And the profits grow

[--Pete]

Over the line, Pete.

-Bolty

[Jester]

I'm not sure we are going to change your mind on the value of nuclear power here. I don't think you're correct, and I think your arguments are shot full of holes, many of which have been pointed out to you already. So, perhaps it is time to abandon this line of discussion. I hope you continue to look into this, and clear your mind of the preconception that nuclear must be somehow a bad option, and instead rationally weigh the costs and benefits.

However, there are a few points of posting ettiquette that might be emphasized, if you'd care to keep debating here with us regular hacks.

First, please reply to the person you're replying to, and not to the first post in the thread. Figuring out who you're talking to becomes very difficult otherwise. The "outline" view is wonderful for this, although it breaks down for very long threads.

Second, please use the quote tag when quoting people. You split your posts into a great many fragments, each responding to a separate quotation, and not even always from the same person. This is tough to read even with visual clues. Without them, my eyes start to glaze over, and I suspect others' do as well.

Third, please mention who you are quoting from, and give more generous quotes for context. It is tough to figure out who said what, and in what context, when all we get is a snippet cut out for response.

Fourth, I know you haven't been treated with tremendous respect in this thread yourself, but please avoid the ad hominems. No matter who it is that's throwing them around, they do not add to the discussion. Reducing one's debating partners to gross stereotypes is one of the easiest ways to reduce a forum from a productive discussion to a deadlocked shouting match.

To the next,

-Jester

[kandrathe]

"I already explained why this is the case." No, you didn't, but you have now. So, it's because you expect electrical warming to become cheaper as other means. Apparently you don't mind having to spend 4 times as much energy, just to make a bit of (presumed) profit.

The point is... I don't spend more energy. My household has 4 people in it, and we spend less per person than you do apparently. My heating consumption measured in "Therms" is below average for people living in the Midwest. My energy just comes from one source, and for now a source that is %20 carbon free. As my power company moves to Wind, Solar, and Nuclear I will only get greener.

"We need heating, and cooling here or people die." Weren't you the one who said people shouldn't live in 'dangerous' places like New Orleans, after the events with Katrina? Maybe you should take your own advice, if you can't stand the 'heat'.

Winter and Summer are annual events. When you live below sea level, know your levy is rated for only a minor hurricane, and decide to stay in the city when a major hurricane comes is suicide. I said that people should be prepared for the negative consequences of where they live. You are telling me where to live (and most everyone in the world who lives above 40° N latitude.

"Since beginning operations in 1976, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel" ... Now, how exactly is this reactor type helping to reduce the amount of nuclear waste in the USA?

The waste hasn't been destroyed has it? It's still there, ready for reprocessing. Albeit, some of the older stuff has lost some of it's kick by now. The only thing that stops development in the USA, is political pressure by people who don't want anything nuclear developed. It comes down to this, your reason to not develop nuclear power is that nuclear power is not developed in the US.

"Tell me about your solar panel and all green things you are doing for the rest of us." I don't need a solar panel, because my energy bill is already only 10% of yours (through isolation and conservation).

Ok. Me too. I don't need a solar panel, because I use less energy than most people in my state. Besides, this is probably one of the worst places in the world for solar power.

"But, could it be done with green energy sources? Of course." Right. To reduce the problems of nuclear energy, you want to use 'green' energy sources. I thought nuclear power was already 'green' in your opinion.

Yes, we could use nuclear power to supply the energy to reprocess the fuel, and electric vehicles to transport the ore. Maybe we could give truckers a break, and let them use bio-diesel and emit a little CO2.

"How about the coal and oil needed to make and ship solar panels" -- Yeah, everyone knows that nuclear reactors and enrichment centrifuges grow on trees.

Um, what I was saying was a tit for tat argument. Reactors and centrifuges don't grow on trees, but neither to the facilities for manufacturing solar panels. Solar panels, just as nuclear facilities, have a limited life span, and so they will eventually need to be replaced. Solar panels don't grow on trees either, although trees are natures solar panels. :)

"There is simply no viable way to collect the vast majority of that energy" Why would you need that much? A total space as small as 2% of the uninhabited areas in the Sahara would be enough to fulfill all current energy demand. And that's without any improvement to existing techniques.

You were the one saying that the sun hits the Earth with caboodles of energy every day. He was merely pointing out that much of the surface of the planet is not feasible. So, we throw out 70%-90% of the surface... Now you are saying if we used some of the Sahara, that 2% would do it. The Sahara is 9,000,000 km².

