solar power is nice but not effective

[NeverEndingMe]

solar power is a nice little science project but lets face reality, its not practical. I'm all for using solar, however, we need more nuclear power plans.

its just that simple.


obama needs to pull his head out of his ass and wake up to reality

 

[RoryN]

You're just biased because you're a dim bulb.

 

[Bert Notorius]

It's dark here.

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

solar power is a nice little science project but lets face reality, its not practical. I'm all for using solar, however, we need more nuclear power plans.

its just that simple.


obama needs to pull his head out of his ass and wake up to reality

Works wonders for me...and I use a shit load of electricity, still get a check each month.

If the 780 billion dollar bail out had been used to produce solar panels and put them on homes/business's nation wide. We wouldn't need any new power plants in fact we could shut the vast majority of them down...and we would still have had billions left over.

But Obama wanted his union votes from GM as well as votes from all the other industries, I'm sorry...toxic assets he poured money into.....can't blame him.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

Works wonders for me...and I use a shit load of electricity, still get a check each month.

If the 780 billion dollar bail out had been used to produce solar panels and put them on homes/business's nation wide. We wouldn't need any new power plants in fact we could shut the vast majority of them down...and we would still have had billions left over.

how big of a system did you install? how much did it cost you? what do you pay per k/hr? what do the pay you per k/hr you sell back?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

solar power is a nice little science project but lets face reality, its not practical. I'm all for using solar, however, we need more nuclear power plans.

its just that simple.


obama needs to pull his head out of his ass and wake up to reality

how big of a system did you install? how much did it cost you? what do you pay per k/hr? what do the pay you per k/hr you sell back?

I don't have all the stats on hand but I'll sum it up.

14,000w system, little under 30 grand (before fed tax credit, little under 20g's after), used to have a 5-800 dollar a month electric bill depending on my plant's light cycles/time of year...now I make anywhere from a few bucks up to 37 bucks! (most I have gotten back so far) depending on cycle/time of year. July/aug I might pay out a little bit...we will see as this will be my first summer with them. But the system has a 30 year life expectancy...and considering my biz it will MORE than pay for itself. Also paid out the ass for LED grow lights...high up front cost but it was smart for the long term. (half the wattage, 1/3 the heat, 15x the life span over MH/HPS lights).

However I could see it not paying for itself very quickly if you don't depend on a shit load of it for income. However the more popular they become...the cheaper they will get via market competition, it may take time but it will come down and more people will get them...if it works out that way I might get some more as my system might not completely offset July/aug heat.

Solar farming maybe? If the cost of the systems keeps dropping as it has been (slow and steady) and the cost of coal/nuke energy keeps going up it wont be very long before it becomes a legit option.

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

(Warning: Wall of Text)
It saddens me that there is seemingly no discussion of the further development of nuclear energy in our country. We used to lead the world in this area but since the late 1970's we have done nothing to build new technologies in this area. The follow paper is an excerpt on what is needed to address the climate issue that we face. To me the key component of this paper is its discussion of the nuclear power option. If we are really going to solve our energy dependence this needs to be front and center. I am not talking about the existing reactors as we all know their risks. We must move forward with the 4th generation of nuclear reactor technology (the reactors in the US are at best 2nd generation or retrofitted with some 3rd generation safety measures).

Some discussion about nuclear power is needed. Fourth generation nuclear power has the potential to provide safe base-load electric power with negligible CO2 emissions.

There is about a million times more energy available in the nucleus, compared with the chemical energy of molecules exploited in fossil fuel burning. In today’s nuclear (fission) reactors, neutrons cause a nucleus to fission, releasing energy as well as additional neutrons that sustain the reaction. The additional neutrons are ‘born’ with a great deal of energy and are called ‘fast’ neutrons. Further reactions are more likely if these neutrons are slowed by
collisions with non-absorbing materials, thus becoming ‘thermal’ or slow neutrons.

All nuclear plants in the United States today are Light Water Reactors (LWRs), using ordinary water (as opposed to ‘heavy water’) to slow the neutrons and cool the reactor. Uranium is the fuel in all of these power plants. One basic problem with this approach is that more than 99% of the uranium fuel ends up ‘unburned’ (not fissioned). In addition to ‘throwing away’ most of the potential energy, the long-lived nuclear wastes (plutonium, americium, curium, etc.) require geologic isolation in repositories such as Yucca Mountain.

