And the profits grow

[Zenda]

"So, 4.2 kWh / square meter is overly optimistic with this model of solar panel."

Ofcourse it is, because that number represents the total usable solar power per square meter. My calculation was based on only 10% efficiency (0.42 kWh), and it looks like your device is doing better then that.


"If only we had more places that gave 100% optimum solar conditions for 30 days a month."

No need for that. The number given is the average solar input for any location. Did you know, btw, that the world's best 'solar panels' operate quite nicely in the long dark night on the North Pole? The black skin and (specialized) white hairs of Polar bears actually work as a solar powered heating coat.


"The fact is that disposal of the remaining waste is a solved problem, mostly solved by the French."

You mean turning it into ammunition and spread around the world? Or store it somewhere and hope nothing happens with it?


"(solar power is) something that's still failing to prove itself after more than four decades of development."

Seems to me that the device that Kandrathe described works pretty well. Even without the huge investments that went into other forms of energy production. And as you said, delocalized application has benefits that could never be reached with nuclear power.

Btw, I've explained before (on this forum) why solar power isn't popular for investers. Use the search option if you want to know.


"Mr. Sokolov sure doesn't seem concerned."

He does say Uranium will last at most 800 years. That's if we manage to find every last atom on earth. Personnally, I think the supplies won't be able to cope with demand long before then (not even speculating on the price of that last atom).


Do we really want to continue 'burning up' resources? Oil, coal, uranium, thorium, our own food...

[Nastie_Bowie]

No, not just in my uninformed, stupid, usa centric opinion as you so elequently put it. More like in the opinion of 200 mill+ Americans perhaps??

I bet you voted for Bush, didnt you? :rolleyes:

If 200 million people have an idiotic idea, does that make it brilliant?

Yes, I did. Twice for Bush 41 and twice for Bush 43. If W could run again, I would vote for him again.

:w00t:

[Jester]

He does say Uranium will last at most 800 years. That's if we manage to find every last atom on earth. Personnally, I think the supplies won't be able to cope with demand long before then (not even speculating on the price of that last atom).

He doesn't say anything about "every last atom." Indeed, he breaks down exactly what he is talking about, and it doesn't involve tearing up the entire earth's crust for every scrap of Uranium. His numbers are just the sum of known sources, predicted sources, and unconventional sources *that cost less than $130/kg*.

Once again, I think you are misreading what he is saying. It does not support your contentions, rather, it undermines them for all but the longest conceivable time frames.

-Jester

[Chesspiece_face]

That's a lot of infrastructure my friend. Add to that another huge amount of energy needed for transportation and industry. I'm not saying solar won't help. I'm saying it is too dilute to be the magic bullet that will solve our energy problems. Hoping that endless investment into technology can undo the laws of physics (solar constant) is not the answer either.

I'm just going to comment on a couple points here real quick. I looked over the numbers you are supplying and at a quick glance they seem to be based off the present silicon designed panals. You say that if huge breakthroughs occur we could get efficiencies of up to 60% but those theoretical effeciencies are already possibilities. Here's the problem though, the 60% efficiencies are using Nanocrystal technology and the present 30% efficiencies are using the silicon technology. The difference is with the silicon tech each proton collision yields 1 electron and some excess heat while the nanocrystal tech has an increased chance to yield an extra electron instead of the wasted heat. Thus the efficiencies aren't equatable between the techs. A theoretical 100% efficiency with the nanocrystals would be 200% efficiency for the silicon panals. Even if you got to 60% efficiency with nanocrystals you would have already surpassed the maximum offered by the silicon.

Secondly i'll again comment on people's inherant proclivity to think linearly (not particularly speaking of you.) Yes, as of yet appearances are that solar isn't making many big breakthroughs. That's what an exponential curve looks like early on, when you are only doubling small numbers. Very quickly, however, those small numbers turn into large numbers and so on. At present solar power is rougly 7-8 times as expensive for the same amount of energy return as traditional oil fuels (if i remember correctly). But when you look at the rates of advancements in efficiencies of cost, solar is right on track to equal cost efficiency and surpass that of oil in about 5-6 years. You ask above about infrastructure? The second solar is as cost efficient or moreso you will see infrastructure real quick. You're the one that is the great capitalism prognosticator around here, it will come from the free market. If a business can invest in retooling their company to solar power and save over time they will do it fast. That's the second level of exponential advancement i mentioned earlier related to technology. As any technology advances along and becomes more effecient the amount of money going into it's development also goes up increasing the rate of advancement exponentially.