Since you don't do any math to back up your crack-potted-ness... Let me do some. Surface area of the earth is 510,072,000 km², land is 148,940,000 km² (29.2%), we skipped forests, fields, mountains, etc. Now we are limited to deserts, which are wonderful places to live and work by the way. The Sahara is 9,000,000 km², or about 6% of the land area of the earth. So you would like to cover 1/3 of the Sahara with solar panels. Let's work backwards using 1.5 x 10^13 Watts as the power generation we need. Using "existing techniques" we are seeing about 165 watts/ square meter, so how much surface area would we need to generate the needed wattage? The good news is that you really only need 90,909 square kilometers of solar panels. So, not 3 million square kilometers, 91 thousand square kilometers. But wait... This area only has good sunlight for say 8 hours a day, so in order to supply the whole world you would need to triple the area, and store 16 hours of power in batteries. That would be a battery array in the Sahara holding 5×10^12 Joules of energy, or 1.38888889 × 10^9 watt hours. Here is an article
discussing the largest array of batteries in the world so far. Which cost $30 million dollars, and can deliver 27 MW for 15 minutes. Your battery array will need to be 3,292,181,073 times larger. More bad news is that batteries need to be kept cool, so you would need to supply some AC for your storage array or it will melt down.

More bad news is that at a modest $1,400/square meter it would cost about $125,636,363,600,000, and that is trillions of dollars. For cost estimates, I figured that the panels would be about half the cost, with the remainder in consolidation, storage and transmission. It might be more.

The US national debt is 9 trillion. Were you planning on borrowing the money?

Here is a description of the Sahara; "The Sahara occupies approximately 10 percent of the African Continent and is one of the hottest regions in the world, with mean annual temperatures exceeding 30°C. In the hottest months, temperatures can rise over 50°C, and temperatures can fall below freezing in the winter. A single daily variation of -0.5°C to 37.5°C has been recorded. The Sahara is also extremely windy. Hot, dust-filled winds create dust devils, which can make the temperatures seem even hotter."

Let's talk about maintenance... And, one last question. How would you get this power to New York? Oh, yeah. They live above the 40° N latitude mark. We abandoned that place.

"You seem to have this place confused with 'Moron Lounge'. Please go back." Never heard of it. Is that where you usually post, Pete?

The moron lounge would be where you would propose covering 1/3 of the Sahara desert with solar panels and everyone would call you a genius.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, my apologies to Bolty and the forum. Zenda's attitude makes me see red.

Fourth, I know you haven't been treated with tremendous respect in this thread yourself,

That's because the first thing he did was to attack kandrathe for his energy use. And he has continued to attack in almost every line of his posts. By making it personal, he has drawn fire. Combining his pugilistic attitude with his ignorance makes him one of the most irritating posters in recent memory.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Why would you need that much? A total space as small as 2% of the uninhabited areas in the Sahara would be enough to fulfill all current energy demand. And that's without any improvement to existing techniques.

I note that you blithely ignore how to get that energy from the Sahara to where people live. Are you going to force people to move to the Sahara, or near there, at gunpoint? K took care of some math for you, since you can't seem to do it yourself. Until you stop wishing away reality, it's very hard to take your input on energy seriously.

As to the rhetorical game you are trying to play with kandrathe, it's transparent horse manure.

To the Lounge veterans: Ron White once pointed out that

You Can't Fix Stupid.

Jester seems to have arrived at the same conclusion, more politely put.

Occhi

[Delc]

"There is simply no viable way to collect the vast majority of that energy"

Why would you need that much? A total space as small as 2% of the uninhabited areas in the Sahara would be enough to fulfill all current energy demand. And that's without any improvement to existing techniques.

As others have pointed out, you need to generate electricity near where its going to be used. And a quick look at a map will show you the vast majority of the human race is not currently living near deserts, as they tend to be pretty crappy places to live.

[Zenda]

Jester "I don't think you're correct, and I think your arguments are shot full of holes"

I mostly presented arguments from (in my view) reliable sources. My own arguments are much simpler and somewhat personal, but I will spare you those.

Jester "First... Second... Third..."

You are right that such measures would make my posts more readable, but I don't always have enough time to do things perfectly, nor to address every point that is made. Also, nearly all of my posts are written in notepad, without the help of those forum features.

Jester "Reducing one's debating partners to gross stereotypes is one of the easiest ways to reduce a forum from a productive discussion to a deadlocked shouting match."

You mean like using 'eurotrash'? I believe that word hasn't been used in this thread yet, so I'll better leave before it does.

[Occhidiangela]

You mean like using 'eurotrash'? I believe that word hasn't been used in this thread yet, so I'll better leave before it does.

You should have left one post sooner.

