T1B

88 wrote:I don't like nuclear power generation for two reasons: (1) there are more cost-effective ways to produce electricity; and (2) no other process that I am aware of generates a waste stream as dangerous and as long-lasting as this industry.

I am a fan of solar, wind, hydro, and any other energy source so long as it is cost efficient and does not create negatives like damage to the environment.

Fossil fuels make sense now. But they will make far less sense in the future, IMHO.

What he said, pretty much, though I think fossil fuels, especially coal, need to be phased out ASAP.

Regarding "clean" nuclear energy...

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2019/jan/02/c ... te-handli/

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2018/nov/09/n ... an-onofre/

They want to bury these canisters, basically on the beach, which this article doesn't even discuss. Currently above the high tide line, but in the not so distant future they probably would be flooded with salt water. That's real smart.

Also agree nuclear is not in our best interests. Every nuclear power plant has a deep pool, kinda looks like a swimming pool but deeper where spent nuclear fuel rods are stored. These radioactive fuel rods have a half life of 700 million years. Storage of spent fuel rods is an ongoing issue.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

You mean like this?

"Fossil fuels" aren't going anywhere soon. There actually may be an unlimited supply being generated under the earth's crust. Too many when they think coal, think 1800-early 1900 technology with all the soot from smoke. We are the Arabs of coal and should be using it to provide low cost electricity. One thing that really needs to be done is making sure we have plenty of back up transformers and other necessary gear to help if and when our electric grid is knocked out by an enemy state.

Ground mounted fixed tilt and tracker systems still produce far more energy (per acre of land) and cost significantly less to install than rooftop and carport systems. It’s economics and schtuff.

Wolfman wrote:"Fossil fuels" aren't going anywhere soon. There actually may be an unlimited supply being generated under the earth's crust.

Don't go too far looking for it, you might sail off the edge.

Papa Willie wrote:Exactly, but if you did it with all or most homes, it'd be far more productive. The solar grid farms are pathetic. Just a waste of space. Same goes for the wind farms.

It’d be great if that worked, ideally. Unfortunately for any EPC company, the roof installation cost on multiple, varied-shaped house rooftops would not make it economically viable, per acre of DC (panel) coverage.

Especially when a streamlined ground mounted system in open land (not as much shading, all panels strategically angled) produces far more energy output. Add in a single axis tracking system and the energy numbers are skewed even more.

Uncle Sam would have to do some heavy subsidizing to make it an incentive.

88 wrote:I don't like nuclear power generation for two reasons: (1) there are more cost-effective ways to produce electricity; and (2) no other process that I am aware of generates a waste stream as dangerous and as long-lasting as this industry.

I am a fan of solar, wind, hydro, and any other energy source so long as it is cost efficient and does not create negatives like damage to the environment.

Fossil fuels make sense now. But they will make far less sense in the future, IMHO.

Hydro is great. Wind and solar are too, in certain areas. The trouble is, the green nazis have crammed it down our throat in areas that make no sense.

Regarding nuke power. The immense expense is largely artificial. Solar and wind would be too if they had to fight the legal/regulatory battles that nuke does.

Putting that cost aside, I might agree with you were we just starting into the nuke power biz. We are not. We have hundreds, if not thousands of plants in operation. The money has been spent. Also, we now have large piles of nuke waste sitting around and the technology to use it as fuel, with the resulting waste being much less hazardous, if not completely harmless. We can kill two birds here, with a single stone by developing this tech.

The only thing blocking this is the green religion. It is way past being a mere movement.

Solar hot water heaters are the norm here in Athens.

Wind farms power the entire rail system in The Netherlands.

Carson wrote:hot water heaters are the norm here in Athens.

If it's hot, why do they need to heat it?

Dinsdale wrote:

Carson wrote:hot water heaters are the norm here in Athens.

If it's hot, why do they need to heat it?

Maybe it's not so hot in the middle of winter, or 3AM.

The advance needed for green energy isn’t better solar panels or better wind mills. It is battery storage. When battery technology takes the next few generational leaps, wind and solar make much more sense.

Right now there is an absolute need for fossil fuels. Well at least till the world ends in 12 years.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Carson wrote:hot water heaters are the norm here in Athens.

If it's hot, why do they need to heat it?

Maybe it's not so hot in the middle of winter, or 3AM.

Carson specifically stated it was for heating hot water.

Obviously you haven’t spent much time on a plumbing forum.