[Kevin]

Thus the efficiencies aren't equatable between the techs. A theoretical 100% efficiency with the nanocrystals would be 200% efficiency for the silicon panals. Even if you got to 60% efficiency with nanocrystals you would have already surpassed the maximum offered by the silicon.

Can you source this? Just because the figures we quote are watts doesn't mean they are based on anything to do with electricity. The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production. (SI is the International System of Units from the French from the French Le Système International d'Unités hence the SI abbreviation). So what is a joule? A joule is the SI unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of the force.

You can meaure, heat, electricity, the work done by a horse, etc in watts. What I read from you is saying that you get 200% efficiency from input energy. So that would seem to me to say that you could, if you were clever, create a perpetual motion device. You use an electric lamp to shine UV light on your solar panel which provides the energy for you UV lamp. How can you do this? Because the panel is producing 2 times the power that it is getting.

Again I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't follow what you say and what you say seems like it would break the laws of physics. Of course being of a scientific bent, I'm open to the idea that those laws are breakable (mainly because we don't understand them fully so we are misinterpreting something) but since they pretty much can be used to explain pretty much everything we observe I'm siding with them and using them like they are truths. And while you can change my mind (you can pretty much change my mind about anything), changing my mind about the laws of thermodynamics and the speed of light being constant is going to take some doing. :)

If a business can invest in retooling their company to solar power and save over time they will do it fast. That's the second level of exponential advancement i mentioned earlier related to technology. As any technology advances along and becomes more effecient the amount of money going into it's development also goes up increasing the rate of advancement exponentially.

Please keep in mind that nuclear power got slowed down on this curve because of government restrictions. I'm not fully convinced that they were needed, I'm also not fully convinced that they weren't needed. Unsafe things were being done in the early years of nuclear power and things may have been worse had governments not stepped in. It's possible they saved us from big issues. It's also possible they simply squashed the progress that would have allowed us to make things safer faster and to make the power more efficient and cleaner, etc.

You can't apply your curve to solar without applying it to nuclear either and you have to keep in mind that where we on the curve for nuclear is somewhat artificial since we were forced to stay there. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal/oil/wood/whatever. But the infrastructure can't be built for it. Again, prehaps I really do let myself be blind to the dangers of nuclear or I weigh things differently. I admit it's hard to weigh the issues of waste disposal and catastrophic meltdowns vs the effects of throwing all that extra carbon in the atmosphere and strip mining, etc. I think the long term and short term impacts of nuclear are lesser though. I could be wrong. And of course projecting it to the future you have to assume that it becomes rapidly cleaner and safer. Heck even the fossil fuels became cleaner and safer and more efficient over time.

[Kevin]

GG, I agree with everything you are saying. I have one other caveat with bio-fuel. I'm concerned about the impact of overlapping the energy market with the food market. There will be a tendency to use arable land for fuel, that would otherwise feed the third world. In that case, where will compassion fall? Will it side with starving humans and economic stability, or will we continue to prevent drilling for oil in otherwise off limits areas?

Yeah, that is a real concern. It's yet another reason why my whole "what if the US had embraced ethanol like Brazil" thought needs more study. I've not looked at how much land that would require to meet X% of fuel needs. I've not looked at if the Brazilians are cutting down rainforests mostly to make room for crops for fuel, land for habitat growth or what not, to try and look at that environmental impact.

I'm not really worried that the price of corn that we eat would go up because of the demand for fuel because we don't eat the corn that would be grown for fuel creation. Just like we don't eat the corn that is grown to feed the animals that we eat or get our milk from. We can, but most of the corn humans eat is a different kind of plant. Most of the corn grown in this country most people wouldn't want to eat, they wouldn't like the flavor. But as you mentioned and as I kinda covered with my density issues, I would be worried about the impact on the food market for exactly the reasons you state. If fuel corn sells for $1/bushel and feed corn sells for $.85/bushel and corn for people only sells at $.75/bushel and wheat sells for $.50/bushel all 4 products have the same yield per acre (or you convert those figures into $/acre so the yield is accounted for), what would you grow on your 500 acres? Well you would grow fuel corn, which would lower it's price and likely raise the price of the other 3, assuming you were initially growing nothing, if you were growing wheat then it would be affected more as you have cut it's supply, but yeah, basic economics.