EDITED TO ADD: I am not sure what induced the account revoked, but I can't say I am sorry to have seen that come to pass.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

You should have left one post sooner.

EDITED TO ADD: I am not sure what induced the account revoked, but I can't say I am sorry to have seen that come to pass.

Occhi

I'm not sure why he has that there. It's a strange place to be from.

[Jester]

You are right that such measures would make my posts more readable, but I don't always have enough time to do things perfectly, nor to address every point that is made. Also, nearly all of my posts are written in notepad, without the help of those forum features.

To quote someone without the use of fancy forum features, simply begin the quote with {quote} and end it with {/quote}, except with square ][ brackets instead of }{. That way, it can be done in notepad, not just on the forum proper.

As per not having enough time, perhaps you should consider only posting when you do have enough time. There is no race here, and people will react far better to a well-thought out, well-formatted post than to one that looks like it was slapped together on the way out the door.

-Jester

[eppie]

Here is a description of the Sahara; "The Sahara occupies approximately 10 percent of the African Continent and is one of the hottest regions in the world, with mean annual temperatures exceeding 30°C. In the hottest months, temperatures can rise over 50°C, and temperatures can fall below freezing in the winter. A single daily variation of -0.5°C to 37.5°C has been recorded. The Sahara is also extremely windy. Hot, dust-filled winds create dust devils, which can make the temperatures seem even hotter."

Let's talk about maintenance... And, one last question. How would you get this power to New York? Oh, yeah. They live above the 40° N latitude mark. We abandoned that place.The moron lounge would be where you would propose covering 1/3 of the Sahara desert with solar panels and everyone would call you a genius.

Kandrathe, I know this is a response to zenda and you didn't come up with this whole desert thing but we are at this stage of the thread just talking nonsense.
1. We don't need 100% solar 2. solar works fine in other places then the Sahara (remember that solar cells need light, not heat).3. Prices of solar cells will go down, I estimate that 50 dollar for a square meter will not be far off in 20 years (organic cells) 4. These cells can be integrated everywhere, (roofs, windows, cars etc, tremendously decreasing the needed area).

In all, solar cells will get much cheaper so that we don't need these super high yields, we will be able to put them everywhere, directly on the places where the electricity is needed (giving far less loss then compared to your nuclear or coal plant 200 miles from your house).
1 thing, we need chemicals to make these organic solar cells.....so let's just hope we don't finish all the oil before we can start producing them large scale. :D

[--Pete]

Hi,

1. We don't need 100% solar

Right. This is where a lot of the supporters of one technology or another get it wrong. No one technology needs to do it all, they all have a part to play. Mostly, anything decreasing the carbon footprint is good.

3. Prices of solar cells will go down, I estimate that 50 dollar for a square meter will not be far off in 20 years (organic cells) 4. These cells can be integrated everywhere, (roofs, windows, cars etc, tremendously decreasing the needed area).

In all, solar cells will get much cheaper so that we don't need these super high yields, we will be able to put them everywhere, directly on the places where the electricity is needed (giving far less loss then compared to your nuclear or coal plant 200 miles from your house).
1 thing, we need chemicals to make these organic solar cells.....so let's just hope we don't finish all the oil before we can start producing them large scale. :D

What you are saying about solar cells, right down to the twenty year prediction (adjusted for inflation), I first heard in high school. That was in 1962, give or take a year. The fact that the technology is *still* twenty years away after forty-six years does not fill me with confidence. Should we continue the research? Yes. Should we depend on the results? Only if we're collectively all idiots.

Wind works now, nuclear works now, tidal and geothermal (where the conditions are right) work now. Solar? Maybe, someday. But you can't cook your food or heat your house with technology that will be developed in the future. You need something that works now, not a promise for tomorrow.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
What you are saying about solar cells, right down to the twenty year prediction (adjusted for inflation), I first heard in high school. That was in 1962, give or take a year. The fact that the technology is *still* twenty years away after forty-six years does not fill me with confidence. Should we continue the research? Yes. Should we depend on the results? Only if we're collectively all idiots.

Wind works now, nuclear works now, tidal and geothermal (where the conditions are right) work now. Solar? Maybe, someday. But you can't cook your food or heat your house with technology that will be developed in the future. You need something that works now, not a promise for tomorrow.

