Now Solar power is out with the radical left.

[theeedude]

I think solar plants are aesthetically pleasant. If I was driving (hopefully taking high speed train at some point) to Vegas and saw solar farms in the Mojave, I'd get a warm and fuzzy feeling and probably even pull over to take some pictures.

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Solar Panels

Ok.. so coal is out, too dirty.. oil is out, too dirty.. wind is out.. kills the birds.. nuclear is out.. too dangerous.. and now, solar panels.. kills the aethetics of the desert..

Whats left? Magic Pixie Dust? Is there a magic pixie dust station somewhere I can fill up my gas tank with? Or would that put the endangered pixie at risk?

I think we should start using people for power. We didn't give slave labor enough of a chance, its cheap renewable and you can use as pig food when they are used up.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

It'd be impossible for a Chernobyl type accident to happen in a new US plant. Such a design would never get approval by the NRC.

You can cause a nuclear reaction by dropping a brick, and it gets exposure as a criticality accident by the media.

3 mile island was user error and confusing error indicators. The design is around 50 years old. Some progress has been made...

That doesn't deal with currently active facilities approved and built before current standards were enacted. It also doesn't contemplate the"oops" factor, let alone even the slightest possiblity of any corruption where a plant builder/operator bribes an inspector.

I know the latter is unlikely, but it's not impossible. As a parallel example, in L.A.'s "Red Line" subway system between downtown and Hollywood, there are sections of the tunnel where the concrete is only 50% of the specified thickness.

This is in an active earthquake zone, and every foot of that tunnel was supposed to be inspected by a qualified building inspector. I cannot believe that a tunnel missing half the specified concrete anywhere along the route could be certified without someone being paid off.

When you consider that just one "oops!" at a nuke plant can result in catastrophic destruction that lasts for milennea, safety is not just a priority; it's paramount.

But we digress. The subject is solar power where, fortunately, efficiency is on an upward trajectory while costs per kW/hr are falling, and it has an almost infinitely lower potential for envioronmental catastrophy in operation.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Solar roof tiles and siding anyone?

Would love some, but it would take 20 years to make up the cost of installing them.

Plus solar panels will have to take up 200 square miles to do what one nuclear plant could do in 1/3 of a square mile. And then there is the highly toxic way they are made. Go Nuke!!

Lets say 10 years the costs goes down and efficiency goes up, and government helps pays for or compensates for the extra cost. It will probably first start appearing on the roofs of large commercial buildings which will help work out some of the kinks and get things rolling (if a company will save money they'll do it), you'll then see it slowly creeping into residential buildings (still the the roofing phase). As demand starts to pick up more R&D will be done, better versions will come out and if find ways to make it look good as siding that'll start to catch on.

As for toxins, I'd hope there will be health and safety regulations even if it stunts the growth of the industry, but I know little about this.

By no means will it provide for all energy needs but it will be part of a bigger approach with hydro, wind, solar farms, geothermal, nuclear, energy efficiency and building codes.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

It'd be impossible for a Chernobyl type accident to happen in a new US plant. Such a design would never get approval by the NRC.

You can cause a nuclear reaction by dropping a brick, and it gets exposure as a criticality accident by the media.

3 mile island was user error and confusing error indicators. The design is around 50 years old. Some progress has been made...

That doesn't deal with currently active facilities approved and built before current standards were enacted. It also doesn't contemplate the"oops" factor, let alone even the slightest possiblity of any corruption where a plant builder/operator bribes an inspector.

I know the latter is unlikely, but it's not impossible. As a parallel example, in L.A.'s "Red Line" subway system between downtown and Hollywood, there are sections of the tunnel where the concrete is only 50% of the specified thickness.

This is in an active earthquake zone, and every foot of that tunnel was supposed to be inspected by a qualified building inspector. I cannot believe that a tunnel missing half the specified concrete anywhere along the route could be certified without someone being paid off.

When you consider that just one "oops!" at a nuke plant can result in catastrophic destruction that lasts for milennea, safety is not just a priority; it's paramount.

But we digress. The subject is solar power where, fortunately, efficiency is on an upward trajectory while costs per kW/hr are falling, and it has an almost infinitely lower potential for envioronmental catastrophy in operation.

And you know what, Coal plants could build up dangerous pressure and explode, killing several thousand and releasing poisonous coal gas into the surrounding area. Gas plants could release enough CO to suffocate a small village. And a solar cell could loose support and crush the inspector walking under it! Heck, the truck mining the materials for the solar cell could loose its brakes and crush the line of workers doing the mambo! It could happen!