One potential answer to this is the processes that use everything, so that all you are doing is adding value to whatever you grow. Of course those processes don't produce as much fuel and they are more expensive to run to create fuel especially when you factor in transportation costs since a "traditional" ethanol plant would be place right next to the fields that were growing the crop that they were going to use, but a process that was just using the old stalks of the corn (which used to get composted/mulched/worked, whatever the term back into the soil so now you have to worry about the health of that soil more as some of that isn't going back in) after harvest, isn't going to set up as close to the fields that it is using.

So yeah, I still like the idea, and I still think it is workable but I do think it would have a negative and direct effect on the food markets or at least our taxes because the government could very well have to step in provide subsidies for food growers since I'm pretty sure the energy growers would be making more money.

[kandrathe]

"So, 4.2 kWh / square meter is overly optimistic with this model of solar panel." Of course it is, because that number represents the total usable solar power per square meter. My calculation was based on only 10% efficiency (0.42 kWh), and it looks like your device is doing better then that.

4.2 kWh / m2 / day (15,120,000 joules) is the number people throw about as an average usable solar yield. But, we can use your number if you like. It is still an optimistic figure which does involve atmospheric interference, albedo, and angle of incidence. Check out Calculating your daily solar energy harvest. That link refers to the "redbook". So, using the PVWATTS calculator for my area, I get 4.77 kWh/m2/day.

(source)According to the US DOE, 107 million homes used 1.1399 × 10^15 kilowatt hours, or 10,656 kilowatt hours per household per year. Average US household use is 10,656 kWh(/year) / 365 days = 29.195 kWh / day.

I spend about $200 a month on electricity, so figure $2400 per year. Using the Sanyo figure from yesterday, 1.6 m2 solar panel costs $1050, or 656.25 / m -- that of course does not include the DC2AC, batteries, and other components. My household uses about 140 kWh / day (yes, I'm higher than the normal 30 kWh since I'm 100% electric), so I would need 140 / 4.77 = about 30 sq m of solar panels costing about 30 x 656.25 = $19687.5 plus the related storage and transfer infrastructure (let's say another $10k to 15k). Of course, this number is totally fictitious because a solar panel has a peak load, and this particular one peaks at 200 watts over its 1.6 sq m surface area. So, if the sun happens to offer more than 200 watts at any moment in time the excess is wasted. But, let's ignore that fact and say I can use it all. The total initial estimated cost for my 100% solar system is $34687.5, and I get to pay to maintain my own infrastructure. My break even point would never be realized unless my maintenance costs are below my grid energy costs. My instinct is to assume a 10% maintenance cost / year, or another way to think of it is to consider the systems life cycle. Is it 10 years?, 15 years?, 20 years? Now, imagine the cost if we looked at using the actual Sanyo panel which captures much less that the 4.77 kWh available. Anyway I look at it, this seems to be too expensive a solution. I'd rather pay Xcel the 5 cents per kWh to power the grid and maintain it. Centralization in this case is keeping my power costs low enough. Even though my home is fully electric, I'm not subjected to the fluctuating price of petroleum as I would be if I had NG or Fuel Oil for heating.

"If only we had more places that gave 100% optimum solar conditions for 30 days a month." No need for that. The number given is the average solar input for any location. Did you know, btw, that the world's best 'solar panels' operate quite nicely in the long dark night on the North Pole? The black skin and (specialized) white hairs of Polar bears actually work as a solar powered heating coat.

Won't solar panels covering the arctic interfere with caribou migration and polar bear hunting? Isn't that the excuse for not taking 1000 acres of ANWAR to tap into the 3rd largest petroleum reserve in the world?