It’s a running joke in places like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Left Seater wrote:The advance needed for green energy isn’t better solar panels or better wind mills. It is battery storage. When battery technology takes the next few generational leaps, wind and solar make much more sense.

Agreed, batteries are the future of renewable energy but the current technology is not advanced enough to maximize value of system line losses. Today, they essentially act as a go/no-go gate to the grid that can open once a day.

smackaholic wrote:
Obviously you haven’t spent much time on a plumbing forum.

Or listening to old George Carlin monologues.

L45B wrote:

Left Seater wrote:The advance needed for green energy isn’t better solar panels or better wind mills. It is battery storage. When battery technology takes the next few generational leaps, wind and solar make much more sense.

Agreed, batteries are the future of renewable energy but the current technology is not advanced enough to maximize value of system line losses. Today, they essentially act as a go/no-go gate to the grid that can open once a day.

If we had better battery technology would we need such a large grid? Granted if liberal enclaves like Nantucket keep saying not in my back yard, sup Teddy Kennedy, we will. But with better battery technology we shouldn’t need this long widespread grid which leads to decent line losses. Yeah, Texas, Arizona and Nevada make a good bit of money firing up old outdated plants to keep the lights on in CA during times of heavy demand or natural disasters, but that could become unnecessary. Cities and counties could buy green power in lower rate windows and store it for use later.

Batteries have nothing to do with what Carson was referencing. That's solar-thermal, not photovoltaic.

California actually has had to sell power into Arizona at a loss during peak summer periods because of too much solar production. They have completed several grid-scale battery projects, with several more in the works.

Falling solar panel prices coupled with favorable national and state policies are giving energy storage technologies the jolt they need to electrify the market place. The latest such example is Pacific Gas & Electric that wants to install four battery projects totaling 2,270 megawatts.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilvers ... 0366cb6ee9


https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/ar ... ornia.html

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Batteries have nothing to do with what Carson was referencing. That's solar-thermal, not photovoltaic.

You're very well informed.


For a jumbo shrimp.

Thermal Co-Efficient

The amount of energy in joules it takes to raise the temperature of water from 6 degrees celsius to 13 degrees celsius

the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature from 12 degrees celsius to 18 degrees celsius

the amount of energy needed to maintain a 12 degree celsius temperature of a given volume of water over an established period of time

The United States has more fuel energy in coal than all of the Saudi peninsula has in oil and natural gas.

Now, get it out of the ground cheaply and burn it safely. That's your challenge.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Thermal Co-Efficient

The amount of energy in joules it takes to raise the temperature of water from 6 degrees celsius to 13 degrees celsius

the amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature from 12 degrees celsius to 18 degrees celsius

the amount of energy needed to maintain a 12 degree celsius temperature of a given volume of water over an established period of time

Is this a quiz?

Because if it is, it's poorly written.

About the first two - A joule is a measure of energy. To know how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of a volume of water, you need to know the volume of water and the starting temperature of the water.

In Canadian units, 1 gram (1 cc) of water at STP, 1 degree C, 1 calorie (4.184 J)

About the third one, it depends on the volume of water and the temperature difference between the water and its surroundings, as well as the thermal conductivity of water, air (or the ground if it's buried) and whatever the container is made from.

Yeah, I said all that...in shorthand.

Are you drinking from Moving Sale's water bottle, you fucking pedantic nit picker?

smackaholic wrote:
It’s a running joke in places like that.

You are a running joke in places like this.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Yeah, I said all that...in shorthand.

Are you drinking from Moving Sale's water bottle, you fucking pedantic nit picker?

On the third one I forgot to mention that you need to know the surface area between the water and its surroundings.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Yeah, I said all that...in shorthand.

Are you drinking from Moving Sale's water bottle, you fucking pedantic nit picker?

"Clean Coal"

kind of like Jumbo Shrimp

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

smackaholic wrote:
It’s a running joke in places like that.

You are a running joke in places like this.

Teed that one nice and high, didn’t I?

You’re welcome and fukk you!! :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Papa Willie wrote: Funny hearing how bloated the Chernobyl numbers were.

I'd beware, Soviet archives are not the place to go looking for accurate statistics on Chernobyl - the immediate response was information lock-down and outside high-level communications were all destroyed after the fact. Same with public pronouncements and I'm an unabashed apologist. There was much at stake, politically and internationally and that was catastrophic.

What you may be reading is shilling for the industry.

Wolfman wrote:We are the Arabs of coal...

Allah ahkbar!

<KABOOOM!!!>