Yes, there is an oops factor with any power generation system. The worst that could happen was displayed by Chernobyl. However, Given the way nuclear plants are constructed now a days, it just isn't likely at all. We don't employ the plumber to be a nuclear physicist (look up the Chernobyl accident, that basically happened). But honestly, there have been way more people killed from more traditional power harvesting techniques then there ever will be with nuclear. It is really very safe.

Solar panels suck as far as efficiency goes. The mining cost for the most efficient cells is high, and the efficiency of the cheaper cells is fairly low. Not to mention the problem that the more efficient a cell is, the shorter its lifespan. (and even the cheaper ones have problems with short lifespans).

Barring some really great discovery in solar power, it isn't currently the way to go. If I where to pick a green power, I would say wind fairs the best, but suffers from unpredictability, and low power density.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: K3N
3 mile island.. an orchestrated event to bad mouth cost efficient nuclear energy and preserve anglo american dominance in the coal industry and promote reactionary Luddite thinking.

Really? I was thinking it was poor design of a nuclear reactor.


As for the OP, this certainly is a fascinating statement. Do we merely rebuff Feinstein as an out of touch radical, or is she voicing a semi popular position among the people? Does the Democratic Party hold her view?

As for the prospect of solar energy dotting the landscape. Well, there is a finite demand for energy so it would be possible to preserve SOME land for nature. Perhaps the Senator is, without acknowledging it, admitting that population growth is actually the problem. Not that she?d ever support stopping our population growth, or stopping the influx of illegal aliens or other immigrants.

It is ironic that she would complain about energy needs while also demanding that we accept more people into this nation. What, does she think energy demand does not rise with our population?

The FIRST thing these hypocrites should do is promote measures to slow down or stop our population growth. Failure to do that renders ALL other environmental measures pointless. If you thought 300 million people destroyed the environment, wait until your policy gives us 600 million.

Feinstein is an abortion rights supporter as well as supporting access to birth control.
So she is not hypocritical on this issue.

Righties that support open borders while at the same time opposing abortion and access to birth control are however hypocrites.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Cogman

And you know what, Coal plants could build up dangerous pressure and explode, killing several thousand and releasing poisonous coal gas into the surrounding area. Gas plants could release enough CO to suffocate a small village. And a solar cell could loose support and crush the inspector walking under it! Heck, the truck mining the materials for the solar cell could loose its brakes and crush the line of workers doing the mambo! It could happen!

And unlike a nuclear disaster, none of those could glow for more thousands of years than humanity remains on the planet. :shocked:

Barring some really great discovery in solar power, it isn't currently the way to go. If I where to pick a green power, I would say wind fairs the best, but suffers from unpredictability, and low power density.

It's really a shame you haven't kept up with some of the more promising current developments in solar power. I don't have time, right now, to dig up some of the better ones I'll try to get back with some of what I've read, but for now, suffice it to say, there's a lot more and a lot better than you seem to know about.

 

[frostedflakes]

Solar thermal in the Mojave desert is actually very promising, it'd be much more pratical than photovoltaics. Unfortunately there are a number of obstacles, such as environmental concerns and the cost of delivering power from these remote areas to population centers.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Harvey

I know the latter is unlikely, but it's not impossible. As a parallel example, in L.A.'s "Red Line" subway system between downtown and Hollywood, there are sections of the tunnel where the concrete is only 50% of the specified thickness.

I'd be HIGHLY doubtful if any US (maybe western) nuke plants will have 50% less thickness than spec-ed. Do you know how much engineering and QC goes into building one of those things?

 

[alphatarget1]

Honestly, putting solar panels (which I don't know if they're efficient enough but we'll see) on a desert on a grand scheme of things doesn't do THAT much damage to the eco system compared to hydroelectric dams, burning fossil fuels, etc. Maybe these conservationists should abandon modern civilization completely and just go live in a cave?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Maybe so, but everyone but the looney left still thinks that solar is a good idea, which includes most lefties. You can't please everybody.

Good idea but not a financially viable.

Not necessarily. If the land is cheap enough, solar towers have proven themselves to be financially viable. Look at our own Solar 2 prototype plant and the ones going up over in Spain. There are also solar technologies on a smaller scale (say, water heaters) that pay off quite a bit over time. Large scale photovoltaic plants may not be economically viable yet, but that isn't true for solar in general.

http://solarroofs.com/

In 1984 the typical professionally installed closed loop solar water heating system cost about $6,000. With inflation the same system would cost over $11,000 today. Instead they cost only $6,000 to $8,000 installed depending on the area.