"The fact is that disposal of the remaining waste is a solved problem, mostly solved by the French." You mean turning it into ammunition and spread around the world? Or store it somewhere and hope nothing happens with it?

The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle. A yearly waste output from a French reactor is about 700 kg of waste, which they allow to cool, pulverize and seal in molten silicon for long term storage. Put on your chemistry hat. How much mercury is released from a coal fired plant in a year? How about arsenic? How about cadmium? How about lead? Ok, where and how carefully is coal waste (fly ash) stored? Now, how would you track the heavy metals contaminations from the millions of tons of coal waste as they leech into ground water? How would you discover if nuclear waste (which is planned storage) is moving?

Check out this article discussing the radioactivity of coal combustion. Do some googling on heavy metals contamination due to coal combustion to discover how big a problem we have.

"(solar power is) something that's still failing to prove itself after more than four decades of development."

Seems to me that the device that Kandrathe described works pretty well. Even without the huge investments that went into other forms of energy production. And as you said, delocalized application has benefits that could never be reached with nuclear power. Btw, I've explained before (on this forum) why solar power isn't popular for investors.

It's not popular for informed investors. But for the "feel good" crowd trying to assuage their consumption guilt it seems to fit. Much like Mr. Gore's company that will sell you eco-indulgences, or as they refer to them "Carbon Credits". It's nice that he gets to make a profit from forgiving his own usage. Check out the people behind Generation Investment Management LLP and Native Energy. Using the handy calculator, I could assuage my eco-guilt for about $50 per month. [sarcasm]Now, if only some newly elected President would mandate that everyone pay for their eco-guilt.[/sarcasm]

He does say Uranium will last at most 800 years. That's if we manage to find every last atom on earth. Personnally, I think the supplies won't be able to cope with demand long before then (not even speculating on the price of that last atom).

Again, why fixate on Uranium. Many atoms are fissile, or fusible releasing many Mev per atom.

Do we really want to continue 'burning up' resources? Oil, coal, uranium, thorium, our own food...

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What is eating, and breathing? What would you use to craft the solar panels? I enjoy having a fire in the fireplace once in awhile. I like using transportation to get to work. I enjoy the fruits of industry. How many hydrogen atoms would I need to fuse into helium to offset my lifetime power consumption? We really don't have a shortage of energy on Earth, just a lack of knowledge and the willpower to extract and use it. Consider that according to E=mC^2, 1kg of fissile or fusible matter will yield 10^17 joules / kg. My household uses 504,000,000 joules per day, meaning that 1kg of matter will power my home for 198,412,698 days, or about 543,596 years. But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter. Would you spare me that much?

[eppie]

I'm just going to comment on a couple points here real quick. I looked over the numbers you are supplying and at a quick glance they seem to be based off the present silicon designed panals. You say that if huge breakthroughs occur we could get efficiencies of up to 60% but those theoretical effeciencies are already possibilities. Here's the problem though, the 60% efficiencies are using Nanocrystal technology and the present 30% efficiencies are using the silicon technology. The difference is with the silicon tech each proton collision yields 1 electron and some excess heat while the nanocrystal tech has an increased chance to yield an extra electron instead of the wasted heat. Thus the efficiencies aren't equatable between the techs. A theoretical 100% efficiency with the nanocrystals would be 200% efficiency for the silicon panals. Even if you got to 60% efficiency with nanocrystals you would have already surpassed the maximum offered by the silicon.

There are many things to take into consideration and should not be mixed up.
Efficiency of a solar cell (amount of incident light that is converted to electrical energy). This is I believe around 20% for the high purity silicon devices sold now, and maximum 13 % for dye sensitized solar cells (which are not available on the market yet). There is tremendous amount of research done on these (and polymeric) cells and the price will be very low. So low that they may be cheaper than nuclear energy.

The other problem is the total amount of harvestable energy (what does the sun deliver per area). I think it means that putting giant solar cell fields in desert might not help us....the losses of transporting the energy to where people live will be massive. Solar cells need to be place where we live. Luckily the new type of cells can be made transparent and will be incorporated in windows, furthermore on roofs on top of cars etc. etc.

