<<  <  Page 9/16  >  >>
User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
NiteOwl_OvO   5/6/2013 12:12:47 PM

Turn down the flame a little. I think you've been drinking too much radiocative tea. As for personal attacks, you started them. Try reading your own comments.

You seem to have no intelligent input to give, just rants and regurgitated pro-nuke propaganda. I don't think you are changing anyone's attitude towards nuclear power. Certainly not mine. So lets stop wasting each other's time.


User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/6/2013 11:45:00 AM
Rob ... It just helps to take their irrational voices away, by taking their arguements about deaths and injury and putting it into perspective for the alternatives they are forcing, which exceed 1B deaths and environmental injuries from fossil fuels over the same time period. About 6 orders of magnitude worse.

They seldom do the math, and when they do they always short the solution by at a factor of 2-3 to hide costs which are 6-30 times higher, assuming that "conservation" (IE rolling blackouts) will make up the short fall.

User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/6/2013 11:21:47 AM
PatB say's "coal is neither clean nor cheap, you just don't see the damage it's doing."

Actually Pat, I do, and lump it into the whole fossil fuel problem including CO2 loading. My point is that for millions of other people, you have to give them a complete (not a half solution that will require brown outs and rolling black outs) that doesn't cost much more than what they have to pay today. And that includes not going farther in debt as a nation, and shifting the balance of trade farther off shore, as the solutions you suggest will. The $600T infrastructure change as you suggest it, will require largely off shore sourcing ... a debt load higher than this nation can support. Heck ... I don't believe we can support Obama's $16T debt loading.

The point is that strip mining for the metal ores you suggest are necessary, isn't likely to happen in the US ... which becomes a balance of trade problem ... plus jobs going overseas for the ore/metal processing and manufacturing of the wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries.

The last part of the equation, is that you can not use the car battery energy as stored, while we need to shift to non-fossil fuel electric cars ... the energy in those batteries needs to be recharged while not in use, and added to the total energy production, which you blindly cut in half.

The last part is, I've been running off grid sites for more than 10 years with a combination of wind and solar, combined with 21 days of storage. Those sites on average lose power 2-5 days a year, because it remains cloudy without wind. Sure there are places where that will not happen, but there are also lot's of population centers where it will. High storage is not an "option" as you suggest, as 3-4 week blackout are not an option either.

In the end, we either need to use coal/gas for generation, or Nukes ... as of today, Nukes are cleaner and safer - and nearly CO2 free.

Rob Spiegel
User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Rob Spiegel   5/6/2013 10:39:42 AM
Totally_Lost, I agree there is a discrepancy between the number of deaths we're willing to accept with traditional fuels and those we're willing to accept with nuke power. Thirty thousand auto deaths each year just doesn't make headlines.

User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/5/2013 1:03:56 AM
bear in mind the average house is able to go grid neutral with 5 KW of solar on the roof.

if you put 2 KW of wind up and 4 KW of solar on it's abotu 22K total and you should have 92% coverage during the day and 85% coverage at night.  If you have a chevy volt

you could just put in the wind turbine for $ 14 KW and let the car fill in the gaps.

also as the technology gets cheaper, the whole smash gets cheaper.  


coal is neither clean nor cheap, you just don't see the damage it's doing.



User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/4/2013 4:57:52 PM
1 saves
You state PV is: $30K/household

Plus a similar number for both Wind and storage costs, each of which is about two years after tax income for most people here (total six years after tax income), people that voted down a $200/yr tax increase for schools.

They already have a paid for Rawhide power plant, with plenty of cheap clean coal not far away.

ROTFL ... just how do you expect the environmental nazi's are going to force them to switch to solar/wind/batteries?

And you still haven't said where all the lead is coming from. Nor where all the toxic LI-Ion battery materials are going to come from.

From my perspective all this solar, wind, battery handwaving, is sounding more like the ethonal for fuel scam that got a lot of left leaning politicians rich from farm lobbists.

Net result ... half a solution, for six times the cost, that doesn't even work.

User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
patb2009   5/4/2013 3:21:53 PM


I'll assume your numbers are correct, which is a dangerous assumption.