You can get a normal water heater for $500-1000 installed, it will take a very long time to recoup that investment.

We have a 2000+ sq ft home and the water heater, heater and stove are on gas, our gas bill for the water heater is aprox $20 ($60 monthly gas bill - $20 minmum fee = $40 / 2 = $20).


So $6000 (lower of the 2 estimates of solar water heaters) - $1000 (higher of my 2 estimates of what a regular water heater would cost)= $5000 / $240 how much one may spend on gas for a water heater = 20.83 years to recoup my "investment" if the solar water heater didn't use any gas (but as I understand it they just use less gas).

 

[child of wonder]

Wind + Solar + Electric cars = Middle East can DIAF and FO we don't need your oil

 

[frostedflakes]

And what about electricity or natural gas to actually heat the water? That costs money as well.

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Wind + Solar + Electric cars = Middle East can DIAF and FO we don't need your oil

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/...us_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

Set the period to Annual- Thousand Barrels and look at the data.

Starting from 2002-2007

All Countries
4,208,538 4,476,501 4,811,104 5,005,541 5,003,082 4,915,957
Persian Gulf
828,226 912,749 912,447 851,855 807,172 789,607

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Solar Panels

Ok.. so coal is out, too dirty.. oil is out, too dirty.. wind is out.. kills the birds.. nuclear is out.. too dangerous.. and now, solar panels.. kills the aethetics of the desert..

Whats left? Magic Pixie Dust? Is there a magic pixie dust station somewhere I can fill up my gas tank with? Or would that put the endangered pixie at risk?

Geo-thermal?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
NIMBY

Try BANANAs

Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

Hahaha, I actually laughed out- loud reading that. Thanks

Fern

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
And what about electricity or natural gas to actually heat the water? That costs money as well.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post but I'll pretend you are, so here are my calculations:

So $6000 (lower of the 2 estimates of solar water heaters) - $1000 (higher of my 2 estimates of what a regular water heater would cost)= $5000 / $240 how much one may spend on gas for a water heater = 20.83 years to recoup my "investment" if the solar water heater didn't use any gas (but as I understand it they just use less gas).

 

[gingermeggs]

I am currently building a 1500sqm funeral complex in a regional town in Australia, it is to have 1000sqm of photo-voltaic panels installed on the roof, will cost the owner $1mil to install, he will recover those costs inside of 5years- his company is not a publically listed company. Death is a growing business in an age-ing population.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
And what about electricity or natural gas to actually heat the water? That costs money as well.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post but I'll pretend you are, so here are my calculations:

So $6000 (lower of the 2 estimates of solar water heaters) - $1000 (higher of my 2 estimates of what a regular water heater would cost)= $5000 / $240 how much one may spend on gas for a water heater = 20.83 years to recoup my "investment" if the solar water heater didn't use any gas (but as I understand it they just use less gas).

Yeah I was. I think the estimates I've seen are like 10-15 year payoff, so you probably use less heated water than your average household (do you have kids, or is it only you and your SO living in the house?).

It's still a somewhat long payback, was just pointing out an important little detail you originally left out of your post.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Cogman

And you know what, Coal plants could build up dangerous pressure and explode, killing several thousand and releasing poisonous coal gas into the surrounding area. Gas plants could release enough CO to suffocate a small village. And a solar cell could loose support and crush the inspector walking under it! Heck, the truck mining the materials for the solar cell could loose its brakes and crush the line of workers doing the mambo! It could happen!

And unlike a nuclear disaster, none of those could glow for more thousands of years than humanity remains on the planet. :shocked:

Barring some really great discovery in solar power, it isn't currently the way to go. If I where to pick a green power, I would say wind fairs the best, but suffers from unpredictability, and low power density.

It's really a shame you haven't kept up with some of the more promising current developments in solar power. I don't have time, right now, to dig up some of the better ones I'll try to get back with some of what I've read, but for now, suffice it to say, there's a lot more and a lot better than you seem to know about.

The most radio-active material burns out the fastest, it is a law of nuclear physics. So saying that an area will "glow for more thousands of years then humanity remains" Is a retarded statement. If that where the case, then the material would have to be extremely inert (IE The radiation of the area isn't going to be much more then the background levels of radiation).

