Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green

[Barry]

Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green
(https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro/)
05.19.08 | 6:00 PM

<!-- only display photo on first page --> <!-- start article photo --> https://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1606/ff_heresies2_f.jpg (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro/#) https://www.wired.com/images/zoom.gif (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_intro/#)
Photo: Yann Arthus-Bertrand/Altitude

<!-- close pic -->
The environmental movement has never been short on noble goals. Preserving wild spaces, cleaning up the oceans, protecting watersheds, neutralizing acid rain, saving endangered species — all laudable. But today, one ecological problem outweighs all others: global warming. Restoring the Everglades, protecting the Headwaters redwoods, or saving the Illinois mud turtle won't matter if climate change plunges the planet into chaos. It's high time for greens to unite around the urgent need to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Just one problem. Winning the war on global warming requires slaughtering some of environmentalism's sacred cows. We can afford to ignore neither the carbon-free electricity supplied by nuclear energy nor the transformational potential of genetic engineering. We need to take advantage of the energy efficiencies offered by urban density. We must accept that the world's fastest-growing economies won't forgo a higher standard of living in the name of climate science — and that, on the way up, countries like India and China might actually help devise the solutions the planet so desperately needs.

Some will reject this approach as dangerously single-minded: The environment is threatened on many fronts, and all of them need attention. So argues Alex Steffen (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/sb_carbon). That may be true, but global warming threatens to overwhelm any progress made on other issues. The planet is already heating up, and the point of no return may be only decades away. So combating greenhouse gases must be our top priority, even if that means embracing the unthinkable. Here, then, are 10 tenets of the new environmental apostasy.

ONLINE EXTRAS

How-To Wiki:
Use the Web to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint (https://howto.wired.com/wiki/Use_the_Web_to_Reduce_Your_Carbon_Footprint)
How-To Wiki:
Build a Square Foot Garden (https://howto.wired.com/wiki/Build_a_Square_Foot_Garden)
How-To Wiki:
How To Compost (https://howto.wired.com/wiki/Compost)
How-To Wiki:
Tips for Green Lawn Care (https://howto.wired.com/wiki/Tips_for_Green_Lawn_Care)


Autopia:
Go Green — Buy A Used Car. It's Better Than A Hybrid (https://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr.html)



10 GREEN HERESIES

https://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1606/ff_heresies_01cities_t.jpg (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_01cities) Live in Cities:
Urban Living Is Kinder to the Planet Than the Suburban Lifestyle (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_01cities)




https://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1606/ff_heresies_02ac_t.jpg (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_02ac) A/C Is OK:
Air-Conditioning Actually Emits Less C0₂ Than Heating (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_02ac)




https://www.wired.com/images/article/magazine/1606/ff_heresies_03organics_t.jpg (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_03organics) Organics Are Not the Answer:
Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_03organics)




Farm the Forests:
Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_04forests)


China Is the Solution:
The People's Republic Leads the Way in Alternative-Energy Hardware (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_05china)


Accept Genetic Engineering:
Superefficient Frankencrops Could Put a Real Dent in Greenhouse Gas Emissions (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_06genetic)


Carbon Trading Doesn't Work:
Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_07trading)


Embrace Nuclear Power:
Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_08nuclear)


Used Cars — Not Hybrids:
Don't Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_09usedcars)


Prepare for the Worst:
Climate Change Is Inevitable. Get Used to It (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_10worst)



COUNTERPOINT

It's Not Just Carbon Stupid:
The Danger of Focusing Solely on Climate Change (https://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/sb_carbon)

[Braggi]

[SIZE=4][B] ... We can afford to ignore neither the carbon-free electricity supplied by nuclear energy nor the transformational potential of genetic engineering. ...

Well, genetic engineering is one thing, nuclear power is quite another. The statement here is correct as far as it goes. We can't ignore it. We need to shut it down as quickly as we can and STOP IT! It's too dangerous, stupid, expensive, and defenseless and we have better ways to generate electricity.

"Carbon-free" is a lie. A vast amount of fossil fuel is burned building, maintaining, guarding, and decommissioning a nuke plant. The costs stretch into eternity. The costs are so high they can't be calculated. One thing is certain: the costs will always climb and never go down. And the question of the waste has never been addressed let alone solved.

The same amount of money spent on solar or wind generated electricity up front and over time will produce far more electricity at a lower cost than any nuclear scenario. The notion that nuclear power is cheap is a lie. It is by far the most expensive. The cost of solar and wind energy always goes down and is finite. The cost of nukes always goes up and never goes away.

And something else is seldom discussed by nuclear advocates: nuclear power generates a vast amount of "waste" heat which contributes to global heating. Nuclear plants must be situated by rivers or large bodies of water and threaten to poison vast areas if disturbed by earthquakes or explosions or simply poor management.

Nuclear energy is not worth the cost which is incalculable. No solar panel or wind generator is a terrorist target.

Nuclear makes absolutely no sense since we have so many better alternatives at hand.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Well, genetic engineering is one thing, nuclear power is quite another. The statement here is correct as far as it goes. We can't ignore it. We need to shut it down as quickly as we can and STOP IT! It's too dangerous, stupid, expensive, and defenseless and we have better ways to generate electricity. "Carbon-free" is a lie. A vast amount of fossil fuel is burned building, maintaining, guarding, and decommissioning a nuke plant. The costs stretch into eternity. The costs are so high they can't be calculated. One thing is certain: the costs will always climb and never go down. And the question of the waste has never been addressed let alone solved. The same amount of money spent on solar or wind generated electricity up front and over time will produce far more electricity at a lower cost than any nuclear scenario. The notion that nuclear power is cheap is a lie. It is by far the most expensive. The cost of solar and wind energy always goes down and is finite. The cost of nukes always goes up and never goes away.
And something else is seldom discussed by nuclear advocates: nuclear power generates a vast amount of "waste" heat which contributes to global heating. Nuclear plants must be situated by rivers or large bodies of water and threaten to poison vast areas if disturbed by earthquakes or explosions or simply poor management. Nuclear energy is not worth the cost which is incalculable. No solar panel or wind generator is a terrorist target.
Nuclear makes absolutely no sense since we have so many better alternatives at hand. -Jeff

I will bow to your technical expertise in this issue, but not yet. You are correct that the costs stretch to eternity, but then that is some kind of accounting principle that I is not familiar to me. As for the waste product, again you are right as far as you can see. But then there is always the idea of advancement in that field of physics that will take the waste and create fusion energy, which is a pure recycle of waste, and something we all can dance to. Now I know you, Kurzweil, and other geniuses want solar in a major way, and here is where I falter since I don't do the math, there's not enough ANYTHING to accomodate our growing need for electricity. There's not enough silicon, storage capacity, material for production of same, nor the infrastructure to retool to create such. Nor is there enough ground to build on! That is what I've read. I don't know, but that is what one team states. I know there's more playing, but panic and fear do not sustain long term clear thinking.
I know you won't allow Russian engineers to build here, but we've been building and exporting nuke plants at the rate of about one a month for years and have yet to have a recall or bum one go out of kilter. Certainly we can do it for ourselves. We are NOT going to even WANT to give up our cushy life-style and go into the dark, boldly, nor do our brothers and sisters world wide. The ONLY answer is nuke. Even Obabma stated that such a notion is not off the table. When we look down the road, there is no other option on a world wide scale. Locally, yes, but the key notion is GLOBAL, not "village".