It seems like you calculate the Battery requirement to be tied to Peak power production for 2 weeks.


The reality, is if you look at real scenarios like the University of Deleware scenario,



"The researchers found that generating more electricity than needed during average hours — in order to meet needs on high-demand but low-wind power hours — would be cheaper than storing excess power for later high demand."

""For example, using hydrogen for storage, we can run an electric system that today would meeting a need of 72 GW, 99.9 percent of the time, using 17 GW of solar, 68 GW of offshore wind, and 115 GW of inland wind,"

To get 72 GW, they needed 204 GW of Renewables, which is an over capacity factor of 2.8. The other way is to have small gas turbines that cut in when power drops for short periods.  Batteries and small hydro can give you the quick pulses, for a few seconds to minutes while turbines can provide drop out of minutes to hours.  Done properly, with a small to large system, you can get 100% up time.

The reality is grid management is going to change from 100% supply to a managed supply/demand smart grid.  Smart meters and grids will let grid operators shut down A/C, Appliances, and compressors for brief periods and Plug in Vehicles will allow a smart grid of Gigawatts.




according to stats, you have 300,000 people in Loveland MSA,  assume that means you have 200,000 cars and 100,000 dwelling units.  

"Our small Rawhide local power plant is a base 280 MW coal with 384 MW of demand gas, and peaked this last year at 653 MW. Annual production was 3.2TWhr"

you pull baseload of 250 MW and peak of 400 MW.

if you put 10KW on the roofs of homes,  THat can produce a Gigawatt.  (Hope i didn't slip a digit there) If you put 100 KW on the roofs of businesses,  that's a lot more power and the Platte River Power authority can  build a 200 MW solar array if they want.

Baseload wind is a similiar issue, for 250 MW of wind you want 3 x or 750 MW of wind


a conventional 30 Meter turbine is 250 KW,  so you need 1000 turbines to hit baseload and 3,000 turbines to hit your capacity factors.  a 30 m tower produces, 600,000 KWH or 600 MWH.  with 3,000 Towers, you get 1.8 TWH  and the Solar gets you the other half in spades.  

now a Gigawatt of solar PV lets look at the costs, German costs for PV is $3/watt.  That's a $3 Billion dollar investment or $30K/household.  Pricy but not end of the universe pricey.

Wind is $7/watt,  so, thats' 2-3 billion also.  

Now a good storage solution would help save 3-5 billion.  How do we do that? You say it's $5 billion in lead acid batteries, so it's no savings there. But if you look at Electric cars and V2G,  then that's 100,000 cars with 50 KW power systems and 40 KWH batteries.  THat's 5 GW and 4 Million KWH of surge.  people need cars anyways and in a few years, these cars will be cost neutral to gas cars.    Using cars helps avoid 50,000 in costs per car equivalent, which is why that will happen.


User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful -- Almost Certainly :)
Totally_Lost   5/4/2013 1:14:09 PM
"You say success is always available, but to quote Wargames" Sometimes the only way to win is not to play".

yes ...the only way to win against fossil fuel deaths, is not to play .... IE stop using fossil fuels ... I thought that was the big environmentalist aggenda. Significantly fewer deaths would occur from using Nuke generated electric power for business, residential, and transportation.

The few KW hours in a water tank will smooth over short production and consumption bumps.

Where is the storage for a few tera-watt hours going to come from when the clouds come in for a few weeks, during the shortest days of winter, and there isn't enough wind either?

60lbs of SLA battery is about 1kwhr of stored energy, and only 70% efficient ... 30 tons of lead for a mega-watt-hour. Our small Rawhide local power plant is a base 280 MW coal with 384 MW of demand gas, and peaked this last year at 653 MW. Annual production was 3.2TWhr. There is a 12MW wind farm just north of here, a couple others were attempted to be built but blocked by local residents. To replace the Rawhide plant would require a few thousand wind turbines, and 16 millions tons of lead acid battery. Just the lead alone, would be $32B, at current market prices ... which would skyrocket with increased demand. The cost for solar and wind generation is several times that. Add to that the annual reprocessing costs to recycle the lead, into new batteries, and we have a site budget that is about 100 times the current coal/gas plant that has a current total capital investement of $1.2B, and $160M annual opperating cost.