There are two compelling alternatives to address these issues, both of which will be needed in the future. The first is to build reactors that keep the neutrons ‘fast’ during the fission reactions. These fast reactors can completely ‘burn’ the uranium. Moreover, they can burn existing long-lived nuclear waste, producing a small volume of waste with half-life of only decades, thus largely solving the long-term nuclear waste problem.

The other compelling alternative is to use thorium as the fuel in thermal reactors. Thorium can be used in ways that practically eliminate buildup of long-lived nuclear waste.

The United States chose the LWR development path in the 1950s for civilian nuclear power because research and development had already been done by the Navy, and it thus presented the shortest time-to-market of reactor concepts then under consideration. Little emphasis was given to the issues of nuclear waste. Today the situation is very different.

If nuclear energy is to be used widely to replace coal, in the United States and/or the developing world, issues of waste, safety, and proliferation become paramount. Nuclear power plants being built today, or in advanced stages of planning, in the United States, Europe, China and other places, are just improved LWRs. They have simplified operations and added safety features, but they are still fundamentally the same type, produce copious nuclear waste, and continue to be costly. It seems likely that they will only permit nuclear power to continue to play a role comparable to that which it plays now.

Both fast and thorium reactors have been discussed. The Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) concept was developed at Argonne National Laboratory and it has been built and tested at the Idaho National Laboratory. IFRs keep neutrons “fast” by using liquid sodium metal as a coolant instead of water. They also make fuel processing easier by using a metallic solid fuel form. IFRs can burn existing nuclear waste and surplus weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, making electrical power in the process. All fuel reprocessing is done within the reactor facility (hence the name “integral”) and many enhanced safety features are included and have been tested, such as the ability to shut down safely under even severe accident scenarios.

The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements.

This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solidfueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste, albeit with less efficiency than in a fast reactor such as IFR.

Both IFR and LFTR operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWR’s. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (40% in IFR, 50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). Both IFR and LFTR have the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.

Both IFR and LFTR are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs.

In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.

It is commonly assumed that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030. That is a safe assumption under ‘business-as-usual”. However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner. It is specious to argue that R&D on 4th generation nuclear power does not deserve support because energy efficiency and renewable energies may be able to satisfy all United States electrical energy needs. Who stands ready to ensure that energy needs of China and India will be entirely met by efficiency and renewables?

China and India have strong incentives to achieve pollution-free skies as well as avert dangerous climate change. The United States, even if efficiency and renewables can satisfy its energy needs (considered unlikely be many energy experts), needs to deal with its large piles of nuclear waste, which have lifetime exceeding 10,000 years.

 

[koalabear]

I just bought a solar key and board and it wor

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

chalk up another thread I killed

 

[Bert Notorius]

It's dark here.

 

[atmas]

Energy Costs
1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH
1 barrel of oil costs $70 = $0.05 per KWH
1 cubic foot of gas $0.008 = $0.03 per KWH

For our 5-KW solar energy system costing $45,000, the conversion to KWH is as follows:

5 KW times 90% = 4.5 KW – (Conversion of DC to AC power)
4.5 KW times 3.63 hours = 16 KWH per Day
16 KWH x 365 = 5,962 KWH – (Average Annual Output)
5,962 KWH x 20 years = 119,246 KWH – (Total output over 20 year lifespan)

So a $45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH. ($45,000 divided by 119,246 KWH)




http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html
Somewhat dated (oil is going for close to $90 per barrel) but the takeaway is obvious.

 

[Bert Notorius]

Plus they work in the dark.

 

[Hubs_in_hose]

seeing how you totally ignored my post about nuclear I will respond to the solar bit.

There is not a "one time" cost for solar and they continue to convert electricity indefinitely. The solar cells break down over time. The current solar cells lose 50% of their efficiency in less than 10 years. They convert less and less electricity every year. Solar and wind can augment the power needs but they can not provide the base.

Another issue we have is the inefficiencies of our power grid. We loose a great deal of electricity every day due to our outdated grid.

 

[about_average]

I think it's funny the people who want to build nuclear plants to help reduce our dependence on "foreign oil".
I've yet to see an explanation of why switching from foreign oil to foreign uranium is better.