Solar WILL gives us a large part of our energy needs in the future (no doubt about it) but it will not give us all our energy. Many things will be better when done using liquid fuel (airplanes). Nuclear fission I think is already a thing of the past...it can gives us a few years, but then it is gone. Fussion like in the ITER project that Kandrathe mentioned......nobody knows but I am very skeptical. Making a working fusion reactor will be a far greater achievement than putting a man on the moon.

[Chesspiece_face]

Can you source this? Just because the figures we quote are watts doesn't mean they are based on anything to do with electricity. The watt (symbol: W) is the SI derived unit of power, equal to one joule of energy per second. It measures a rate of energy use or production. (SI is the International System of Units from the French from the French Le Système International d'Unités hence the SI abbreviation). So what is a joule? A joule is the SI unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves through a distance of one meter in the direction of the force.

You can meaure, heat, electricity, the work done by a horse, etc in watts. What I read from you is saying that you get 200% efficiency from input energy. So that would seem to me to say that you could, if you were clever, create a perpetual motion device. You use an electric lamp to shine UV light on your solar panel which provides the energy for you UV lamp. How can you do this? Because the panel is producing 2 times the power that it is getting.

Sorry. I probably wasn't clear at all about what i was talking about. All i was saying was that mention of efficiencies is blurry when talking about the two different technologies. If we could get 1 electron from each proton collision in a silicon panel that tech would be operating at 100% of it's potential. But if we can get 2 electrons from each proton collision from a nanocrystal panel those panels are also operating at 100%, it's just that the two numbers are referencing different things. Saying "here's how much energy we can get from present panels" and then extrapolating how much of these panels we would need to generate all our energy isn't really the point, as nobody is arguing that solar is efficient or effective at present.

You can't apply your curve to solar without applying it to nuclear either and you have to keep in mind that where we on the curve for nuclear is somewhat artificial since we were forced to stay there. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal/oil/wood/whatever. But the infrastructure can't be built for it. Again, prehaps I really do let myself be blind to the dangers of nuclear or I weigh things differently. I admit it's hard to weigh the issues of waste disposal and catastrophic meltdowns vs the effects of throwing all that extra carbon in the atmosphere and strip mining, etc. I think the long term and short term impacts of nuclear are lesser though. I could be wrong. And of course projecting it to the future you have to assume that it becomes rapidly cleaner and safer. Heck even the fossil fuels became cleaner and safer and more efficient over time.

Luckily until solar panels destroy and irradiate large areas and populations we won't have to worry about that issue. I have no personal issue with the use of nuclear power and it's an entirely rational argument that we should use that instead of the "dirtier" fuels. Politics, however, dictates that solar is good and nuclear is bad. I don't forsee this changing in the near future.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Nuclear fission I think is already a thing of the past...it can gives us a few years, but then it is gone.

Please, do some reading. Yes, if we continue (for political reasons) to use it the way it is being used today, then we'll get about a century out of it. That's a little more than 'a few years', and it gives us time to develop alternatives. But if we use it right (full recycling of 'spent' fuel), then it can give us about two millenia. And that's a hell of a lot more than 'a few years'.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm just going to comment on a couple points here real quick. I looked over the numbers you are supplying and at a quick glance they seem to be based off the present silicon designed panals. You say that if huge breakthroughs occur we could get efficiencies of up to 60% but those theoretical effeciencies are already possibilities. Here's the problem though, the 60% efficiencies are using Nanocrystal technology and the present 30% efficiencies are using the silicon technology. The difference is with the silicon tech each proton collision yields 1 electron and some excess heat while the nanocrystal tech has an increased chance to yield an extra electron instead of the wasted heat. Thus the efficiencies aren't equatable between the techs. A theoretical 100% efficiency with the nanocrystals would be 200% efficiency for the silicon panals. Even if you got to 60% efficiency with nanocrystals you would have already surpassed the maximum offered by the silicon.

