Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 12 Aug 2010 03:16 untergangsprophet wrote: > > On 9 Aug., 03:33, Mark <makol...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > It's easy to tell when solar becomes economical... > > > > when the factory that makes solar panels has them on the roof and uses > > them to power itself.. > > Good point, the factories should start to put dummy-panels on their > roof. Then who will be on their board of directors?
From: Bill Sloman on 12 Aug 2010 04:10 On Aug 12, 12:38 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:18:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Aug 12, 12:38 am, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > >> Koning Betweter <Kon...(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081115332791513- > >> Koning(a)Stumpernl: > > >> > On 2010-08-10 15:15:53 +0200, Sylvia Else said: > > >> >> On 10/08/2010 9:59 AM, Koning Betweter wrote: > >> >>> solar systems make consumers independent when they generate > >> >>> their own energy. > > >> >> Let's see them disconnect themselves from the grid, and then we'll see > >> >> how independent they are. > > >> >> Sylvia. > > >> > The grid in my country is getting more expensive by time. Every year I > >> > have used the same amound of energy, but the prices is about 100,00 > >> > more. > >> > With an of-grid installation, it's only a matter of time to be cheaper > >> > as the energycompany. > > >> > It doesn't matter how you generate your energy, it's just cheaper to > >> > use the energy around us like sun, wind or water. > > >> evidently NOT,because few people are doing it. > >> Particularly with their own money. > > >> > You just need the space to build your plant and the money to invest. > > >> > If you're living in a big building with many other families, you > >> > probably have no chance to generate your own energy, except methangas. > > >> form a co-op. > >> If its so beneficial,then everyone in the building would join. > > >Human nature doesn't work that way. > > >> BTW,trying to generate practical,useful quantities of methane gas in a > >> residential building might be a hazard to other occupants.(explosions) > >> It might even be a nuisance.(odors) > > >It is difficult to get methane to burn, let alone explode. Methane > >itself is odourless, but some of the waste that can be fermented to > >produce methane is smelly. Any system that collected methane safely > >isn't going to let the malodourous contaminants leak out. > > We must have a different definition of "methane". Around here, it's > CH4, and it lights easily, burns fiercely, and explodes at air > concentrations between 5 and 17 per cent. It burns easily in burners that are designed to accomodate the relatively flame propagation rate. When the UK went over to natural gas, every gas cooker needed new burners. > We cook and heat with the stuff. I've never found it "difficult" to > light. Good engineering does involve fiding solutions that work. > http://www.landfill-gas.com/html/landfill_gas_explosions.html > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion > > A consequence of the explosive properties of methane: "The use of the > title "engineer" in Texas remains legally restricted to those who have > been professionally certified by the state to practice engineering" > > I recall a couple of residential natural gas explosions in San > Francisco since I've moved here. It's difficult to avoid some risk of explosion with any kind of gas heating - if the gas supply leaks you can build up a considerable volume of an explosive mixture of gas and air, aka a fuel-air bomb. There are techniques which can minimise the risk - such explosions do seem to be rarer than they used to be. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Bill Sloman on 12 Aug 2010 04:19 On Aug 12, 11:07 am, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:35:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > > > > > > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Aug 12, 1:08 am, John Larkin > ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman > > ><snip> > > >> >> >John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is > >> >> >prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he > >> >> >finds their expert opinion unattractive. This is genuinely crazy. > > >> >> I believe we WILL ignore it. > > >> >Perhaps. Until the consequent climate excursions get too expensive. > >> >The Russians aren't enjoying their unusually hot summer and the wide- > >> >spread bush-fires that have come with it, but this might still just be > >> >a particularly improbable deviation from the historical norm rather > >> >than a tolerably likely deviation in the series of progressively > >> >warmer summers that the current global warming > >> >has already delivered - a warming of 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) > >> >during the 20th century. > > >> >You burn your carbon and they take their chances. > > >> Thanks, I will. The Audi is a blast to drive on the hills here. > > >Fine. You've got grand-children, and you will do your little bit to > >make their lives more difficult. I've got grand-nieces and - nephews, > >and your self-satisfied ignorance will make their lives more difficult > >to pretty much the same extent - California and Australia are both > >running out of fresh water already, and the immediately predictable > >consequences of global warming don't include increased rainfall in > >either area. > > Such predictions are no better than chance. This is - in itself - a prediction. You are assuming that the people who are doing the modelling have got the same inadequate grasp of physics as you do, so you assume that their predictions are as arbitrary and off-the-cuff as yours. > California is running out of water mostly because we live in a desert where people insist on growing huge plots of stuff like rice and cotton. But they will find it harder to get the water to do this if the rainfall patterns change - as seems likely - as global warming eadjust the global weaterh patterns. > ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/163828.pdf > > We still had 10 feet of snow piled up against the side of our cabin on > July 4th. Weather is a lot of random variation around what used to be the more or less stable mean values that define climate. Stick enough CO2 in the atmosphere and the means start moving. You'll still get the occasional 10 feet of snow, but less often. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Jim Yanik on 12 Aug 2010 10:02 Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in news:2010081203281869917-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > On 2010-08-11 15:47:41 +0200, Sylvia Else said: > >> On 11/08/2010 11:33 PM, Koning Betweter wrote: >>> On 2010-08-10 15:15:53 +0200, Sylvia Else said: >>> >>>> On 10/08/2010 9:59 AM, Koning Betweter wrote: >>>>> solar systems make consumers independent when they generate >>>>> their own energy. >>>> >>>> Let's see them disconnect themselves from the grid, and then we'll >>>> see how independent they are. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> The grid in my country is getting more expensive by time. Every year >>> I have used the same amound of energy, but the prices is about € >>> 100,00 more. With an of-grid installation, it's only a matter of >>> time to be cheaper as the energycompany. >> >> Really disconnnecting yourself from the grid implies having some >> other method of providing power when your solar panels won't. Energy >> storage is a problem. Batteries are expensive, and have a short life. >> And even if you've installed batteries to handle the nightly loss of >> solar power, you still need something else to cope with cloudy days. >> Your ultimate backstop is presumably a fossil fueled generator, even >> if you hope not to use it much. >> >> All of this costs money. Getting a really independent system down >> anywhere near the cost of grid power is a tall order. >> >> I suppose some people might be happy to use power when it's >> available, and do without when it's not, but few would willing to >> live that way. >> >>> >>> It doesn't matter how you generate your energy, it's just cheaper to >>> use the energy around us like sun, wind or water. >>> You just need the space to build your plant and the money to invest. >> >> Money invested has a cost. At its simplest the cost is the interest >> forgone - instead of buying the gear to produce your energy, you >> could have put the money in the bank, earned interest on it, and used >> the interest to buy energ from the grid instead. >> >> Even if you do decide to buy the plant, it won't last forever >> (batteries particularly), so you need to allow for future >> replacement. It's not a one-off investment. >> >> Sylvia. > > I can't deny, using energy cost money. > Batteries are painfull for the wallet. > A pure sine-wave converter is also expensive. > > I hope to find a place somewhere once, without neighbours and > surrounded with a lot of nature. > Connecting to the grid will be very expensive. I am finding ways to do > without the grid. > There are a lot ways to reduce the use of electricity. that's one way;lower your lifestyle,live as people did in the 19th century. Or,you could go modern,build nuclear plants and have safe,clean,reliable plentiful electric power 24/7/365 for decades before refueling,and have a better lifestyle. Lifestyle is tied to cheap,plentiful energy. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: John Larkin on 12 Aug 2010 10:22
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:19:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >On Aug 12, 11:07�am, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:35:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Aug 12, 1:08�am, John Larkin >> ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman >> >> ><snip> >> >> >> >> >John Larkin wants to believe that we can ignore this and he is >> >> >> >prepared to write off the whole scientific establishment because he >> >> >> >finds their expert opinion unattractive. �This is genuinely crazy. >> >> >> >> I believe we WILL ignore it. >> >> >> >Perhaps. Until the consequent climate excursions get too expensive. >> >> >The Russians aren't enjoying their unusually hot summer and the wide- >> >> >spread bush-fires that have come with it, but this might still just be >> >> >a particularly improbable deviation from the historical norm rather >> >> >than a tolerably likely deviation in the series of progressively >> >> >warmer summers that the current global warming >> >> >has already delivered - a warming of 0.74 � 0.18 �C (1.33 � 0.32 �F) >> >> >during the 20th century. >> >> >> >You burn your carbon and they take their chances. >> >> >> Thanks, I will. The Audi is a blast to drive on the hills here. >> >> >Fine. You've got grand-children, and you will do your little bit to >> >make their lives more difficult. I've got grand-nieces and - nephews, >> >and your self-satisfied ignorance will make their lives more difficult >> >to pretty much the same extent - California and Australia are both >> >running out of fresh water already, and the immediately predictable >> >consequences of global warming don't include increased rainfall in >> >either area. >> >> Such predictions are no better than chance. > >This is - in itself - a prediction. You are assuming that the people >who are doing the modelling have got the same inadequate grasp of >physics as you do, so you assume that their predictions are as >arbitrary and off-the-cuff as yours. > >> California is running out of water mostly because we live in a desert where people insist on growing huge plots of stuff like rice and cotton. > >But they will find it harder to get the water to do this if the >rainfall patterns change - as seems likely - as global warming eadjust >the global weaterh patterns. > >> ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/163828.pdf >> >> We still had 10 feet of snow piled up against the side of our cabin on >> July 4th. > >Weather is a lot of random variation around what used to be the more >or less stable mean values that define climate. Stick enough CO2 in >the atmosphere and the means start moving. You'll still get the >occasional 10 feet of snow, but less often. Probably more often, but who knows? Our climate is an enormously complex chaotic system with unknown inputs and dynamics. Nobody can usefully model a thing like that. It's more likely (but really unknowable) that more CO2 will increase evaporation, which has got to come down as precipitation. And more CO2 will definitely make plants happier and, as you have pointed out, more water-efficient. Some recent studies suggest that plants and animals can adapt very quickly (which only makes sense) and epigenics is a real part of that. We were, in the big picture, seriously running out of CO2. Too much has been sequestered over the last few billion years. It's our job, as useful organisms, to dig some up and make it available to the biosphere. BP did its small share to help. What's cool is that the Gulf is full of bacteria that love hydrocarbons and gobble them up. I bet they have a whopping shrimp and fish season next year. But where are the zillions of killer hurricanes that the AGW bunnies predicted? John |