[Braggi]

I will bow to your technical expertise in this issue, but not yet. You are correct that the costs stretch to eternity, but then that is some kind of accounting principle that I is not familiar to me. ...

Let's just put one cost this way, Lenny: the poisons produced, and in vast quantity, will be poisonous to humans for longer than the Earth has existed. These poisons CAN NOT be contained. They leak out of any container yet devised. There is NO method to safely handle them. The fact that we are shipping this technology all over the world is perhaps the greatest crime ever committed. People should be in prison for doing this instead of living in mansions. The financial costs of maintaining mountains of and lakes full of poison are unknown but will stretch into eternity. I don't know how else to say it. It's the ugliest legacy of our time. We need to stop it as soon as we can. We should put the liars in prison but that is very unlikely to happen.


... But then there is always the idea of advancement in that field of physics that will take the waste and create fusion energy, which is a pure recycle of waste, and something we all can dance to. ...

That's fine as an idea, but it's not practical. It's not being done and there is no method that has ever been proposed, let alone created that has actually been invented to do this. Tens of billions have been spent on research, but there is no product. It's time to stop wasting time and money. imagine if all that money had been spent on solar. I have a friend that started working on this problem about 30 years ago. He gave up after two years complaining that the entire industry is in chaos. Nobody wanted to do anything because a failure would have been so catastrophic nobody wanted to take the blame for it. Therefore there was no product, only research and lots of bills to pay. It's a stupid waste because we DON'T NEED it.


...Kurzweil, and other geniuses want solar in a major way, and here is where I falter since I don't do the math, there's not enough ANYTHING to accomodate our growing need for electricity. There's not enough silicon, storage capacity, material for production of same, nor the infrastructure to retool to create such. Nor is there enough ground to build on! ...

A vast collection of lies. Silicon is the most common material on Earth. The Earth is made of it. Thin film production techniques which are now being commercialized (look up NanoSolar) stretch rare materials much farther than ever before. A new family of large solar electricity generators use heat instead of direct conversion to drive turbines. No rare materials are used. We have vast stretches of divided highways in the US. Each center divide could be home to a series of poles holding up solar panels. Each south or west facing roof in every North American city could hold solar panels. Every parking lot could have a roof of solar panels. There is no shortage of materials or space.

Storage? That is called hydrogen. The technology exists. Only the will is lacking. Besides, our greatest needs for electricity happen to coincide with the sunniest days. Wind, hydro and natural gas as well as stored hydrogen could easily provide at night time. The technical arguments are lies.

Sorry to sound so vehement, but I'm really sick of this argument. Buckminster Fuller laid out the path to solar power for the whole planet 70 years ago. He predicted it would take 50 years for the Earth's peoples to adopt his ideas. He had too much faith in us.

Zeno just posted a long detailed post that covers all of this.

Here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36955

So read up and then ask more questions. But stop falling for the lies of Rush Limbaugh and Bill Watenburg. They are liars and the entire nuclear industry is full of liars and ignoramuses. They scare the Hel out of me because they have so much power. Sickening pun intended. The scariest thing is that so many people who should know better are listening to them.

Nuclear is out and solar is in.

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

Jeff,

I disagree with you about Nuclear energy. Most of our disagreements come from rather simple disagreements about how to assign costs to different aspects of Nuclear versus alternative energy generation. A couple of your claims seem to me to be perhaps more extreme than the evidence warrants. Specifically:

"Let's just put one cost this way, Lenny: the poisons produced, and in vast quantity, will be poisonous to humans for longer than the Earth has existed. These poisons CAN NOT be contained."

No one can argue with the basic fact that nuclear power generates waste which, given our current technology, is toxic for far longer than any reasonable human time frame. But that is not the same is arguing that the waste is poisonous for more than 4 billion years.

Perhaps the difference doesn't matter, but I have trouble letting persnikity details go :-)

As for containing nuclear waste... this is obviously a complicated issue, and people do disagree, but I personally believe that the model of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WIPP) does work.

But here is the thing, even if we accept your assessment of the risk of nuclear power, that assessment is incomplete unless we can compare it with the known cost of the mostly-coal generated energy which nuclear would displace.

To be blunt, coal sucks. And painfully, coal kills and sickens a lot of people. I honestly do not know, and won't argue, specific numbers, but at the most extreme, the risks of nuclear power can be reduced to numbers. Worst case a certain number of people could be killed and wounded by nuclear.

But we absolutely know that another number are currently being killed and wounded by our largely coal driven electrical generating system.

Is the number killed by coal greater than the number killed by nuclear? I think it is, by a large margin.

Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog (ie. no industry apologist) agrees (or to be more honest, I agree with him :-)

See this article "Environmental Heresies The founder of The Whole Earth Catalog believes the environmental movement will soon reverse its position on four core issues."


https://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14406&ch=biztech


"So read up and then ask more questions. But stop falling for the lies of Rush Limbaugh and Bill Watenburg."

Stewart Brand is not Rush Limbaugh.

Cheers,
Rich

[Braggi]

...
No one can argue with the basic fact that nuclear power generates waste which, given our current technology, is toxic for far longer than any reasonable human time frame. But that is not the same is arguing that the waste is poisonous for more than 4 billion years. ...

Radioactive decay is measured in "half-lives." That means it's always poisonous. Let's not haggle over the amount of time it takes to become safe. It's dangerous to us and to our children and to their children. That's enough for me to want to limit the amount we produce.


...
But here is the thing, even if we accept your assessment of the risk of nuclear power, that assessment is incomplete unless we can compare it with the known cost of the mostly-coal generated energy which nuclear would displace. ...

We agree that coal is an environmental disaster and there is no such thing as "clean coal." However, read my post again. I don't propose we build more coal plants. We need to shut down the coal plants as well. If we compare all the costs up front, during construction, during maintenance, during decommission, and during the "afterlife" of the various electrical generation methods, nothing comes close to the cost effectiveness of solar and wind generation. These are technologies we have now and they are cost effective.

The "studies" that suggest nuclear is cheapest and solar is the most expensive are fatally flawed. They do not include all the costs nor do they cover the entire life of the power plants nor the after costs nor the up front costs nor the taxpayer "subsidies" that helped create and help prop up nuclear and coal generation.

This isn't a debate because the facts are in. We need to stop investing in coal as well as nuclear and get on solar. What is lacking is the political will. The reason for that is political bribery and the entrenchment of fossil fuel lobbies.

In the greater population, the problem is lack of awareness. However, it is the greater population that is putting solar panels on their roofs and more rarely it is government institutions. That is truly sad.


...

Stewart Brand is not Rush Limbaugh.


Perhaps not, but I haven't seen them both at the same time. Have you? :wink:

Fact is, they're both wrong on this issue.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Paraphrasing the ancient Greek poet Archilochus (c. 680 BC-c. 645 BC): πόλλ' οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ("The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing"), I say that nuclear knows one big thing but solar know many things.

[Braggi]

Paraphrasing the ancient Greek poet Archilochus (c. 680 BC-c. 645 BC): πόλλ' οἶδ ἀλώπηξ, ἀλλ' ἐχῖνος ἓν μέγα ...