Secondly i'll again comment on people's inherant proclivity to think linearly (not particularly speaking of you.) Yes, as of yet appearances are that solar isn't making many big breakthroughs. That's what an exponential curve looks like early on, when you are only doubling small numbers. Very quickly, however, those small numbers turn into large numbers and so on. At present solar power is rougly 7-8 times as expensive for the same amount of energy return as traditional oil fuels (if i remember correctly). But when you look at the rates of advancements in efficiencies of cost, solar is right on track to equal cost efficiency and surpass that of oil in about 5-6 years. You ask above about infrastructure? The second solar is as cost efficient or moreso you will see infrastructure real quick. You're the one that is the great capitalism prognosticator around here, it will come from the free market. If a business can invest in retooling their company to solar power and save over time they will do it fast. That's the second level of exponential advancement i mentioned earlier related to technology. As any technology advances along and becomes more effecient the amount of money going into it's development also goes up increasing the rate of advancement exponentially.

Solar Constant -- so make your nanocrystals 100% efficient for all I care, ya cannot defy the laws of physics...

[Scotty Voice]{Sung to the tune of "Sound of Silence" by Simon and Garfunkel}

Hello Captain Kirk my friend,
I see you need my help again.
Because you plan to fly at warp speed
To some place where your help they need.
And you’ll forgive me if I should seem to rant,
But I can’t
Defy the laws of physics.

But you’re bound to do more than that.
Since our ship is where it’s at.
You’ll ask me to go past warp six
My pleas to save me engines you will nix,
When I say o’er the intercom she
Can’t take no more,
You’ll ask me for
An end to laws of physics.

‘Cause that’s the only way it seems
We manage to get away clean.
Maybe Klingons will return fire,
We may draw someone ele’s ire,
Or we may just need to push it to the max,
I know we’ll tax
Those mighty laws of physics.

While you beam down to some place,
To meet up with some strange race,
I’ll have ta beam ye out of there,
While making a major repair
Of me engines that took so much strain
We disdained
All the laws of physics.

But somehow I’ll earn me pay,
As I beam ye home to stay.
And though I’ll fear she’s gonna blow,
In some way that I just don’t know,
I will manage to get Enterprise’s
Grand engines once again to fly
And some will say I
Can defy all the laws of physics.

[/Scotty voice] Lyrics by: Doug Baseball

There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power. The limit is that the solar constant at space is 1366 W / m2 which quickly drops as you get to sea level. Capturing 60% of a dilute source is better than 30% of a dilute source, yes. But, would my research money be better spent in Fusion which promises nearly unlimited yields?

[--Pete]

Hi,

All i was saying was that mention of efficiencies is blurry when talking about the two different technologies.

I may be mistaken, but I've long been of the impression that conversion efficiency is always defined as 'electric energy out / light energy in'. That makes it completely independent of technology or mechanism. What you are referring to is often called 'quantum efficiency' and is another kettle of fish entirely. However, the rules may have changed since last I looked.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

So this 877kWH per month includes water heating (normally done by gas) ? If so, the previously mentioned sun boiler can take care of that in many place son this earth.....and heating our water is often a very large part of the total energy costs (especially when people don't use air conditioning)

I doubt it includes/excludes water heating as every household is different. Solar hot water is a great idea, and if someone would get going and market an easily installable unit for our roofs it would sell like hot cakes. Another technology often overlooked is the idea of a "swamp cooler" for AC.

I saw a mansion built up on Lake Superior in the late 1800's that had incorporated a wind generated AC system for the house using a slow fan pushing the cool air down a central shaft, and pumping a small amount of well water up to the roof to evaporate around that central air shaft. The air shaft also had a duel use, it contained the dumb waiter which was hand powered and usually remained in the basement when not used to allow for air circulation. Pete was grousing a bit about high ceilings, but this huge house had them... in the summer, the hottest air will be above the human occupants. In the winter all the rooms had pocket doors so you could close off most of the unused rooms to conserve heat for those that were being used. The original heat plant in that house was a coal (it might have originally been wood) fired boiler in the basement, and each room had a couple radiators with handy valves for adjusting the heat to the rooms most used. Old farm houses had all the bedrooms in the 2nd floor to maximize heat conservation in winter, and in the summer the 2nd floor with open windows was cooled by frequent breezes. And, on the farm where I grew up, in the summer we left the house at day break, and really didn't spend much time inside the house until evening. In the winter, we shut off parts of the house which were kept just above freezing (and actually often used for food storage). Anyway, enough rambling... My point is that some of the older ideas on home architecture were very energy efficient.