Sorry ... but large scale Wind and Solar, with Lead-Acid battery storage is just a pipe dream.

Replace fossil fuel world wide? Is there even that much lead ore left on the planet?

Let me give you a hint ... calculate the number of joules energy in the use of coal, natural gas, and oil used each day, then assume that for solar and wind power only, we will need about 21 days storage to be free from needing Nuke or Fossil fuel generation plants, assuming the population is willing to deal with a few several day outages, and severe multiple week power restrictions each year.

How many people will die strip mining that much lead? processing that much lead?

And I thought the environmentalists agenda was a lead free world, free of strip mining and everything horrible about processing ores.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/4/2013 1:06:20 PM

Clean Nuke electric power can prevent other fossil fuel byproduct deaths and injury, that harms thousands each year -- more deaths an injury in a year, than over the last 50 years of civilan Nuke power accidents.

Of course, these are to be ignored by the anti-nuke propagandists, that are supporting a hidden agenda of genecide too.

Quoted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning:


The true number of incidents of carbon monoxide poisoning is unknown, since many non-lethal exposures go undetected.[16][55] From the available data, carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common cause of injury and death due to poisoning worldwide.[115] Poisoning is typically more common during the winter months.[7][116][117][118] This is due to increased domestic use of gas furnaces, gas or kerosene space heaters, and kitchen stoves during the winter months, which if faulty and/or used without adequate ventilation, may produce excessive carbon monoxide.[7][119] Carbon Monoxide detection and poisoning also increases during power outages.[120][121][122]

It has been estimated that more than 40,000 people per year seek medical attention for carbon monoxide poisoning in the United States.[123] In many industrialized countries carbon monoxide is the cause of more than 50% of fatal poisonings.[3] In the United States, approximately 200 people die each year from carbon monoxide poisoning associated with home fuel-burning heating equipment.[83] Carbon monoxide poisoning contributes to the approximately 5613 smoke inhalation deaths each year in the United States.[124] The CDC reports, "Each year, more than 500 Americans die from unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning, and more than 2,000 commit suicide by intentionally poisoning themselves."[125] For the 10-year period from 1979 to 1988, 56,133 deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning occurred in the United States, with 25,889 of those being suicides, leaving 30,244 unintentional deaths.[124] A report from New Zealand showed that 206 people died from carbon monoxide poisoning in the years of 2001 and 2002. In total carbon monoxide poisoning was responsible for 43.9% of deaths by poisoning in that country.[126] In South Korea, 1,950 people had been poisoned by carbon monoxide with 254 deaths from 2001 through 2003.[127] A report from Jerusalem showed 3.53 per 100,000 people were poisoned annually from 2001 through 2006.[128] in Hubei, China, 218 deaths from poisoning were reported over a 10 year period with 16.5% being from carbon monoxide exposure.[129]

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/4/2013 12:32:28 PM
"you seem to ignore Chernobyl"

while you seem to ignore millions killed by fosil fuel byproducts every year, and millions more with health issues and cancer from them

 Unless you are supporting a hidden agenda of genecide, your priorities are completely messed up.

<<  <  Page 9/16  >  >>

Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
We celebrate Halloween with a look at 13 of the scariest technology-based horror movies of all time, as well as some real-life technologies that bare a frightening resemblance to what's on screen.
When Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek made headlines by hacking and crashing a Jeep last year, the event followed many months of study and trials.
A unique set of multi-network servo drives introduced by Mitsubishi Electric enables the company’s servo motion capabilities to be integrated into EtherNet/IP, EtherCAT, or PROFINET networks.
With a better understanding of materials’ response to load and temperature, researchers could potentially use the knowledge to improve design. The research could even help geologists studying plate tectonics.
A panel on cybersecurity at ARM TechCon called for regulations to protect the security of connected devices.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
Oct 10 - 14, Embedded System Design Techniques™: Getting Started Developing Professional Embedded Software
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9 | 10

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Next Course November 8 - 10:
Sponsored by 3M
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service