogies don't work? Hehe, I'm convinced there's something radically wrong with the way you process data.

Nuclear power is really cool except for the waste that is deadly and will never be properly stored for the thousands of years it will be deadly. Only real jerks would leave that for their kids. Oh it can be stored but it never has and when you look at a drunk who says he's going to reform, you know what you can do with such bull shit. Pigs are identified by their pig behavior. It is the consistency of their pigdon that tells you they're pigs. You don't really have to know much of anything about nuclear power to know it's a bad idea. All you have to know is people. That's why the last people on earth we want advising us about nuclear power are nuclear engineers. Such egg heads need close attention when they tie their shoes. It's the soccer Moms who will tell you what to do with your nuclear waste.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,626
46,303
136
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]

Yes, really. If you were to run out today and built a solar plant the cost per kWh would be far higher than the energy produced by our current reactor fleet.

I could play the projection game too and say that the next generation of nuclear plants would further reduce that cost due to simplified and safer designs that require less active maintenance and enhanced fuel usage characteristics.
 

Brovane

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2001
6,377
2,579
136
How is solar power supposed to generate large amount of base load electrical power in the Gigawatt range consistently day and night?
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...the last people on earth we want advising us about nuclear power are nuclear engineers. Such egg heads need close attention when they tie their shoes. It's the soccer Moms who will tell you what to do with your nuclear waste.

I have only one thing to say about this.















































lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol



Ok I'm done.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: Brovane
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Greenpeace is so evil


Here is one of the original members of Greenpeace Patrick Moore endorsing Nuclear Power.

Patrick Moorehttp://www.greenspirit.com/logbook.cfm?msid=70

Yes, I know about him. This is a legitimate debate and people have different opinions. My opinion is it's stupid to do down a road that creates poisons that last thousands of years particularly when you will have everybody and his sister trying to stop you in any way they can.

Solar is something people will get behind.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
...the last people on earth we want advising us about nuclear power are nuclear engineers. Such egg heads need close attention when they tie their shoes. It's the soccer Moms who will tell you what to do with your nuclear waste.

I have only one thing to say about this.

lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol
lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol



Ok I'm done.

Not bad for a nuclear engineer, all aligned in need little rows and columns just like the linear thinking of your left-brained, rabbit hole mind, the very kind of mine that sees trees instead of a forest. Nuclear power is not a technical issue, it is a political issue and the small little nothing man who makes up John Q Public is as or more gifted in determining what is in the interest of humanity. Pin heads are sharp, but they don't cut it finding their way out of a paper bag. Spoiled little boys get angry when Mommy takes their toys.

HAhA hAHa hoHo Hehe EiEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeO
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: Brovane
How is solar power supposed to generate large amount of base load electrical power in the Gigawatt range consistently day and night?

Lots of ways. Molten salt is being used now. A new company is selling fly wheels that turn at 16,000 revs that store electrical power that can level loads from wind, sun, or outages. Capacitance batteries are being developed. Water can be pumped up hill behind dams in the day time. Sterling engines are being built that run at 150 degrees that produce electricity and air conditioning. It's all about attitude. When you say we will life off the sun human ingenuity will find a way. The trick is not to go down the poison path.

Oops I forgot that electricity can be transmitted long distances and its always day time somewhere.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Originally posted by: K1052
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]

Yes, really. If you were to run out today and built a solar plant the cost per kWh would be far higher than the energy produced by our current reactor fleet.

I could play the projection game too and say that the next generation of nuclear plants would further reduce that cost due to simplified and safer designs that require less active maintenance and enhanced fuel usage characteristics.

Wow, that means I can get cheaper electricity from a battery in my drawer than one I go buy at the store.