I have kept up with Solar power, and from what I have read, the most that they have achieved as far as efficiency goes is about 30-40%. And like I said earlier, they have the problem with decaying efficiency, this is a problem that hasn't been solved (it would be BIG news if it was). Not to mention the fact that, as mentioned before, they require rare expensive materials to hit that efficiency (gallium).

Now if you are talking about the best of the organic solar cells, Then their best is 6.5% Not exactly a stellar efficiency.

And don't be fooled, when the efficiency ratings are measured, they aren't measured under the sun. They are measured to maximize the efficiency. The readily available 40.8% efficiency was measured at an illumination of 46,200 suns. Under 1 sun, it has a 31% efficiency rating.

This information is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell if you don't believe me.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
And what about electricity or natural gas to actually heat the water? That costs money as well.

I'm not sure if you are referring to my post but I'll pretend you are, so here are my calculations:

So $6000 (lower of the 2 estimates of solar water heaters) - $1000 (higher of my 2 estimates of what a regular water heater would cost)= $5000 / $240 how much one may spend on gas for a water heater = 20.83 years to recoup my "investment" if the solar water heater didn't use any gas (but as I understand it they just use less gas).

Yeah I was. I think the estimates I've seen are like 10-15 year payoff, so you probably use less heated water than your average household (do you have kids, or is it only you and your SO living in the house?).

It's still a somewhat long payback, was just pointing out an important little detail you originally left out of your post.

It's the four of us (me, my wife and the 2 boys) and I guess we don't use that much hot water as the boys are very young. I can see the 10-15 year mark especially if you could get a tax credit. The average length of home ownership is 6 years (?), I guess it could be a selling point especially if you could find a left wing tree hugger with money

Yeah I wasn't forgetting the energy costs, my fingers were typing a little faster than my brain was working.

 

[frostedflakes]

Yeah actually I didn't think about that, now that you mention it I think the payoff time I mentioned did include tax credits.

 

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Another lying tinfoil beany tard opens his mouth to change feet.

Three Mile Island accident

The Three Mile Island accident of 1979 was a partial core meltdown in Unit 2 (a pressurized water reactor manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox) of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania near Harrisburg. It was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry, resulting in the release of an estimated 43,000 curies (1.59 PBq) of radioactive krypton, but less than 20 curies (740 GBq) of the particularly hazardous iodine-131

Various analyses after the fact concluded that this event caused no significant increase in health problems among nearby residents. The good news is, they were lucky... that time. The other side of the same coin was the disaster at Chernobyl, which is not the only recorded incident of serious accidental radiological contamination from nuclear power facilities.

Maybe you'd like to live next to a faulty nuke plant for a few years, after which you'd never have to wonder about your next job. If the plant leaked, you could always get a job as a night light. :light:

you obviously know nothing of radiation, chernobyl, or modern boiling water reactors.

as background: i carry a dosimeter and handle radioactive sources ranging btw 5 and 20 curies both gamma (cs137) and neutron (am241be) and have been certified to do so by the NRC.

Chernobyl was a human problem. the plant was not built with a containment structure, the operators did not know how to correctly conduct the experiment that was going on and the control rods were pulled fully out of the reactor vessel after multiple safety systems had been over ridden. the steam turbines were not built to spec to have enough residual power to bridge the gap between loss of power and back up generators coming online. there was a breakdown in multiple safety systems. these 2 incidences can not be compared in any way. its like comparing a fully involved house fire to the candle sitting on your table. stupidity is the only connection.

modern reactors have failsafe deluge systems. this means that they can not even in theory "melt down" if they start to run away, if they start to damage the inner containment structure water is released to cool the core. not pumped, but just released. also, modern designs produce much less radiation than older designs like Chernobyl or 3 mile.

the half life for I131 is about 8 days, so in 8 days there would be 10 curries of it, in 16 days 5, etc.... it is a beta partical emitter, meaning if you were standing behind anything more that a sheet of tin foil you are shielded. there was a time this was used for calibrating our instruments.

the krypton (krypton85) in question has a half life of about 10 years and is also a beta emitter.

job as a night light? you need phosphors and a radioactive source to make something glow, the most common is tritum which is an alpha emitter used in things like watches, gauge dials, etc... alpha particals are blocked by almost anything, including a sheet of paper or the glass dial face of your watch.

stop spreading fud about nuclear energy. coal plants expose people to much more radiation than nuclear.

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

 

[gingermeggs]

Thats a big house for 4 people. 2000sqft/600odd sqms
Hope you've got a maid!

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Thats a big house for 4 people. 2000sqft/600odd sqms
Hope you've got a maid!

:thumbsup: