quote:

Sith, you are living in a fantasy world if you think the base load can be switched to such imaginative energy sources without massive dire consequences.

They aren't imaginative but at this point you clearly don't want to listen so I suggest we both stop trying to convince each other and walk away. Further, I'm not saying switch now and I'm not saying turn the plants off. (A fact which I have stated 5 times now. Its new plants that we don't need until we have exhausted every other option.)

quote:

While you read your little book, I have been studying nuclear issues for 40 years and have heard all these tired arguments from the nuclear-phobes for a couple generations now. Nuclear plants can be designed and redesigned to operate safely and efficiently. If reprocessing plants are properly utilized and breeders put on line, the volume of dangerous waste can be sharply reduced by the end of the fuel cycle.

If this is what you learned then go back and recheck your facts. Reprocessing only slows the rate at which waste accumulates. The overall volume of waste must increase. The fission products that you can't use take up more space than the fissionable materials. If you use more fissionable materials you make more fission products which then take up more space. Its unavoidable.

I would also point out that the book is not my book and was a joint research project by two organizations with considerable time and energy invested into the topic at hand. I dare say some of the people that helped might have done more research than you. Certainly combined they have more experience in the field than you. Further, you refusal to even acknowledge it has a potential source of facts reaffirms that discussion on this matter is at a dead end between you and I.

quote:

What you propose is the dumbest possible solution to the problem; the fuel already exists by the thousands of tons. Not using the energy already available leaves us with vast stockpiles of fissile material that have to be stored , essentially forever. and can be turned back into weapons or contaminate the environment.

Yeah well you've done very little to prove your point. I would also point out that I once again am not totally against Nuclear power. We should use what we have built now and not build anymore unless other options end up not panning out. Of course the really funny thing is that using that fuel will cause it to become more radioactive and increase its volume while still requiring deep geologic storage in basically the same way. However, as a transition using what we have currently built is not a bad idea. We shouldn't be building hundreds of new plants though.

quote:

The Chicken Little approach will leave generations starved for energy and the industrial economy in ruins.

Proof? I've got facts and figures about how it can be done gradually and safely. Heck if the green revolution has shown us anything its that there is more money to be made from renewable energy and efficiency than anything else. They can create jobs inside the country for both skilled and unskilled laborers. Heck Hot Rock Geothermal would require the services of roughnecks for drilling and maintenance. There is a lot of work and money to be had there. I dare say a lot more than in Nuclear power.

quote:

of course, the promise of clean , inexhaustible Fusion Power is only 30 years away just as it has been for the last 50 years

You notice how I never even once mentioned fusion ever. Its because its not a near term goal and we don't really need it to be. The power crisis doesn't even exist. With the continued push towards efficiency, mild conservation, and renewable energy sources we'll easily have enough energy.

But once again I say you've made your stance clear and are slipping into what seems to be a rather angry state and before things degenerate further we should end this civilly. I really don't understand why people cannot remain calm and rational about these things. Why do you seem to have such an emotional attachment to Nuclear Energy?

Sithdarth, you strike me as someone who is easy to deceive and foolishly believes everything they read. Thank God you didn't read "Mein Kampf".

quote:

Sithdarth, you strike me as someone who is easy to deceive and foolishly believes everything they read. Thank God you didn't read "Mein Kampf".

I believe facts and figures presented in an intelligent referenced manner especially when said facts and figures come from a government agency that has no real reason not to be objective. In this case the book relies primarily on government studies by the Department of Energy for the source material.

Oh, like the facts and figures the C.I.A. presented proving Saddam had WMDs(which we now know were wrong)? Or the facts and figures that the Obama administration used to determine how deep the recession was(which they now admit were wrong).
I could go on, but I will spare you. Facts and figures are frequently wrong, however unbiased they may be. You should try forming your own opinions rather than just spewing out "facts and figures" that you read in a book.

Just for a reality check , sith, there are now permits under consideration for more than 17 new reactors and soon construction will start on at least a few of them. Oh, BTW, Pickens just shelved his massive wind farm project in Texas because it is NOT economically feasible. I'm not really wedded to nuclear power, but I don't like arguing about it with people with little grasp of the technology.

Wow, can you spell ignorant? Of course not.

quote:

Facts and figures are frequently wrong, however unbiased they may be. You should try forming your own opinions rather than just spewing out "facts and figures" that you read in a book.

When did opinions become more truthful than fact? Answer, never. That statment probably came from someone unfamiliar with science.

quote:

Oh, like the facts and figures the C.I.A. presented proving Saddam had WMDs(which we now know were wrong)?

Those of us who bothered to think about the info that was presented never believed Saddam had WMD's in the first place.

quote:

Sithdarth, you strike me as someone who is easy to deceive and foolishly believes everything they read. Thank God you didn't read "Mein Kampf".

Another ignorant statment. Mein Kampf has absolutely no persuasive power unless one is a german nationalist. And history has clearly shown nationalism tends to lead to violence. I am actually not aware of a single instance in which nationalism didn't lead to violence. Amaerica is just as guilty of propaganda as germany ever was.

Come up with some actual critisms or stop arguing.

Answeres to Qwerty, in order:
1) Opinions should be made based on multiple sources, not just regurgitating what one book stated.
2) You just proved my point. Those who read reports and don't bother to think about them are idiots.
3) You have obviously not read Mein Kampf.
You are an idiot.

quote:

Just for a reality check , sith, there are now permits under consideration for more than 17 new reactors and soon construction will start on at least a few of them. Oh, BTW, Pickens just shelved his massive wind farm project in Texas because it is NOT economically feasible. I'm not really wedded to nuclear power, but I don't like arguing about it with people with little grasp of the technology.

This means absolutely nothing besides the fact that the people in charge hold different opinions that I do. Further, no Nuclear power plant would ever be economically feasible if the power companies actually had to pay the cost of taking care of the waste. But like I said before you don't want to be convinced and I'm not going to be convinced so its just better to go our separate ways.

Oh and Qwerty leave him alone it isn't worth getting into a argument with him.

quote:

Oh and Qwerty leave him alone it isn't worth getting into a argument with him.

Yes, leave me alone. I don't care for lowering my intellect to a sub-standard level so I can make sense to you people.

quote:

Originally posted by jharlander:

quote:

Oh and Qwerty leave him alone it isn't worth getting into a argument with him.

Yes, leave me alone. I don't care for lowering my intellect to a sub-standard level so I can make sense to you people.

And I am going to take my ball and go home.

theTroll

quote:

The first are base load type plants like Hot Rock Geothermal. The second are energy storage options. A third is natural gas/bio mass/hydrogen stand by power plants. In the future before you instruct someone to consider the entire issue it might be prudent to double check that you have done so.

Did you know that hot rock geothermal can induce earthquakes. They stopped the Basel Switzerland project because of it. Take my word for it, you will never see geothermal produce more than 10% of the US electric needs in your lifetime. (And that is being generous.)

Natural gas plants are over-used. They are great with low NG prices. I’ve seen two major NG shortages with high prices in the last 35 years. When the next one happens, it will be even worse. The fuel cost adjustments to keep pace with spiraling NG gas prices will be incredible.

Biomass works, but again I see a limited future. I have seen a couple of them fail because the biomass that they counted on, dried up due to economic changes. Trucking in a replacement biomass became too expensive, so the last I knew, they were unused and available for purchase.

Hydrogen ???? You will have to explain that one. Where are you getting it and how are you converting it to electricity. And, please indicate what type of efficiency you expect to have.

You might also explain your magic energy storage options. If the US was producing say 30% of its electricity by solar, how would you store it for use later. How many days reserve would you factor into the storage ? What in and out efficiency do you expect.?

I have considered the entire issue. I have been in the electric power business since 1974. I have even built geothermal power plants. So, I can’t wear the rose colored glasses that you have. I am aware of the realities of the electric system, and how far off some of the technology you are counting on, really is.

quote:

Oh and Qwerty leave him alone it isn't worth getting into a argument with him.

Probably sensible advice.

quote:

Yes, leave me alone. I don't care for lowering my intellect to a sub-standard level so I can make sense to you people.