Also, so many of the people who want nuclear are always blabbing on about how great the "free market" is, ignoring the fact that in a free market nuclear power, at least in the US, is a failure.

 

[contrifan32]

I think it's funny the people who want to build nuclear plants to help reduce our dependence on "foreign oil".
I've yet to see an explanation of why switching from foreign oil to foreign uranium is better.

Also, so many of the people who want nuclear are always blabbing on about how great the "free market" is, ignoring the fact that in a free market nuclear power, at least in the US, is a failure.

Because the "free market" should not include government regulations that are so restrictive that a reliable and viable energy source can be underutilized. Why is it that the French nuclear program is so successful. Have you ever wondered why a nuclear reactor is such a reliable source of power and propulsion for the US Navy?

 

[phrodeau]

Because the "free market" should not include government regulations that are so restrictive that a reliable and viable energy source can be underutilized. Why is it that the French nuclear program is so successful. Have you ever wondered why a nuclear reactor is such a reliable source of power and propulsion for the US Navy?

That's because they don't leave a trail.

 

[about_average]

Have you ever wondered why a nuclear reactor is such a reliable source of power and propulsion for the US Navy?

Nope, I know exactly why it is.
By your apparent logic I should be able to go to the local car dealer and buy an fully armed M1 Abrams.

 

[ForkedTongue]

Because the "free market" should not include government regulations that are so restrictive that a reliable and viable energy source can be underutilized. Why is it that the French nuclear program is so successful. Have you ever wondered why a nuclear reactor is such a reliable source of power and propulsion for the US Navy?

So successful it had to shut down reactors in 2003 due to hot weather.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/

 

[trysail]

It's poetic and fascinating to contemplate the gargantuan hypocrisy of the vast quantities of electricity being consumed to cool the enormous data farms of the Google greenies.

Since it's cloudy and the wind isn't blowing, prodigious amounts of fossil fuel are being burned by the necessary redundant generating plants to generate the electricity required by Internet-fixated members of Greenpeace and the credulous believers of the disputed CAGW conjecture.

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/01/oregon_homeowners_can_now_go_s.html

 

[thør]

It's poetic and fascinating to contemplate the gargantuan hypocrisy of the vast quantities of electricity being consumed to cool the enormous data farms of the Google greenies.

An industry for Barrow! or for Nunavut!

No AC required.

 

[oggbashan]

Last year I was staying on a holiday park when the power went off. Someone had driven a car into an electrical sub-station, cutting electricity for a couple of square miles.

I couldn't get a drink in the park's bar. Although they had cans of beer in the fridge, they couldn't sell them because the tills require electricity to record the sale and they wouldn't open to give change.

But - I could walk easily around the site because all the roads and sidewalks were lit by solar-powered lighting. The park installed the solar-powered system a couple of years earlier and the saving on their electricity bills paid back the capital cost within 9 months.

Many road signs in the UK are now solar powered. For new signs the authorities save hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on the cabling that used to be needed. Some of the signs have solar and wind power that charges a car-sized battery. The only down-side? The batteries have to be locked into place otherwise they are stolen by professional thieves.

 

[contrifan32]

So successful it had to shut down reactors in 2003 due to hot weather.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/health/

Yes but just think... if we have another ice age we will have all the cold water we need for cooling.

 

[contrifan32]

That's because they don't leave a trail.

Is that the only reason?

 

[Frizzle_Fry]

Because the "free market" should not include government regulations that are so restrictive that a reliable and viable energy source can be underutilized. Why is it that the French nuclear program is so successful. Have you ever wondered why a nuclear reactor is such a reliable source of power and propulsion for the US Navy?

If it poses a very real threat to the health and welfare of the environment (and thus every living thing in it) yea they should. At that point fuck the free market you can't allow a handful of people to dump toxic shit all over your citizenry for the sake of making a buck. I.E. "clean coal" what a crock of shit....

Some of these high efficiency nuke reactors are pretty bad ass....but they will cost a fucking arm and a leg to build and you will STILL have toxic waste and a nice fat electric bill.

Wind/solar/hydro/geothermal ...sure...higher up front cost....long term though they spank the shit out of coal/nuke energy sans the pile of toxic shit.