You know Zeno, I use that quote all the time.

Thanks for sharing it here.

-Jeff

[Zeno Swijtink]

Radioactive decay is measured in "half-lives." That means it's always poisonous. Let's not haggle over the amount of time it takes to become safe. It's dangerous to us and to our children and to their children. That's enough for me to want to limit the amount we produce.

Actually, as Paracelsus said, “It’s the dose that makes the poison," and at very low doses radiation is beneficial according to an analysis of Myron Pollycove, professor emeritus of laboratory medicine and radiology at the University of California at San Francisco, published in a 2007 article in the U.S. medical journal Dose-Response (https://dose-response.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,3,8;journal,6,12;linkingpublicationresults,1:119866,1). See my posting

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36063

where Pollycove is quoted as saying that: that "[p]opulations living in high background radiation areas and nuclear workers with increased radiation exposure show lower mortality and decreased cancer mortality than the corresponding populations living in low background radiation areas and nuclear workers without increased radiation exposure. … Both studies of cancer in animals and clinical trials of patients with cancer also show, with high statistical confidence, the beneficial effects of low-dose radiation."

The theory behind these phenomena is hormesis, the idea that a "small dose of a toxin excites a stress reaction in the body, causing it to bolster its defences against the invader."

https://www.giriweb.com/luckey1.GIF
Figure 1. Summary of the effects of chronic, whole body exposures on four physiologic functions. Radiation hormesis is represented by the defined area above the horizontal line. When compared with the controls, represented by the horizontal line, large dose rates exert a negative effect. From: https://www.giriweb.com/luckey.htm

Note that I am not advocating nuclear power by pointing this out. But it may be Time for a New Low-Dose-Radiation Risk Assessment Paradigm—One that Acknowledges Hormesis (https://dose-response.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,9,10;journal,1,12;linkingpublicationresults,1:119866,1).

See also an article in Discover of 2002, Is Radiation Good For You? (https://discovermagazine.com/2002/dec/featradiation)

Also note its relevance for the Wi-Fi controversy! :wink:

[Braggi]

Actually, as Paracelsus said, “It’s the dose that makes the poison," and at very low doses radiation is beneficial according to an analysis of Myron Pollycove ...

OK, if you believe that, just inhale a few little particles of plutonium. A small dose ... A very low dose ...

A few years and you'll have the most terrible lung cancer. Even if your plutonium is very, very old; even the oldest plutonium on Earth. (24,000 year half life.)

Also, tell me professor Zeno: what happens when the economy fails and there is no money to pay the operators at nuclear power plants to keep the "cooling ponds" operating?

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Is this a way of immunization for our future generations?


Actually, as Paracelsus said, “It’s the dose that makes the poison," ..

[Lenny]

Let's just put one cost this way, Lenny: the poisons produced, and in vast quantity, will be poisonous to humans for longer than the Earth has existed. These poisons CAN NOT be contained. They leak out of any container yet devised. There is NO method to safely handle them. The fact that we are shipping this technology all over the world is perhaps the greatest crime ever committed. People should be in prison for doing this instead of living in mansions. The financial costs of maintaining mountains of and lakes full of poison are unknown but will stretch into eternity. I don't know how else to say it. It's the ugliest legacy of our time. We need to stop it as soon as we can. We should put the liars in prison but that is very unlikely to happen.

Jeff, while I truly admire your passion and wish we saw more of the like around here, I cannot find a way to agree with your superlatives. I understand there are underground vaults in the desert that are being utilized to store this hot stuff, and I do recall 60 minutes doing their usual media boogie man story that they practice twice weekly. But you are right, I do listen to, rarely, Bill Wattenberg, and mostly enjoy him. I know he's on "the payroll" but I do bow to his expertise just a bit sooner and a smidgen more than I can to your passion.


That's fine as an idea, but it's not practical. It's not being done and there is no method that has ever been proposed, let alone created that has actually been invented to do this. Tens of billions have been spent on research, but there is no product. It's time to stop wasting time and money. imagine if all that money had been spent on solar. I have a friend that started working on this problem about 30 years ago. He gave up after two years complaining that the entire industry is in chaos. Nobody wanted to do anything because a failure would have been so catastrophic nobody wanted to take the blame for it. Therefore there was no product, only research and lots of bills to pay. It's a stupid waste because we DON'T NEED it.

The "we don't need it" gets to me and the only stupid response I can give without doing my homework is, "yes, we do". The engine of commerce, technology, and our desires are creating more of a need on an exponential scale. The demand shall increase as our living improves and more people will want more junk that runs off of juice. And the tech from our SOL will not meet the demands, even if we did start 30 years ago. Wish we had as well, but market forces did not do warrant stuff. I find this current "crisis" a lark as the media is coming through with all kinds of stuff that now may be implemented, including your passion for solar. But to meet the true expected needs, nuke is the only way.
Of course I know the Germans are building about 25 coal plants over the next few years to meet their growing needs. I can only pretend to imagine why they don't go nuke. We can do the same, but as I recall hearing in the media time and again, nothing is worse for the harm to humans, the workers, as well as the environment.


A vast collection of lies. Silicon is the most common material on Earth. The Earth is made of it. Thin film production techniques which are now being commercialized (look up NanoSolar) stretch rare materials much farther than ever before. A new family of large solar electricity generators use heat instead of direct conversion to drive turbines. No rare materials are used. We have vast stretches of divided highways in the US. Each center divide could be home to a series of poles holding up solar panels. Each south or west facing roof in every North American city could hold solar panels. Every parking lot could have a roof of solar panels. There is no shortage of materials or space.

Please, Jeff, I know I still look the part, but don't play me for a fool. We both know that the silicon is abundant but the type utilized needs large carbon footprints to produce to the purity required to do what you want. Your panels will work on a limited basis. Given a small requirement, like a home, and it can be done. Possibly your scenario could take place on a freeway, but an accident would wipe out a bunch of storage units and those battery materials could be nasty to baby ducks and friends.
As for space, I recall (again, not the math) the outcome of some calcs and the yielded energy, with storage as part of the equation, there is not enough space on earth to run our stuff on a grand scale.


Storage? That is called hydrogen. The technology exists. Only the will is lacking. Besides, our greatest needs for electricity happen to coincide with the sunniest days. Wind, hydro and natural gas as well as stored hydrogen could easily provide at night time. The technical arguments are lies.Sorry to sound so vehement, but I'm really sick of this argument. Buckminster Fuller laid out the path to solar power for the whole planet 70 years ago. He predicted it would take 50 years for the Earth's peoples to adopt his ideas. He had too much faith in us.Zeno just posted a long detailed post that covers all of this.
Here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=36955
So read up and then ask more questions. But stop falling for the lies of Rush Limbaugh and Bill Watenburg. They are liars and the entire nuclear industry is full of liars and ignoramuses. They scare the Hel out of me because they have so much power. Sickening pun intended. The scariest thing is that so many people who should know better are listening to them.
Nuclear is out and solar is in. -JeffYou are right, only the political AND economic will is lacking. But that goes for about anything, no? AND I hope you are right that solar is in as I would prefer that in my dreams, but as a practical, down to earth solution, I am sorry to say Nuke is the future. No way around it. Oh, and for the record, Limbaugh is a great source for one of the things I don't need: hot air, and there are better things to do with my mornings.
But I will read up, a little, on this hydrogen thingy. It's been more than a week since I took chem, so I guess it's time to use those rusted out cells. But I do recall that hydrogen is the most volatile element in the universe. Glad they've got a handle on it. And thanks for the inspiration.