I love the irony of that

quote:

Did you know that hot rock geothermal can induce earthquakes. They stopped the Basel Switzerland project because of it. Take my word for it, you will never see geothermal produce more than 10% of the US electric needs in your lifetime. (And that is being generous.)

Did you know its also been done successfully elsewhere? Plus source that statement about it never being more than 10% your word is meaningless.

quote:

Natural gas plants are over-used. They are great with low NG prices. I’ve seen two major NG shortages with high prices in the last 35 years. When the next one happens, it will be even worse. The fuel cost adjustments to keep pace with spiraling NG gas prices will be incredible.

Chances are in the future we'll be using less natural gas for heating and we won't have quite as much problems from spikes.

quote:

Biomass works, but again I see a limited future. I have seen a couple of them fail because the biomass that they counted on, dried up due to economic changes. Trucking in a replacement biomass became too expensive, so the last I knew, they were unused and available for purchase.

Seriously read the book or just agree to stop arguing with me. I am not interested in repeating back every point made in it to you. But in short the biomass of the future will be grown specifically for energy generation. Some of it, microalgae, can even be used to clean the CO2 out of the exhaust from coal plants as an interim step towards better methods of energy generation.

quote:

Hydrogen ???? You will have to explain that one. Where are you getting it and how are you converting it to electricity. And, please indicate what type of efficiency you expect to have.

You use idle solar and wind power that you don't need to split water into hydrogen and store it for use later. There are various ways to turn it into electricity from there. Its not going to be 100% efficient but it should be at least as efficient as current methods of energy production.

quote:

You might also explain your magic energy storage options. If the US was producing say 30% of its electricity by solar, how would you store it for use later. How many days reserve would you factor into the storage ? What in and out efficiency do you expect.?

I bet if you went and read the book that was written specifically to address how to make the transition you might actually find those answers.

quote:

I have considered the entire issue. I have been in the electric power business since 1974. I have even built geothermal power plants. So, I can’t wear the rose colored glasses that you have. I am aware of the realities of the electric system, and how far off some of the technology you are counting on, really is.

I'll say the same thing to you as I did to dfez. Lets agree to disagree before this becomes uncivil. You have made up your mind and show no signs of being open to any other point of view. You've decided you know all you need to know and so this argument is going to go nowhere.

I would also like to add that the natural gas option is a really bad idea. Much of the central part of the country counts on Natural Gas for heating and our heating costs are directly tied to market prices. It's already punishingly expensive to heat our homes in the North Central plains and bidding up the price of the limited supply to generate electricity will result in enormous hardship and, most likely people freezing to death.

quote:

I would also like to add that the natural gas option is a really bad idea. Much of the central part of the country counts on Natural Gas for heating and our heating costs are directly tied to market prices. It's already punishingly expensive to heat our homes in the North Central plains and bidding up the price of the limited supply to generate electricity will result in enormous hardship and, most likely people freezing to death.

The first steps towards moving to a new energy system would be to change that. There are several other viable options for heating which if I recall correctly are addressed in the book a linked. Usually its a combination of very good insulation, solar or geothermal, with a small amount of natural gas backup.

quote:

You use idle solar and wind power that you don't need to split water into hydrogen and store it for use later. There are various ways to turn it into electricity from there. Its not going to be 100% efficient but it should be at least as efficient as current methods of energy production.

There is no such thing as idle solar or wind. It is all gobbled up immediately upon generation (other than the microscopic amounts stored in batteries, primarily by off griders).

Since current estimates suggest that solar and wind MIGHT provide 14% of the nations needs by 2030, where do you expect to find this idle generation ?

You then are going to use this non-existant "surplus" for electrolysis (maybe 60% effecient) to make hydrogen and an unspecified method (unknown effeciency) to convert it back. Great plan. How does $2/kWh power sound to you ?

quote:

There is no such thing as idle solar or wind. It is all gobbled up immediately upon generation (other than the microscopic amounts stored in batteries, primarily by off griders).

Since current estimates suggest that solar and wind MIGHT provide 14% of the nations needs by 2030, where do you expect to find this idle generation ?

