Now Solar power is out with the radical left.

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: 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?

You need volcanic activity for that, but not Mount St. Helens active, along with underground water. It's like how nuclear power plants work by boiling off steam and using that to generate power, except geothermal uses heat from magma close to the surface. Not many places have access to this.

The closest thing I can think of that can be used most everywhere is a "heat exchanger" (I think that's the right term) that runs water in pipes under your house that will help warm your house in the winter and cool it in the summer, this relies on the fact the temp doesn't change much when when you get a few feet under the ground.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Really? I was thinking it was poor design of a nuclear reactor.

poor design? the reactor goes meltdown and it stays standing with no contamination leakage? how is that poor design?

 

[Genx87]

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?

1880's style economy. Which imo is the ultimate goal of many of these luddites.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: 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?

You need volcanic activity for that, but not Mount St. Helens active, along with underground water. It's like how nuclear power plants work by boiling off steam and using that to generate power, except geothermal uses heat from magma close to the surface. Not many places have access to this.

The closest thing I can think of that can be used most everywhere is a "heat exchanger" (I think that's the right term) that runs water in pipes under your house that will help warm your house in the winter and cool it in the summer, this relies on the fact the temp doesn't change much when when you get a few feet under the ground.

yes... with this, we can moderate the temp of the house.

we still cant run lights or cars or anything, but we'll be at a nice comfortable 72.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: rudder

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

but Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Friday such development would violate the spirit of what conservationists had intended when they donated much of the land to the public.

Honor the wishes of conservationists who donated the land to keep it unspoiled? How un-American!

We need to burn down the national parks and set up wind farms in the charred open spaces, it's the only way to be sure.

Then don't bitch about oil drilling in the gulf or ANWR.

I can see a legitimate complaint with wind farms as they can cause noise issues. But solar power? The panels just sit there in the sun. No moving parts to hurt animals, no leaking oil, no radioactive waste... what is to hate? Ahh the panoramic vistas for 10 people will be spoiled.

You're ignoring that this land that she's objecting to using was donated to keep it unspoiled, not covered with solar panels.

ANWR = Wildlife Reserve. Even if you trust Exxon (Valdez) to safely drill there keeping it unspoiled then that's still a different situation from land that was supposed to be left alone until the Bush admin unilaterally "re-zoned" it for anything except mining.

When you're donating money to a charity, do you mind if they turn around and spend it on something completely different? If your parents are still alive, do you mind if Obama seizes their estate when they die?

I see what you are saying. We can just go on stripping mountain tops to get at thin layer of coal. You don't seem to see what I am saying. If you have a good spot for a solar panel farm, then you can leave somewhere else unspoiled.

But I do have a solution that would satisfy all parties. Just put the solar panels in Saudia Arabia... once we can figure out how to economically transfer that energy here.

 

[gingermeggs]

What about wave action and tidal effects?
more consistent then wind

 

[wwswimming]

Feinstein does not represent any liberal democratic tradition with this stand.

she is representing special interests.

most "left-wing" people understand that the procurement of oil involves politics, and historically, bloodshed. didn't have to be that way, but that's the way things turned out.

and most "left-wing" people understand that in a choice between people and tortoises, the tortoises lose.

it's Fox bullshit to say that this is a "leftie" thing. Feinstein doesn't represent any of the humanitarian traditions of the left by blocking the use of Mojave desert space for solar power.

it just happens that she's a democrat, and those might be her stated reasons.

also, there's nothing "radical" with being concerned about the environment. again, buzzwords used to marginalize legitimate concerns.

it's also a false comparison, "locally produced solar vs. imported oil". the US economy needs both.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: herm0016
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

Very informative, thanks for posting this.

 

[winnar111]

These idiotic fools shut down drilling leases that could lower the cost of energy and bring in tax revenue all in 1 swoop.

No wonder he's got a $1.8 trillion (and counting) shortfall.

 

[retrospooty]

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?

Nothing left... The radical left is just as rediculous and inept as the radical right. Nothing either of them want to do is sustainable. Just a bunch of nutjobs.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

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.

Not trying to be rude, but I don't think you have a thorough understanding of current nuclear power design.

The "meltdown" at Chernobyl wasn't all that bad. What made it a catastrophe was that it had no containment shell. And by design it purged coolant when being shutdown (pretty design). A huge increase in power vaporized the water and led to a steam explosion, blowing the top off the reactor building. That's when the fertilizer hit the ventilator.

Modern designs are built to stop the reaction process by shutting themselves down. It's backwards in a way. Rather than trying to keep the reaction going, you're trying to keep it not stopped. Failure to keep it not stopped, shuts it down. Pretty nifty.

There is FAR greater risk of a nuclear incident with all the medical imaging devices and transportation of short lived radiation treatments driving and flying all over the place which people never even think of.