PS: how come I don't get cool boxes around quotes? Only ONE out of FOUR? Ah, hell, it might be nappy-pooh time!

[Zeno Swijtink]

OK, if you believe that, just inhale a few little particles of plutonium. A small dose ... A very low dose ...

A few years and you'll have the most terrible lung cancer. Even if your plutonium is very, very old; even the oldest plutonium on Earth. (24,000 year half life.)

Also, tell me professor Zeno: what happens when the economy fails and there is no money to pay the operators at nuclear power plants to keep the "cooling ponds" operating?

-Jeff

I had expected from you more willingness to consider new ideas, esp. when they are explored in great detail in the research literature. As I said I was not advocating nuclear power plants.

What happens when we are not around to manage the nuclear power plants is one of the many fascinating hypotheses explored in The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman. (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/books/review/Schuessler-t.html)

[Zeno Swijtink]

PS: how come I don't get cool boxes around quotes? Only ONE out of FOUR? Ah, hell, it might be nappy-pooh time!

Because you need to use a solidus:

https://www.sonoma.edu/users/s/swijtink/other/solidus.png

See:

https://desktoppub.about.com/cs/expertcharacters/f/solidus.htm

[Hummingbear]

Yikes, this discussion has covered so much ground over the weekend that I am going to have to run to catch up. Or, to mix a metaphor, there are a lot of balls in the air that I'd like to track. So forgive the length of this post.

I'm sympathetic to Jeff's viewpoint, but, like Lenny, have doubt about the superlatives.

China and India WILL demand, are demanding, more energy for industrial use as well as transportation. China is investing massively in solar power but their real resource is coal. I'll get back to that in a minute.

As global power demand is increasing and the production rates for gas and oil are limited (regardless of what you think of the ultimate supply), we must have a massive input of power supply, somehow.

Solar has great features but (1) requires a lot of front-end investment in production of silicon (other, scarcer materials are being explored but not commercial yet), and (2) is not easily concentrated for industrial use. Jeff, your idea of solar panels lining freeways; have you seen a cost analysis for setting up that much infrastructure? What would the transmission and storage systems look like? That's in the "maybe someday" department. Wind is in the same league; there's big money to be spend (and made) on blades, turbines, towers, transmission lines, storage (since the production is intermittent), transporting of all those components--before there's concentrated output.

All this infrastructure investment is fine, and it's part of the picture. But it is not, realistically, going to happen fast enough and cheaply enough for the current collision of demand with supply limits.

That leaves nuclear and coal. Which poison to choose?

Zeno is correct: we could learn to live with low-level radioactivity from the non-contained waste from fuel--and mining--and indeed we probably already have, just as we live with low-level pollution from hydrocarbon production and consumption. I don't like it, but it's there. As for the 24,000 year half-life-- that means that the radioactive decay occurs very slowly. It's probably impossible to kill someone with radioactivity from Plutonium. The real danger is heavy-metal poisoning. Same with depleted uranium, used in artillery shells and extremely toxic when vaporized. Same with other heavy metals, regardless of radioactivity. Uranium mining is just as messy and dangerous than coal mining, but it's used in smaller amounts, so I'm not sure how the trade-off works there.

Jeff is also correct in observing that enormous resources have been put into finding ways to control the waste, and the output from this effort has been resounding silence. In addition, nuclear plants must be built very large-scale to be efficient (ASAIK), so you have all the problems that go with highly-centralized facilities. But that's another topic.

Coal has been so despised for so long that we tend to dismiss it. That's a mistake, because it's an easily-available resource, abundant in areas where the demand is highest, and its use in some form is probably inevitable. So the smart question, it seems to me, is -- in what form? And, can the pollution be controlled better than nukes?

There are a number of "green" enterprises looking at ways to make coal use more environmentally benign:
-- www.Headwaters.com is a company with several innovations, from pre-treatment of coal to make it burn cleaner (I don't know enough chemistry to understand this), to marketing the waste solids (fly ash) in construction materials. There are two or three other companies at various stages of marketing technologies for making coal cleaner as a fuel input.
-- Meanwhile, www.carbonsciences.com and www.CO2solution.com are two technologies for keeping the carbon in a benign, non-climate-threatening form, even after it's burned. Anyone with expertise to address the usefulness of these ideas, I'd love to hear from you.

Since these efforts are relatively new, there's reason to be (cautiously) optimistic that, with the right attitude and investment, clean coal can be a part of the mix of energy sources we'll be seeing in the next generation. On a purely cost-effectiveness basis, that seems like a more likely resolution than nukes-- or, in the short run, solar.

I tried wishing for a more perfect world 40 years ago, but I couldn't make it stick. If you still think you can, more power to you.

Hummingbear

[Braggi]

I had expected from you more willingness to consider new ideas, esp. when they are explored in great detail in the research literature. As I said I was not advocating nuclear power plants. ...

OK, my point was obviously lost on you, and by extension, everyone else. I apologize for my obscure presentation.

The problem isn't exposure to radiation, which we actually tolerate quite well, as you mention. The problem is exposure to actively emitting radioactive particles, especially plutonium, which is a nearly 100% effective carcinogen if inhaled, even if only the finest dust is inhaled. We need to stop making this stuff in any amounts larger than needed for research or medicine. Plutonium is ugly stuff. There are a lot of other ugly byproducts, but plutonium is just way bad.


...
What happens when we are not around to manage the nuclear power plants is one of the many fascinating hypotheses explored in The World Without Us, by Alan Weisman. (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/books/review/Schuessler-t.html)

Yes, I was just last night discussing this very issue with my good friend and chosen family member SonomaMark. Since I don't expect to see humans instantly disappear from the face of the Earth, rather, I foresee the establishment of a religious order willing to sacrifice their time caring for the cooling ponds into the distant future. Of course the nuclear plants will be long dead as will all the millionaires and billionaires created through the criminal acts of building and running the plants. The legacy of those criminals will be costs to the human family extending farther into the future than any of us can easily imagine, but I'm being redundant.

So we have to stop making the stuff as quickly as we reasonably can.

For some humorous reading, go to the google news site and search on "nuclear waste." It's always good to keep up with current events. Do read some of the quantities of waste at the Hanford site from the 1940s that we are only now beginning to think about cleaning up. Oh, BTW, we don't know how to clean them up, but we've just rewarded a private company $7.1 billion to do it. They, of course, can take the money and then declare bankruptcy, but, hey, we love getting ripped off. Happens all the time. The taxpayers will pick up the tab.

Oh no. I misunderstood. The contract isn't to clean up the site, it's to "mange" the site for 10 years. Oh my. So, let's get this right: an old nuclear site that is a pollution nightmare costs $7.1 billion to "manage" every 10 years? For how long? And how much will costs go up over time? Any of you pro nuke people seeing this? Please explain. Please apply these costs to any new nuclear plant proposal.