Not so much actually. Especially in my state wind farms are often told to scale back production when demand drops because they are easier to throttle back than other plants. Instead of simply shutting down turbines or solar panels they could be making hydrogen and such. I'd expect someone in the electric industry since 1974 to understand the concept of idle capacity and that just because something on average provides 14% of power does not mean it continuously feeds all of its available power into the grid.

quote:

You then are going to use this non-existant "surplus" for electrolysis (maybe 60% effecient) to make hydrogen and an unspecified method (unknown effeciency) to convert it back. Great plan. How does $2/kWh power sound to you ?

Electrolysis done right can reach near, or even over, 90% efficiency. Some approaches look at increasing the surface area of electrodes and some at catalysts for the reaction.

Here is some reading.

And a little more reading.

As for the conversion to electricity there are several options in the form of fuel cells or just straight up burning it in a turbine. These are generally as efficient if not more efficient then current methods of generation. One way or another we have to pay for idle electricity generation at least this way it does something useful.

I still think we should stop this now. You've got an opinion I can't understand and I have an opinion you apparently can't understand there really isn't much hope for either of us changing our minds.

Edit: It is prudent to remember that wind and solar never sell up to the amount of power they are forecasted to be able to supply for a day or even an hour. They always leave a wind margin of error which sometimes leaves a lot of capacity not being used. This capacity is the prime target for energy storage.

“Especially in my state wind farms are often told to scale back production when demand drops because they are easier to throttle back than other plants.”

That is crazy. They should throttle back hydro (water release requirements permitting) to save water. Throttling a steam plant is easy, it saves fuel. Someone should look at why they are throttling wind. Many states have mandates that all of the renewable power must be purchased. Only occasional dire circumstances would allow the utility to throttle them back.

“Electrolysis done right can reach near, or even over, 90% efficiency.”
We are talking of electrolysis of water, not pure hydroxide.
Show me one place where an electrolysis plant of industrial capacity comes even close to that figure.

“It is prudent to remember that wind and solar never sell up to the amount of power they are forecasted to be able to supply for a day or even an hour. They always leave a wind margin of error which sometimes leaves a lot of capacity not being used. This capacity is the prime target for energy storage.”

If you are not selling all the solar you forecast to produce, then you just made a bad forecast.
With wind you intentionally buy a much larger capacity than you need. It is because the manufactures rate the machine at 28-32 miles per hour and you are putting it up in an average wind speed of 12-15 mph. You need the much bigger machine to get the capacity you want at the lower wind speed. The “extra” capacity cannot be used unless you hit that rare day where the wind is blowing harder.

quote:

We are talking of electrolysis of water, not pure hydroxide.
Show me one place where an electrolysis plant of industrial capacity comes even close to that figure.

Like I said they haven't been commercially developed yet but the technology exists and less than a decade of research and funding should be more then sufficient to bring it to commercial viability. Also, those electrolysis methods I pointed to both work on water.

quote:

If you are not selling all the solar you forecast to produce, then you just made a bad forecast.
With wind you intentionally buy a much larger capacity than you need. It is because the manufactures rate the machine at 28-32 miles per hour and you are putting it up in an average wind speed of 12-15 mph. You need the much bigger machine to get the capacity you want at the lower wind speed. The “extra” capacity cannot be used unless you hit that rare day where the wind is blowing harder.

Unless you want an unstable grid you always sell less power than you are foretasted to generate from a source like solar or wind. Having more power just means shutting something down. Having too little power means your pretty much screwed if you don't have reserve capacity somewhere else. It common sense in terms of the power grid to always err on the side of caution. This means if you do it right you always have at least as much energy as you are contracted to sell with as little idle capacity as possible. But again I'm pretty sure all this is right in that book I linked and it explains it far better than I do.

Also, again this discussion really isn't going anywhere can we agree to disagree and part amicably?

Quite right. Sithdarth has made some points I can agree with. He also made some assertions that I find completely off base. But that is okay. He is obviously an intelligent person who has done a fair amount of research on the subject.

Just because he has a different view of the issue and comes to a different conclusion doesn't mean that he (or anyone else) deserves to be insulted or maligned.

I opted out of the discussion earlier because I think Sithdarth brings a great deal to the conversation and didn't see any reason to risk hard feelings over something that will be decided independently of what we all think.

Be civil folks. Please?