[kandrathe]

1050 dollars?? That is about 14 euros!
:D

Google
is your friend! :whistling:

[Zenda]

"My household uses about 140 kWh/day"

Over 4 times the average? Don't you think that's irresponsible? You should be ashamed instead of trying to tell the rest of the world how to solve things. If it wasn't for people like you, we might not even have this problem.

"The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle."

At the moment, there is only one reactor in the world capable of doing this, and it's meant for research. The first commercial reactor that will work like this is planned for 2016 (with the current 'cheap' Uranium, such installations form a substantial financial risk, and it may take a long time before we see more of them). But even those reactors can only reduce the amount of socalled High Level waste, and they will increase the amount of Low and Mid Level waste (with half-times up to 200 years). While this looks like a great benefit, we must not forget that most accidents happen with Low Level waste.

"But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter."

Yeah, sure. But right now, you are burning huge amounts of coal and oil. We don't have fission yet, but you can already try to spend a bit less and buy a solar panel to compensate for the rest, you know.

"There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power."

The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...

Oh, and btw...

http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf

"Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using
current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent
(CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only
8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One
reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial
increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower
grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g
CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation
50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation
5g CO2eq/kWhel) [OEKO 2007]."

[kandrathe]

"My household uses about 140 kWh/day"

Over 4 times the average? Don't you think that's irresponsible? You should be ashamed instead of trying to tell the rest of the world how to solve things.

I already explained why this is the case. I use no fuel oil or natural gas. Now, if you want to compare carbon footprints... 1 KWH = 3,413 BTU, 1 cubic foot of NG/Propane = 1020 BTU, 1 gallon of heating oil = 139000 BTU. NG sells for about $13 to $15 per Mcf(1000 cubic feet), and people usually use between 70 and 100 Mcf/year for heating. People who use fuel oil typically use from 600 to 1200 gallons of fuel oil a year for heat, or 166,800,000 BTU's/year. That would be 48871.96 kWh/year, or 4072.66 kWh/month, 135.76 kWh/day. I use 669.92 Therm per year to heat and cool my home, while the average for the Midwest is between 700 and 1000 just for heating. I'm not ashamed.

When fuel oil reaches $4/gallon, they will be spending $4800/year for heating, and I will be spending $1260 ($.05/kWh).

We can debate the merits of electric baseboard heating if you like. I'm not a big fan of it either for efficiency, but the cost of refitting my home with a new geothermal heating/cooling system is not in my current budget. Part of the problem is related to where I live, Minnesota. A place that can get to -40F in winter (with sustained periods in January/February of -20F), to 103F in July (with some sustained period in the 90's F). We need heating, and cooling here or people die. So, should we all abandon the northern States? Evacuate Canada entirely! It's not uncommon for people around here to use the same or more kWh/day AND have gas or fuel oil heating.

If it wasn't for people like you, we might not even have this problem.

I've got a sharp stick and some ideas of where you can shove it.

"The French reprocess their spent fuel to reclaim about 95% of the usable fuel to return it back into the fuel cycle."

At the moment, there is only one reactor in the world capable of doing this, and it's meant for research. The first commercial reactor that will work like this is planned for 2016 (with the current 'cheap' Uranium, such installations form a substantial financial risk, and it may take a long time before we see more of them). But even those reactors can only reduce the amount of so called High Level waste, and they will increase the amount of Low and Mid Level waste (with half-times up to 200 years). While this looks like a great benefit, we must not forget that most accidents happen with Low Level waste.

Source: Nuclear Reprocessing or Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel for Recycle-- Since beginning operations in 1976, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years. Your knowledge and understanding is deficient here.

"But, I would only need enough for about 100 years, or about 0.184 grams of matter."

Yeah, sure. But right now, you are burning huge amounts of coal and oil. We don't have fission yet, but you can already try to spend a bit less and buy a solar panel to compensate for the rest, you know.

Make it economically viable and a net win and I will do it. You are also burning huge amounts of coal and oil. Tell me about your solar panel and all green things you are doing for the rest of us. NEWS FLASH: We do have FISSION! And, a large percentage(11%) of my energy is generated safely from it! 6% of my power comes from wind generators. 3.1% is from hydro. And, as XCEL gets greener, so too will I.