Here's the article: https://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/198316.html

One wonders how much waste has been generated since then and where it all is?

Oh, and be sure to read this article from our friends in Utah. Seems a private company will turn that state into a waste dump for the radioactive trash from Italy. Sound like a good idea to anyone out there? Not to worry. It's only "low level" waste. Unless some "high level" stuff "accidentally gets in." Yes, that's happened numerous times in the past. I used to live just up the coast from San Onofre. It was local news. Great nude beach there.

https://www.sltrib.com/ci_9427654

Bottom line: nuclear power is too expensive. It's so expensive the costs can't be calculated as the Hanford site proves.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
The "we don't need it" gets to me and the only stupid response I can give without doing my homework is, "yes, we do". The engine of commerce, technology, and our desires are creating more of a need on an exponential scale. The demand shall increase as our living improves and more people will want more junk that runs off of juice. And the tech from our SOL will not meet the demands, even if we did start 30 years ago. ...

Lenny, I do appreciate your responses, but it's time for you to do a little homework. First, go to that link I posted that points to Zeno's post, complete with pictures, that illustrates how little of the Earth needs to be covered with solar generators to produce all the power humanity needs. It's a tiny fraction of the land we are already using for roads and parking lots. We could use the extra shade. The paint on our cars would last longer.

You say " ... our desires are creating more of a need [for electricity] on an exponential scale."

Please defend that statement. I don't agree.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

OK, short on time here but I'll tackle a couple of your well made points HB.


...
Solar has great features but (1) requires a lot of front-end investment in production of silicon (other, scarcer materials are being explored but not commercial yet), and (2) is not easily concentrated for industrial use. ...


First, you're only thinking of photovoltaic panels, which do have limitations but are great for rooftop installations. There are other solar generation methods that lend themselves to larger installations that don't require any silicon wafers or other rare materials. See Zeno's post as referenced above.

Also, the current crop of thin film PV panels don't even use silicon wafers. See NanoSolar and their competitors. This isn't the future friends; this is happening now. These are very popular already in Japan. They make roofing systems out of them.


...
Jeff, your idea of solar panels lining freeways; have you seen a cost analysis for setting up that much infrastructure? What would the transmission and storage systems look like? That's in the "maybe someday" department. ...


No. Think Hummingbear: what travels alongside nearly every freeway you've ever driven on? High voltage towers is the answer. The infrastructure to transmit the power already exists. Only minor modifications need be done to add in additional power from solar farms. Next time you drive down highway Five to LA, look around. Cover the aquaduct with solar panels and you have a 444 mile long solar plant 80 feet wide that saves water (from evaporation). Construction could be paid for with the profits generated by the electricity. Do it in segments as the money comes in. It pays for itself. Costs be damned! It will be free!

Storage? Who's storing it? We'll use it, just like we do now. The greatest need for electricity is during the hottest parts of the day. At night you can kick in the existing natural gas plants that rested during the day. Or you can collect the additional energy as liquid hydrogen. This is decades old technology! We don't even need fuel cells so that's a non argument. Hydrogen could be burned in small generators to replace solar power when the sun goes down.

Toss the emotional road blocks and let's get to work!


...
All this infrastructure investment is fine, and it's part of the picture. But it is not, realistically, going to happen fast enough and cheaply enough for the current collision of demand with supply limits.

That leaves nuclear and coal. Which poison to choose?


Neither. You are swallowing the lies of the coal and nuke industries. Our electrical demands are rising very slowly largely due to conservation efforts and ever more efficient electrical products.

We do have a vast amount of coal and natural gas that will continue to be used as we convert to solar. But every year thousands of megawatts of solar are already going online. That's one reason we're able to build so few new power plants despite the fact many are aging and must be taken off line. New photovoltaic factories are opening every year. All the production from these factories is selling out every year. This is happening now and could be happening much more quickly if the oil, coal and nuclear industries would get their money out of our politics.

So, do you want energy sources that pay for themselves over time and after a few years produce free power or do want sources that are guaranteed to cost more and more every year as coal, oil, gas and nuclear certainly will?

-Jeff

PS. The cost of solar and wind power goes down every year and it's already cost effective now. Keep that in mind. And the sun is always shining somewhere. :wink:

[Hummingbear]

Also, the current crop of thin film PV panels don't even use silicon wafers. See NanoSolar and their competitors.

I'm aware of NanoSolar, which is why I said:
"(other, scarcer materials are being explored but not commercial yet)." NanoSolar shipped its first product in January this year, and has no back stock. It remains to be seen whether it can produce on a massive scale, and what the collateral costs of that production (which involves mining some kind of rare earths or heavy metals, I think--I don't have the details) might be. I'm fully supportive of NanoSolar, but how is that going to power China?


Costs be damned! It will be free!

Surely, you're aware of the historical irony of making that claim? Sorry to ruin your day, but, in case you're not, I'll have to mention it: that's what they said about nuclear power in the 1950s.


Our electrical demands are rising very slowly largely due to conservation efforts and ever more efficient electrical products.

If by "our" you mean Americans, that's true. I made it clear that I was looking at planet-wide demands, which are rising very rapidly. That accounts, in large part for our differing views.


That's one reason we're able to build so few new power plants despite the fact many are aging and must be taken off line. New photovoltaic factories are opening every year.

Right--that reminds me, do you know the useful lifetime of thin-film silicon? It's a lot less than the heavy-duty silicon panels, maybe only 10 years. Nothing lasts forever. That could put a limit on how much solar energy we can use even after the political consensus supports it. So, if you use a back-up generator, don't plan on selling it for scrap anytime soon.


So, do you want energy sources that pay for themselves over time and after a few years produce free power or do want sources that are guaranteed to cost more and more every year as coal, oil, gas and nuclear certainly will?


We agree about a lot more than we disagree, Jeff. If it were only either/or, we'd be on the same side. But it never is that simple, IMHE.

blessings,
Hummingbear

[Braggi]

...
Surely, you're aware of the historical irony of making that claim? Sorry to ruin your day, but, in case you're not, I'll have to mention it: that's what they said about nuclear power in the 1950s. ...

Right, but I'm talking about something that is and has been paying its own way for decades. I'm telling the truth. (Hah hah! But is it "the whole truth?")


...
If by "our" you mean Americans, that's true. I made it clear that I was looking at planet-wide demands, which are rising very rapidly. That accounts, in large part for our differing views.
...

What I want to stop cold is the push to build more nukes in the US.

There are currently 70 nuclear plants in some stage of licensing here now.

Got that? This is an emergency. A US emergency. That's why I'm being so emphatic. The world watches what we do very closely. We have the opportunity to be a leader in the right direction, for a change. It's up to us to push the decision makers in the right direction.

More on how to do that in a later post. (Hint: stop the money!)


...
Right--that reminds me, do you know the useful lifetime of thin-film silicon? It's a lot less than the heavy-duty silicon panels, maybe only 10 years. Nothing lasts forever. That could put a limit on how much solar energy we can use ...

Do your research HB. This from the NanoSolar site:

"Product reliability has always been our top design priority. Our panels are rigorously tested to achieve a durability compatible with our 25-year warranty.