--Pete

Pete, a lot of things have changed. In 1962 if I'm correct we were using the first silicon crystal solar cells. These things work (for years already) are very effective, only cost a lot (just based on the price of ultrapure silicon).
Now a lot (and I mean a lot) of research is done (both in academia as in industry) on several kinds of cheaper cells. (dye sensitized, polymeric) Both have been produced in small scale and work reasonably well, we are not talking about the big breakthrough that nuclear fusion needs). The only reason why we see too little of them is of course that at the moment investments for people to start using them are too big, and it is still a bit unknown. But like eg the PC, cell phones or CD players there is an S curve....we are still at the beginning, just waiting to kick off.
During this time research will continue to improve things, but that needs some investments....that is why it is important to start using these things asap.
Transparent cells, flexible cells etc. have all been prepared on small scale and do work, the bottlenecks now are small adjustments and things like durability. Further it will mainly be infrastructure.

I am positive about this.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pete, a lot of things have changed.

Yeah, I know. I read Science News every week.

Both have been produced in small scale and work reasonably well, we are not talking about the big breakthrough that nuclear fusion needs).
. . .
Transparent cells, flexible cells etc. have all been prepared on small scale and do work, the bottlenecks now are small adjustments and things like durability. Further it will mainly be infrastructure.

I am positive about this.

You see, there's the past, the present, and the future. I am seldom positive about the present, infrequently about the past, and *never* about the future. I've seen too many ideas, technologies, concepts, etc., that had great promise and never amounted to anything. Years ago, Physics Teacher had a humorous 'exam' in its April issue. In that exam, it asked you to list all the undiscovered elementary particles, give their properties, and discuss how the laws of physics would be changed by the discovery of each. Of course, it can't be done, and the humor is in the contemplation.

It's the unforeseen problems that kill technologies. And that is why pilot programs are needed. And why, until a technology has been successfully used for some time, it is unproven and untrustworthy.

So, I hope that solar will eventually pay off. I know that solar heating has done quite a lot. But I sure don't want to bet the future of our technological society on something that has been 'almost there' for half a century.

--Pete

[Zenda]

Occhidiangela "You should have left one post sooner."

Since you insist, I'll add a few more remarks.

Occhidiangela "I am not sure what induced the account revoked, but I can't say I am sorry to have seen that come to pass."

Let me refresh your memory. Several years ago, while you were moderator on the Diablo forum, you also liked insulting me and everyone else you didn't agree with. When I complained about that, I was more or less given the advice to shut up. Having an account without being able to use it properly seemed useless to me, so I considered it 'revoked'.

Jester "There is no race here, and people will react far better to a well-thought out, well-formatted post than to one that looks like it was slapped together on the way out the door."

I'll spent no more time on my posts here then I want to, just like anyone else. If people feel those posts don't deserve a response, let them stay quiet. Unfortunately, for some the urge to play vigilante is too great to overcome.

Jester "However, there are a few points of posting ettiquette that might be emphasized, if you'd care to keep debating here with us regular hacks."

Last time I checked, this was a public forum, with moderators to decide who gets/stays in or not. And no, I don't care to join the club of 'regular hacks'. There is little truth to be found in ivory towers. Some knowledge maybe (in ivory towers), but often not worth the effort to pry it out.

Btw, I'm not all that negative towards nuclear power. I actually believe we will need it, and not only for energy production (just like coal and oil have other uses besides being burned). But some of you seem to think that nuclear power will bring heaven on earth, so I felt obliged to put in a few countering arguments. Sorry if that was too much for the 'hacks' here B)

[Kevin]

<span style="color:#FF0000">Warning I'm feeding the troll a bit in this post but I do think I provide a little entertainment and information for your reading time, but mostly I'm feeding the troll.

But some of you seem to think that nuclear power will bring heaven on earth, so I felt obliged to put in a few countering arguments. Sorry if that was too much for the 'hacks' here B)

Who? I'd like to know where you got this misinterpretation from. I've seen no one that thinks this way. I see a lot of people that see us having an energy problem right now and who see nuclear as a way to provide an immediate solution that has less of an impact on the environment than what is currently being used. That means it's a step in the right direction. Even Pete who is very pessimistic about unproven techs is very much for spending more on research of other options.

Maybe you think Kandrathe with his calculations of how much matter would be needed if we had 100% efficiency nuclear fusion is living in a fantasy dream land, but if you think that you really missed the mark again. It was overstatement to illustrate a point.

As to why I'm feeding an obvious troll like you? Well as you say, it's a public forum, even though it isn't which you nearly grasp later when you comment on the moderators. Your speech is not legally protected on these forums as best as I understand how the laws have been applied to forums in the past. This is a private forum with public access. The moderators are allowed to censor whatever they like and you have no real legal recourse to defend yourself.

Anyway I got off track there. I'm feeding your ego by responding to your post so that others skimming these threads in the future understand that many of us know what a forum troll is and that we do understand not to feed them to make them go away but that yes we will play with them for a bit after trying to honestly help them.