"There is a quickly realizable maximum energy yield in solar power."

The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...

And, you sir, maybe do not understand math or physics. Instruct me on how you plan on capturing enough solar energy to power New York City(146,887,419 MWh), and where the money will come from to pay for the needed infrastructure. You are probably just trying to insult me further, but in case you truly didn't comprehend, any device used to capture solar power will have a limit on how much sun it can capture. If a 1.6 sq. meter panel is rated for 200 watts, it doesn't matter how much sun falls on it. It will generate at most 200 watts as its peak capacity. Here is another *real* solar panel for your edification -- SunPower 215, costs $1,178.32, is 1.24 square meters, with 215 watts peak capacity, or 161.3 watts per square meter.

Oh, and btw... http://www.ecology.at/ecology/files/pr577_1.pdf

"Nuclear is not CO2 free if the whole uranium fuel cycle is taken into consideration. Using current uranium ore grades (~ 2% concentration) results in 32g of CO2 equivalent (CO2eq) per kWh of nuclear electricity (kWhel) in Germany. In France, it is only 8g/kWhel, while it is higher in Russia and in the USA, 65g and 62g respectively. One reason for this is the quality of uranium: the lower the grade, the more CO2. A substantial increase of nuclear electricity generation would require the exploitation also of lower grade uranium ores and thus would increase the CO2-emissions up to 120g CO2eq/kWhel, which is much more than other energy technologies: natural gas co-generation 50-140g CO2eq/kWhel); wind power 24g, hydropower 40g; energy conservation 5g CO2eq/kWhel) [OEKO 2007]."

This is a bit disingenuous. Do you want to measure the additional CO2 exhaled by the miners? Yes, nuclear fuel is transported and processed, which is currently done with hydrocarbon based energy. But, could it be done with green energy sources? Of course. How about the coal and oil needed to make and ship solar panels, or lead acid batteries used for storing electricity?

Get off your high horse, and get a clue.

[Delc]

The earth receives more energy from the sun in a year, then the total amount used by all humans in history. But maybe you are capable of wasting all of it, just by yourself...

There is simply no viable way to collect the vast majority of that energy, and there never will be. We can't collect all the sunlight over the oceans, or the arctic. Most people are generally opposed to clear cutting the forests to make room for solar panels. We still need some land to grow crops, which can't be covered up. In the end we are left with the deserts. But, most cities aren't built near deserts, so now we have to transmit the power thousands of miles which has massive limitations. Most notably reliability. I can't imagine the people in northern Canada want to trust their heat to every power line in between them and Arizona being in good condition.

As for the obvious answer of solar cells on top of buildings. That would only work in suburbia. I doubt even the little office building I work in could get enough solar cells on top of it to run the building, let alone the much larger towers downtown.

[Roland]

When fuel oil reaches $4/gallon, they will be spending $4800/year for heating, and I will be spending $1260 ($.05/kWh).

What do you mean "when"? Heating oil has been up over $4 a gallon for a little while now, and is only going to continue to rise. Granted, I'm in the Northeast, where everything is more expensive, especially heat.:P

Believe me, last year's winter was tough, both in extremity and in heating costs. This year will likely be worse, if only due to the cost. Gas is up. Electric is up (especially since they de-regulated it here in good old MA). Even wood is up, around $250 - $300 a cord for green. Dried is even higher.

Oh, and I don't think propane is that much cheaper than gas or oil out here. I don't have hard numbers, but I do remember that the price of propane shot up last year, and I don't think it's gone down any. There's just no easy solution except keeping the thermostat at 60 and bundling up.:P

[--Pete]

Over the line, Pete.

-Bolty

[Zenda]

"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. Apparantly you don't mind having to spend 4 times as much energy, just to make a bit of (presumed) profit.

"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'.

"Since beginning operations in 1976, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel"

Also from that source:

"In October 1976, fear of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. This was confirmed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing."

Now, how exactly is this reactortype helping to reduce the amount of nulear waste in the USA?

"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).

"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.

"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.

"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.



Removed undesired quote and reply.