In fact, we test our products under much harsher conditions than mandated by official certification standards. We also expose them to harsh outdoor environments such as the Arizona desert and the Antarctic:

Accelerated lifetime testing is possible through specialized equipment that performs many –40°C to +85°C heat cycles per day, that exposes solar cells to intense UV light, and that exposes them to intense humidity. This has made it possible for us to study potential degradation mechanisms at accelerated time scale during product development.

During production, we continuously perform tests on randomly sampled production output in the form of accelerated lifetime tests under simulated high-stress conditions in indoor environmental chambers." [end quote]

So they come with a 25 year guarantee which is typical these days in the photo voltaic panel industry. That is a guarantee to be within 2% of rated power if it's a typical warrantee. After that they decline slightly year after year. They will still be making power in 50 years. After that they can be recycled.

Nukes don't last that long. Want to recycle one? Didn't think so.

Gotta run, it's been fun,

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I'm aware of NanoSolar, which is why I said:
"(other, scarcer materials are being explored but not commercial yet)." NanoSolar shipped its first product in January this year, and has no back stock. It remains to be seen whether it can produce on a massive scale ...

You've misread the articles on that, HB. The entire first year's production has already been sold to a German firm that is building a huge commercial photo voltaic power plant. The Europeans are way ahead of us on this.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I didn't write this, but please read it.

-Jeff

From: https://mwcnews.net/content/view/22946/26/

A Letter to Senator Barbara Boxer

Dear Senator Boxer,

Please do not hand the nuclear robber-barons another nickel, not tomorrow, not ever!

They are stealing our future, destroying our DNA. Science abhors a vacuum, but a raging particle traveling at nearly the speed of light is no better! We have not learned to control the atom in 60 years, nor will we. We cannot protect biological systems from it. We have seen the damage it does to the steel of the reactors themselves -- I'm not talking about the rust like at Davis-Besse (that's bad enough) but what about all the irradiated equipment that then fails before its time (D-B was due to an acid leak)?

If radiation is so hard on any container the Department of Energy can come up with for long-term storage of radioactive waste -- and it is -- they've given up on "containment" and use "physical isolation" (in an earthquake zone, good luck) hopes and dreams instead -- then please just IMAGINE the damage ionizing radiation does to our bodies. To a single-celled organism, especially.

One of us, in the first few minutes after conception, for example. Or one of our cells, that then turns cancerous.

The "free-radical" damage from radiation probably far exceeds the possible direct-DNA damage, and ALL radiation is damaging.

Fission products are the main output of ANY nuclear reactor. That, and propaganda.

Please, Senator Boxer, don't let them produce more fission products for us to breath, eat, drink and wallow in! They've never been able to contain it nearly as well as they say they will, and a major catastrophic accident is just time away -- it is INEVITABLE with the current policy -- let alone, with ANY nuclear revival.

Cancel Price-Anderson. Close San Onofre and Diablo Canyon forever today.

This is NOT one small step -- it's a big one. Instead, it appears you are on the verge of giving the nuclear industry half a TRILLION dollars in government money! Enough is enough! Renewable energy can power ALL of California!

Yesterday, on the tracks that run by my house, I saw a STEAM LOCOMOTIVE run by. I suppose it must have been at least a hundred years old, but there it was! I almost got the camera out in time to take a picture. People were waiting all along the tracks, and we didn't know why until suddenly it ran by, belching steam, and blowing it's whistle.

It was beautiful. Old, useless, wasteful, but beautiful.

That could never be said of ANYTHING produced by a nuclear power plant. It's steel -- would you want it in your child's braces?

Do you want to drink their tritiated water, billions of gallons a day polluted to some tiny degree under the Environmental Protection Agency's absurdly-high, dangerously unsafe "legal" limit?

The nuclear industry believes that any level under any legal limit is BY DEFINITION, SAFE.

They are wrong, and they are wrong about public support. If the public supports nuclear power, it's only because the public, unlike yours truly, has not read 100+ books on the subject (I own about 400 books on the subject, but I haven't read quite all of them.)

If our generation builds a new fleet of nuclear power plants it will be bad. But keeping the current ones operating is also wrong.

Sincerely,
Ace Hoffman

[Zeno Swijtink]

Also see the solar concentrators of Pointfocus

https://www.pointfocus.com/

a company in Forestville, owned by Joseph Perkins.

[Braggi]

... Your panels will work on a limited basis. Given a small requirement, like a home, and it can be done.
...

Please explain the limit, because I don't see it.

I have two friends who are vast energy hogs. Both put up solar panels on a portion of their roofs. They are still energy hogs, but both are feeding excess energy back into the grid. If they can do it anyone with solar exposure can.

Now, take a home and multiply by 10 homes. OK, 10 homes now have solar. How about times 10,000, or a million? We can do it. My friends are now enjoying free energy. The panels they have produce more than they use. One of them had bills of $800 a month in the winter (yikes!). Now, no bills. Both systems will be fully paid off in six years given current PGE prices. But PGE is going up so they will be paid off sooner.


... Possibly your scenario could take place on a freeway, but an accident would wipe out a bunch of storage units and those battery materials could be nasty to baby ducks and friends.
...

Well, stop thinking of batteries because none are needed. We use grid power as it's produced. That's how the electric grid works. So use solar while the sun shines and natural gas while it doesn't. That way we save about 2/3 of the natural gas we now burn. Makes sense, eh? No need to store the electricity.

An accident would only take out a small section of solar panels which are installed in segments so only that segment would be out of operation. The grid wouldn't notice the loss.


...
As for space, I recall (again, not the math) the outcome of some calcs and the yielded energy, with storage as part of the equation, there is not enough space on earth to run our stuff on a grand scale.
...

That's just completely wrong, so read up.

-Jeff

[PeriodThree]

Jeff,

I am deeply interested in alternative power generation. I have had solar since Dec 2003, and I have done a fair amount of research on alternative energy.

Thank you for giving me the chance to revisit my personal energy numbers!

While I support alternative power, I don't think that all of your optimistic claims totally add up.



Please explain the limit, because I don't see it.
Now, take a home and multiply by 10 homes. OK, 10 homes now have solar. How about times 10,000, or a million? We can do it.


I agree that you can reasonably generate enough electricity on your roof to run your home. Based on my calculations, I even believe that you can generate enough electricity to power an electric or plug in hybrid for local driving ( 10kWh of electricity is equivalent to about 1 gallon of gas).

But...that doesn't account for high density housing (apartments and the like), nor commercial and industrial power use.

I think we can find this power in good ways, but it will be more complicated than the residential problem.




My friends are now enjoying free energy. The panels they have produce more than they use. One of them had bills of $800 a month in the winter (yikes!). Now, no bills. Both systems will be fully paid off in six years given current PGE prices. But PGE is going up so they will be paid off sooner.


Your friends are not really enjoying 'free' energy. They may be on a different rate schedule than I am, but every kWh I use between noon and six pm from May to Oct costs me 30 cents. That is 30 cents which I either pay, or which I don't get paid for selling power back.

If your friends had $800 bills just for electricity in the winter they were using something like 8,000 kWh (at 8-11 cents per kWh, winter rates) a month. Before solar I was using about 1,000 kWh a month (pretty much the same year round). My stove, heat, and dryer are gas - which are major loads, but 8,000 kWh is a _lot_ of power.