All of Jester's advice, which you again spit vitriol at, was simply to help you so that people would be more likely to read what you post and not just skip it. Not everyone will wade through it like I did. So if you really believe that you are helping folks out by railing against the ivory tower of ignorance inhabited by the forum hacks you should at least be wise enough to make sure the people get your message. A revolutionary that sits in his home and yells at his T.V. really doesn't pick up a lot of followers.

[kandrathe]

...

Btw, I'm not all that negative towards nuclear power. I actually believe we will need it, and not only for energy production (just like coal and oil have other uses besides being burned). But some of you seem to think that nuclear power will bring heaven on earth, so I felt obliged to put in a few countering arguments. Sorry if that was too much for the 'hacks' here B)

Hmmm, let me refresh your memory about what you inaccurately posted about nuclear power.

"The ultimate supply of uranium is believed to be very large and sufficient for at least the next 85 years"

That's right. Only 85 years, according to optimistic sources (like http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006...rces.html). Hardly worth investing in, I'd say, considering all the risks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium:

"In other words, there is very little high grade ore and proportionately much more low grade ore."

In other words, it won't be long before nuclear power becomes expensive too.

Your opinion was... "Hardly worth investing in, I'd say, considering all the risks."

People sought to clarify your inaccurate statement, pointing out that reprocessing spent fuel would extend the life by 2500 years. You never "ate crow", and admitted you were wrong. Then, you wrongly assumed that no one is doing spent fuel reprocessing. When pointed out that 8 nations are reprocessing, you said that the US is not doing reprocessing anymore. That is true, but due to political, not technical issues. Ok, now you are saying nuclear IS an option. But, do you still believe it will be too expensive and last a mere 85 years? Do you think the waste problem is resolved, or is it too risky? Your solution was Solar, but your vague solution was hardly viable now, was it? The truth is, the numbers I cranked out, and the engineering obstacles for the mega facility in the Sahara do not get smaller if you break it up into 100 facilities around the world. There are places where solar generation make economic sense, like Spain, or the US desert SW where the amount of sun received is powerful and consistent. In my area, we find that collecting solar power is better done with wind generators. I don't believe nuclear reactors should be built in areas prone to climatic or geologic catastrophe. I don't think anyone proposed a one technology solution.

Is there any hope for fusion reactors, such as ITER to come on line in the next few decades? No one has said that Nuclear is Nirvana, however, I for one think it is a better solution in some areas than investing in dilute solar power facilities or continuing to pollute the planet with coal fly ash, and pumping tonnes of CO2 and waste particulates into the atmosphere.

Again, I'm practical and pragmatic. I will support of the most economically viable least polluting technology. The US has a mountain of coal, and an even more gargantuan mountain of oil shale. I'd hate to see it burnt.

For my part, it's not your feeble argument, but the baseless ad hominem attack and inconsistency that is "too much for the 'hacks' here".

[Occhidiangela]

To quote someone without the use of fancy forum features, simply begin the quote with {quote} and end it with {/quote}, except with square ][ brackets instead of }{. That way, it can be done in notepad, not just on the forum proper.

As per not having enough time, perhaps you should consider only posting when you do have enough time. There is no race here, and people will react far better to a well-thought out, well-formatted post than to one that looks like it was slapped together on the way out the door.

-Jester

* Occhi applauds Jester's efforts to help stamp out wankerage on the Lurker Lounge. *

Well played.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Occhidiangela "You should have left one post sooner."

Since you insist, I'll add a few more remarks.

Occhidiangela "I am not sure what induced the account revoked, but I can't say I am sorry to have seen that come to pass."

Let me refresh your memory. Several years ago, while you were moderator on the Diablo forum,

Let me refresh your memory.

I was never a moderator on the Diablo forum. You can ask Bolty. You can ask Griselda. You can ask anyone who has been around a while.

Until you get your facts straight, you are adivsed to STFU. Feel more nostalgic now, for the good old days when I did not scruple to be kind to idiots?

I was trying to be nice. You have shown me, yet again, that you aren't worth the effort.

If the world were fair, you'd next go and play on a major interstate highway, since you'd have the honor in your soul to stop wasting oxygen.

Life ain't fair. You will continue in your primary vocation as oxygen thief. I'll accept that as the die roll the fates tossed us all.

But some of you seem to think that nuclear power will bring heaven on earth,

That, lackwit, is called a strawman. Comeback when you at least have some tin.

Occhi

[Zenda]

There are many things I'd like to say in reply to these last posts, but I think that Bolty, as well as the original poster of this thread, are not very pleased with the way the discussion goes. So I'll leave it as it is.