Re: Solar, not nuclear

On Feb 1, 7:36 pm, dave.walt...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Feb 1, 2:20 pm, "bill" <ford_prefec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 1, 4:45 pm, dave.walt...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 1, 6:38 am, "bill" <ford_prefec...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

And why should anyone be content with Europan scale efficiencies?
Improved lifestyles can be had at a third of their energy consumption,
if not less.
Even if that were true then we would still need to double Earth's energy
supply. Doubling supply through conservation is impossible; we need new
clean energy sources.
Doubling through conservation is trivail. 80% of the work done in Europe
has no productive value. Europe's economy still produces and imports
products that are designed to fail, designed to be unservicable once key
componetnts fail, etc.

Designing todays drill to be unserviceable when part x fails is
for efficiency, it's more energy efficient to replace the dril than it
is to keep a vast inventory of parts for failed obsolete drills. My
makita 9.6 volt lasted 12 years of contractor level use, that's pretty
efficient, I ran 10 times as much energy through the 4 replacement
batteries I bought for it during it's useful life as was involved in
manufacturing it.

Consider the example case of rechargable drills. Every year manufacturers
release new models with a differently constructed battery pack such that the
old batteries no longer fit. The make them a little wider or a little
fatter, or a little deeper, or change the mounting clip or alter the
placement of key mounting slots or mounting posts.

Oh, you mean the case where the interface between the drill and
the battery pack is patented? the one where it would cost
manufacturer x an exhorbitant amount of money to use manufacturer Ys
patented locking system? And incidently the one where you can buy
batteries for any drill ever manufactured from the original
manufacturer? That case?

There is only reason why there needs to be more than 1 18 volt NiCad
battery pack. They all opeate the same, produce the same voltage, last the
same length of time, etc. The reason is to force the consumer to purchase a
new drill once their battery packs are spent, even if the old drill body
itself is still functional.
Businesses regularly have their employees, destroy or render useless parts
like chargers batteries, and other components. so that they can <NOT> be
resold or used as replacements should a customer need such a replacement.
Copier companies scraping older copiers are instructed to "render useless"
any and all parts that may be used on still servicable machines so that
customers are <FORED> to purchase freshly manufactured parts at higher cost.
These are just to examples, of a technique used by corporations all over
the world to force consumers to repurchase the products they have already
purchased. Thus keeping the producer in business.

All this is endemic of the diseased communist mind that thinks
that anything done by profit motived corporations is evil and
therefore inefficient, the "render useless all parts" is for
EFFICIENCY moron, if you take a part that is still "good" out of dead
copier x and put it in newer copier Y, then that part will fail before
the bulk of the copier, you will need to send a repairman 20 miles in
a car to fix it and the office will be without their copier for the
day not to mention that there's a good chance that the shitty part
you just put in will break other good parts around it when it goes.
This creates greater inefficiencies than replacing the part with a
newly manufactured one because manufacturing processes are SO
ASTOUNDINGLY EFFICIENT.

Efficiency first. Renewables next, then supplement with nuclear and
oil as needed.
Supplement with oil? Increased use of fossil fuels is suicide.
Increase? Where do you see the word increase?
Oill and coal can continue to be used as a fuel but only at
environmentally sustainable rates Currently we are emitting about 9
gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year. 1 gigatonn of emissions
can be handled by the biosphere without any ongoing carbon accumulation.
Global warming is upon us now, and it takes time to build significant
new energy sources.
Exactly why it is folly to put the world on a path to building 250,000 new
nuclear power plants.

moron, the 15000 reactors that are the real number for full
fossil fuel replacement with a doubling of demand are the only way,
your efficiency bull*** is exactly why nothing will be being done for
the next 20 years and all those fossil fuels will be burned. thanks
for poisoning the atmosphere with your lies. you support something
that manifestle doesn't work, and use that lie to oppose something
that manifestly does work, as a result of which the status quo is
maintained. ask yourself which you prefer, nuclear or coal, because
those are the only options in the real world.

This is true...although there is no need to replace ALL fossil plants,
just the most polluting (coal) and the least efficient (old ones, of
all sorts, nukes, gas/oil and coal). Realistically, and if done
seriously, we would build 4,000 to 8,000 new Gen III and Gen III+
plants. This would allow for growth of demand AND retirement of some
of the worst plants. This could be done over the next 30 years.
There really is only one problem with nuclear, which is sort of a
"good" problem, and that's off-peak loading the plants. Unlike
conventional steam plants, nukes need to run flat oout 24/7 to work
correctly. So...a good off-peak electrical sink for this much power is
h2 generation. It's essentially "free" this way, and can be used to
*eliminate* the use of natural gas in H2 production (NG is used 98% of
the time now for H2 production and give's off CO2 for those that
care). With increases in battery capacity and efficiency, overnight
recharging of auto transport would become far more efficient.

Well, I doubt it will go that far, I was using the 15000 number
for ALL current generation to illustrate the point. 2500 would
replace ALL the currently existing coal plants worldwide, and coal
plants are baseload, so there is no off-peak that needs considering in
replacing those, the new nuclear plants can run flat out.
Developments in pv over that time should make it a great source for
peaking since it is a good scheduling match, that will render enough
methane plants redundent to allow for a safety factor in the grid that
will in turn make the installation of wind far more viable. Bottom
line though, the bulk of the co2 emission worldwide is baseload coal
plants, and nuclear is the only reliable carbon neutral source for
that type of power installing those 2500 nuclear plants would give us
the degrees of freedom we needed to make everything else work.

This is my position too. I'm not against wind and solar, I'm quite for
it actually, but only as a supplement to nuclear. Wind can then ramp
down remaining fossil to a very limited degree when the 'wind picks
up'. I did'nt know the 2500 number before. I appreciate that
information.

I think auto emissions also play a big role, so, using non-burning
fuels like H2 is not completely wild, once they figure out a way to
'carry' the damn stuff. Right now I'd never buy an H2 car. But the big
breakthrough, as I see it, is nuclear-to-automotive electricity and
that means better batteries (not the fantasy crap people on this list
are talking about) to use the power gernerated by power plants and
eliminate internal combustion of oil derived products.

BTW...'base load' does not mean 24/7....it just means it provide the
back bone of the grid. It can mean 24/7 but doesn't have too. I work
at a base load plant in California but can come down on load to about
50 mws at night then back up again in the morning. But I think your
point is well taken.

You might be well advised to check my math on the 2500. I think
it's close, but wouldn't want you quoting it.
The thing with hydrogen as an automotive fuel is that in order to
get any kind of energy return on energy invested you MUST have a fuel
cell car. otherwise it's something like 5% round trip effecient (90%
electrolysis, 80% compression, 95% transportation and 33% ICE) those
are currently not viable. what IS viable TODAY is the plug in
hybrid. a car that runs mostly on batteries with a very small
internal combustion engine to extend the range. today, they are
expensive, but 2 ears ago they were impossible. a good spec for a
first production model would be 50 mile battery range with a 150cc
gasoline engine kicking on at half that. it gives unlimited range,
almost like a car and would eliminate 3/4 of the gasoline consumed by
passenger cars.
The other problem at least in the "worst" countries like
america, australia and canada is the development style. public
transportation simply cannot serve single family houses, and they are
terribly expensive on heat and cooling.

.