According to the (somewhat optimistic) energy estimator in front of me my 32 panel system should generate about 8,000 kWh a year. Breaking that out across summer and winter and peak vs. non-peak I get a total value of the electricity I produce of $1585 per year.

It is possible I could have paid a bit too much for my system, but every way I do the numbers I still get a payback of 11-12 years, at a 6% cost of capital. If your friends did all of the work themselves, and got used panels presumably they could lower their costs some (but you can only get the rebates if you use a licensed contractor).

But...and this is important, over half of the cost of my system was subsidized by the state, and a federal tax credit, so my payback is based on my costs, not the cost of the system.

Even lowering the interest rate to 5%, the payback for the full cost of the system is around 24 years.

I approve of the state subsidies because they are promoting the development of alternative energy industries, but without the subsidies it does not appear that solar is currently really paying its way

But as you note, energy prices are going up, and the costs of solar are coming down.

[Braggi]

...
But...that doesn't account for high density housing (apartments and the like), nor commercial and industrial power use.

I think we can find this power in good ways, but it will be more complicated than the residential problem.
...

You are correct, but my current mental tizzy is about stopping the new nukes from coming on line. It's about shifting our sights enough toward solar that the population at large is given time to look at all the ugly sides of nuclear before it is "fast tracked" down our collective throats.

100% solar isn't practical anytime soon, I agree. But a shift away from our dirtiest and most costly alternatives is already underway and it's time to put the collective solar pedal to the metal. There are a lot of ways to do that. We can avoid new nuke and coal plants if we have the political will. The costs, when looked at long term, fall on the side of solar. Just look really long term; as in 50 years minimum up to 1,000 years. We should be looking that far into the future. Short sightedness has not served us well.


...
Your friends are not really enjoying 'free' energy.

Of course you're correct. Home solar installations are expensive up front. In the case of my friends, both purchased cash so they have no finance charges. Both systems are grid intertie only and don't have batteries. And yeah, that one family ... you don't even want to know how wasteful they are. At least they're doing solar now. Some months they still have to pay PG &E a small amount, and they have a big array. They use a lot of juice.


...
But...and this is important, over half of the cost of my system was subsidized by the state, and a federal tax credit, so my payback is based on my costs, not the cost of the system.

Even lowering the interest rate to 5%, the payback for the full cost of the system is around 24 years. ...

I don't actually know how much my friends paid for their systems, but in both cases they told me six years would do the trick. Perhaps they were being overly optimistic or perhaps they got a lot better deal than you did. Both told me that they went with a contractor that saved them a great deal over more expensive options.


...
I approve of the state subsidies because they are promoting the development of alternative energy industries, but without the subsidies it does not appear that solar is currently really paying its way

But as you note, energy prices are going up, and the costs of solar are coming down.

Agreed. I feel fine knowing some of my tax dollars are going to help prevent new nuclear plants from being approved. I hope it continues to work out that way.

I also agree that only people who have a pretty substantial electrical bill can justify changing over at this time. Not sure what the break even point is, but someone with a $24 monthly electrical bill should just sit back and smile.

I'm very happy to see all the wineries around here with new solar systems on their roofs. Wineries are heavy electrical users. Even if it only supplements their use and they still need grid power for their heavy use times, it's a step in the right direction. A great many more businesses can do this. I really like the idea of solar panel roofs over parking lots with outlets for plug in hybrids and electric vehicles.

I appreciate that you went to the trouble of sharing your numbers with us. I do wonder if you have batteries or just a grid intertie?

Solar isn't for everyone just yet. The grid is still cheaper for smaller consumers. However, most government and business buildings could easily benefit from substantial systems. Even heavy industrial sites that use far more electricity during peak times than a solar array could provide will save money over time with a solar system overhead. The bigger the installation the quicker the payoff. There is an economy of scale with solar systems, as you know.

Thanks again for putting some real numbers on this.

There are a number of commercial solar plant designs that don't rely on standard photovoltaic panels. These heat and turbine based solar plants can provide enough power for industrial use, so don't give up on commercial sized solar based on the limitations of PV panel systems.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

You are correct, but my current mental tizzy is about stopping the new nukes from coming on line. It's about shifting our sights enough toward solar that the population at large is given time to look at all the ugly sides of nuclear before it is "fast tracked" down our collective throats.100% solar isn't practical anytime soon, I agree. But a shift away from our dirtiest and most costly alternatives is already underway and it's time to put the collective solar pedal to the metal. There are a lot of ways to do that. We can avoid new nuke and coal plants if we have the political will. The costs, when looked at long term, fall on the side of solar. Just look really long term; as in 50 years minimum up to 1,000 years. We should be looking that far into the future. Short sightedness has not served us well.

Jeff, OK, I will try and read up on what you suggested, however P.T. made points in a manner better than I. I appreciate your move on giving us all time to consider alternatives to nuke, and am for that. In a previous post (glad I waited until finishing P.T.'s as he is succinct and a numbers cruncher) you asked for clarification of OUR anticipated needs. In this post I see you already understand them, so I need not elaborate, but will. Air conditioning. Businesses run on computers; the more, the demand for cool rooms. After viewing the county's while on the grand jury one year, I was amazed at the amount of energy just to keep the room cool! Solar will never meet such demands. Banks, downtown buildings service centers, industries, supermarkets, etc. will all demand energy that can't be meet by solar alone. As P.T. indicated, it's a break even problem with a home owner and when I considered it I came up with similar time frames and numbers, but that was 15 or so years ago, talking with a contractor.
So for laughs a while back I went to our local county fair and told some youngster what I want. After doing my stupid thing, which I continuously practice, I laid it out: All I want is a solar refrigerator. Can he rig it. After 5 minutes he told me he had just graduated from Sonoma State as a Solar Engineer. Congrats, I said. After almost 10 minutes he scratched his head and indicated it was not as simple as I wanted.
Seems I've changed in age, but that tech hasn't.


I feel fine knowing some of my tax dollars are going to help prevent new nuclear plants from being approved. I hope it continues to work out that way. I also agree that only people who have a pretty substantial electrical bill can justify changing over at this time. Not sure what the break even point is, but someone with a $24 monthly electrical bill should just sit back and smile.

Well, I too will not complain TOO much about my tax dollars going that way, but think about it. I am supporting someone wealthy enough to afford such an item, to give a boost to an industry that does not have the innovation or market force to make it on their own. Does that smell right to you? I don't mind since I am green around the gills, maybe with envy (I want a solar too) but also because it's important to love our Mother. So I suppose I will have to learn to live with my own hypocrisy!


Solar isn't for everyone just yet. The grid is still cheaper for smaller consumers. However, most government and business buildings could easily benefit from substantial systems. Even heavy industrial sites that use far more electricity during peak times than a solar array could provide will save money over time with a solar system overhead. The bigger the installation the quicker the payoff. There is an economy of scale with solar systems, as you know.Well, thanks. I had to look up "economy of scale". There is negligible cost return for an industry to put in solar, or at least I would think an accountant would have a heck of a time with those outputs. That is the point as to why nuclear. As an industry, solar isn't really for anybody and needs gov't subsidy. But I'll read what Zeno posted. I owe him that much as he showed me the COOL solidus!

[Braggi]

... After viewing the county's while on the grand jury one year, I was amazed at the amount of energy just to keep the room cool! Solar will never meet such demands. ...