Back on the subject of solar power. Are most folks thinking of photovoltaic power when solar is mentioned, or in collimation for melting salts?

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

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.

Not trying to be rude, but I don't think you have a thorough understanding of current nuclear power design.

The "meltdown" at Chernobyl wasn't all that bad. What made it a catastrophe was that it had no containment shell. And by design it purged coolant when being shutdown (pretty design). A huge increase in power vaporized the water and led to a steam explosion, blowing the top off the reactor building. That's when the fertilizer hit the ventilator.

Modern designs are built to stop the reaction process by shutting themselves down. It's backwards in a way. Rather than trying to keep the reaction going, you're trying to keep it not stopped. Failure to keep it not stopped, shuts it down. Pretty nifty.

There is FAR greater risk of a nuclear incident with all the medical imaging devices and transportation of short lived radiation treatments driving and flying all over the place which people never even think of.

Back on the subject of solar power. Are most folks thinking of photovoltaic power when solar is mentioned, or in collimation for melting salts?

X-ray weld testing in the field relies on mobile trucks carrying radioactive material around with them. A while ago one went off the road somewhere and one of the crates containing the radioactive material went into a river, luckily the container was not breached and IIRC it was not a source of drinking water. I however have no idea how dangerous the material is or how long it lasts, when in use they set up a barrier of about 50 to 70 ft.

 

[Mardeth]

Originally posted by: 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.

The reason you came to a different conclusion than the widely quoted 10-15 is that your calculations are very much wrong .

1. You assume gas prices will stay the same. The prices will likely increase 3-5% on average. That already makes a huge differece,

2. Running costs. Dont know the numbers for this but I assume normal water heaters have a shorter lifespan and might have to be replaced every 10-20 years. Also possibly higher maintenance costs?

3. On the other hand, strictly speaking, you should also include the loss of income from not investing the extra $5000 your spending (assuming you would invest, if you didnt spend it on the solar water heater thingy).

Might miss a few things but anyway, those will already take you much closer 10-15 years which really isnt bad since time will be on your side...

 

[cubeless]

the dems are coming up with 'principled objections' so that when they hand barry his ass on his budget wishes they are covered...

 

[Possessed Freak]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

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.

Not trying to be rude, but I don't think you have a thorough understanding of current nuclear power design.

The "meltdown" at Chernobyl wasn't all that bad. What made it a catastrophe was that it had no containment shell. And by design it purged coolant when being shutdown (pretty design). A huge increase in power vaporized the water and led to a steam explosion, blowing the top off the reactor building. That's when the fertilizer hit the ventilator.

Modern designs are built to stop the reaction process by shutting themselves down. It's backwards in a way. Rather than trying to keep the reaction going, you're trying to keep it not stopped. Failure to keep it not stopped, shuts it down. Pretty nifty.

There is FAR greater risk of a nuclear incident with all the medical imaging devices and transportation of short lived radiation treatments driving and flying all over the place which people never even think of.

Back on the subject of solar power. Are most folks thinking of photovoltaic power when solar is mentioned, or in collimation for melting salts?

X-ray weld testing in the field relies on mobile trucks carrying radioactive material around with them.

My roommate does testing on concrete with a radiation device. I love the carrying box... all yellow with the radiation symbol on it. Scares the local kids when he brings it inside each night (can't leave it locked in his car). The guidebook on it is hysterical, with ikea like diagrams of what not to do (do not point the probe at a person...).

The company did lose a device and they had to report the loss with national agencies. It was taken when a work truck was stolen. The device was recovered a couple of days later when it appeared at a police station... the truck was still missing though. I guess the thieves did not want that in their possession.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: 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?

Shhhh...it probably "disturbs natural rock habitats" or something.

 

[silverpig]

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.

Solar is progressing nicely, but it's still not quite "there" yet. The nice thing is funding is increasing a lot so there are more and more people working on it.

Wind does seem to be the best alternative energy solution right now. Apparently Denmark gets well over half of their energy from the wind.

 

[Strk]

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.

Sadly, certain green technologies you can add to a house are pretty slow just to break even. A geo-thermal furnace is one of the better ones though. While solar can take two decades, as Budmantom, I've seen info on the furnaces that it's only a few years. I guess it also depends on location and such too though.

As for some of the other bits in the thread, I do get a kick out of the anti-nuclear power people. A majority of our power comes from coal, yet a nuclear power plant produces a fraction of the radiation. And not to forget the litany of other toxic waste produced by a coal plant. That doesn't even begin to cover what damage is done just getting to the coal.

Plus, it screws with tuna!

 

[HardcoreRobot]

didnt we just annex a whole bunch of desert overseas?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
didnt we just annex a whole bunch of desert overseas?

We aren't quite there with wireless electricity.....