Lenny, these posts are getting too long and people's eyes are glazing over, so I'll try to stick to one point per post.

I don't want to pick on you, but what kind of a defeatist statement was that? Are you a heating and cooling expert now? I can cool your home quite comfortably with the output from a very small solar panel. If your home is large I'd need about sixty watts, or one about half the size of what's going on people's roofs these days (I mean a single panel, not the whole array). It's not only about the brute force, it's about the methods employed. It will be more difficult for me if you live in an apartment, but then so are a lot of other energy matters. Of course, apartment dwellers conserve in many other ways, so there are tradeoffs.

Hopefully we're learning something.

Computers now operate on far smaller amounts of energy than even a few years ago despite the fact they are an order of magnitude faster and more capable, the graphics are better etc., etc.

Cooling equipment gets better all the time. Today's refrigerators run on half the power of smaller ones from 30 years ago.

Go to https://www.knowledgepublications.com and you can download a book for a few dollars that includes plans for a solar powered ice making machine you can build for a few ten dollar bills or a few hundred if you use all new parts. Just go there and read on the site. It's a hoot.

My refrigerator is 15 years old and it can easily run on solar power. It was made in Denmark where they've appreciated getting the most out of their energy sources for longer than we have.

You really want an efficient refrigerator? Try here: https://www.sunfrost.com/

The technology exists. The will is lacking. The information needs to get out there. The "media" focuses on sound bites from politicians promoting nukes and coal and oil. Additional information has to come from ... us? Actually, there is a lot of information available. We just need to look for it and then employ it in our lives.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Lenny, these posts are getting too long and people's eyes are glazing over, so I'll try to stick to one point per post.

Dude, Volume 5 of Hydrogen Generator Gas for Vehicles? And YOUR eyes are glazing over? OK, I'll try and not be so boring, and I will check the site a little more carefully. It's just down here, on Terra Firma, I need information that is cheap, not as technical (glazing is not just for glass), and reachable. It's like bio-intensive gardening. The "bio" part means spending the rest of one's life doing back-breaking work for vegetables as opposed to working a spending a few bucks to buy the dang things! Talk about scale of economy!


Hopefully we're learning something.

Trying, bro.


Computers now operate on far smaller amounts of energy than even a few years ago despite the fact they are an order of magnitude faster and more capable, the graphics are better etc., etc. Cooling equipment gets better all the time. Today's refrigerators run on half the power of smaller ones from 30 years ago.

While all true and good, there are big bucks for a company to switch over to the "newest, smallest" gear. Those cold rooms have to be maintained at what's operating today. The "highest" tech costs the most $, such as your Danish refrigerator.


Go to https://www.knowledgepublications.com and you can download a book for a few dollars that includes plans for a solar powered ice making machine you can build for a few ten dollar bills or a few hundred if you use all new parts. Just go there and read on the site. It's a hoot.
My refrigerator is 15 years old and it can easily run on solar power. It was made in Denmark where they've appreciated getting the most out of their energy sources for longer than we have.
You really want an efficient refrigerator? Try here: https://www.sunfrost.com/
The technology exists. The will is lacking. The information needs to get out there. The "media" focuses on sound bites from politicians promoting nukes and coal and oil. Additional information has to come from ... us? Actually, there is a lot of information available. We just need to look for it and then employ it in our lives.

Thanks. I checked out Sunfrost awhile back. That reminds me, we need to go up to Hopland and visit Real Goods. It's been a long time.

[Braggi]

...
While all true and good, there are big bucks for a company to switch over to the "newest, smallest" gear. Those cold rooms have to be maintained at what's operating today. The "highest" tech costs the most $, such as your Danish refrigerator.
...


Here's a link for more Vestfrost information (my Danish fridge): https://www.conservrefrigerators.com/conserv.html

I checked against Home Depot's prices and it's very cost competitive compared to any but the cheapest ones they offer.

It's interesting to me that in 13 years they haven't changed their design in any noticeable way. Why fix what isn't broken, I guess.

My point is that the latest and greatest usually isn't more expensive, but is often actually cheaper than the "old fashioned" item you'll replace.

I don't propose everyone run out and buy the high tech marvel of the moment. I buy used goods or get free hand me downs when ever I can.

Considering the amount of energy an item uses is a primary concern, however, since I live in an "off the grid" home and energy is precious.


...
Thanks. I checked out Sunfrost awhile back. That reminds me, we need to go up to Hopland and visit Real Goods. It's been a long time.

When we checked out Sunfrost the cost was more than double the Vestfrost and we didn't think the energy savings would ever pay for the added up front cost. There are always tradeoffs to consider.

I like Real Goods as a showcase and a source of education, but remember it's the full retail yuppie version of energy efficiency and they sell some products that are just plain wrong. Buyer beware. Check prices elsewhere before committing to an expensive purchase.

I did buy my Vestfrost refrigerator from Real Goods because there was no other outlet nor did Real Goods charge an unreasonable price for it.

-Jeff

[Lenny]

Here's a link for more Vestfrost information (my Danish fridge): https://www.conservrefrigerators.com/conserv.html
I checked against Home Depot's prices and it's very cost competitive compared to any but the cheapest ones they offer.
It's interesting to me that in 13 years they haven't changed their design in any noticeable way. Why fix what isn't broken, I guess.
My point is that the latest and greatest usually isn't more expensive, but is often actually cheaper than the "old fashioned" item you'll replace.
I don't propose everyone run out and buy the high tech marvel of the moment. I buy used goods or get free hand me downs when ever I can.

Will check this url. I would imagine that design hasn't changed for refers due to the basics. Materials, yes, but cooling = cooling, and as your last referenced url (https://www.knowledgepublications.com/) showed me, not much has changed in a long while. I looked around there and saw a lot of the contents of some of the books was about 100 years old! And you are right as far as cost as it is the "pay now, or pay later". The upfront costs of some stuff over time will pay, we just need to consider the pay-per-value-over-time cross over point.


Considering the amount of energy an item uses is a primary concern, however, since I live in an "off the grid" home and energy is precious.
When we checked out Sunfrost the cost was more than double the Vestfrost and we didn't think the energy savings would ever pay for the added up front cost. There are always tradeoffs to consider.

Whoa! I didn't realize I was speaking to a pioneer! Now I'm a little green (with envy) but I must give a congrats! You walk the walk, while I am just kicking the bull.....And yeah, a $2500 19 cubic foot refer is a bit too much, up front and the life span would not pay for the energy savings, at least for this kid.


I like Real Goods as a showcase and a source of education, but remember it's the full retail yuppie version of energy efficiency and they sell some products that are just plain wrong. Buyer beware. Check prices elsewhere before committing to an expensive purchase. I did buy my Vestfrost refrigerator from Real Goods because there was no other outlet nor did Real Goods charge an unreasonable price for it. -Jeff

Ouch. I always found Real Goods a bit to yuppfied for me and mine, but never said anything about it other than to my family. And here I thought it was the Mecca of all that is good and greeen. I'm sure it is, but one would have to be a Saudi prince to afford their crapper. We were there about 15 years ago and they wanted $1500 for their toilet! That told me we were in the wrong place. But it sure was a pretty setting. Thanks!