Possibly some bad news for Big Oil [Archive] - High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

unotis

06-25-2008, 04:31 PM

hatt

06-25-2008, 04:50 PM

junehhan

06-25-2008, 05:50 PM

You'll probably see electric rates rise, just like gas is. The good news there is, we can produce electricity ourselves, if we want to, and rely less on the grid.

If this electrical storage technology successfully comes to market, do you realize the powers, and special interest groups, both foreign and domestic, that would be upset? It would be huge.

That is what is really pissing me off about politics lately. It seems to be dominated by special interests more than ever before. What Unotis just said makes perfect sense, but it is even harder to sell it to the ignorant and brainwashed masses when the special interests are constantly spreading lies.

mobiushky

06-25-2008, 06:08 PM

Right now because of our aging power distribution system (the power lines are old and worn) that we only actually receive around 17% of the electrical power that is produced at the power source (the electrical power plant) at our home electrical outlets.

If we would just replace some of the lines and insulate the rest with new insulation, we would then reach upwards of 85 to 95% of the electrical power delivered to our homes.

We already have 104 nuclear power plants that produce almost 25% of our national electrical needs, if we added 296 new safe, cheap to run and build "Pebble Bed reactor" nuclear power plants, we would than have enough electrical power available we could easily sell excess power to other countries and see a surplus cost.

We could then just run all our vehicles on Hydrogen Fuel Cell power and Electrical battery power and we would not have to use any petroleum products anymore, not even to produce plastics (plastic can be recycled).

Just think within 5 years easy we could never again have to import any oil from any other country, especially countries that support terrorism.

All we need to do is educate the American Public so he sees the benefits and stops being afraid of Nuclear power which is much safer, cheaper and cleaner then oil or coal power. :D

Just curious, where did you get those numbers? 17% of generated power? I have a real tough time even thinking that's possible. I am now working on the second of 2 - 800MW super critical coal fired power plants. The parasitic load of the plants runs about 50MW which means 750MW is made available to the grid. I'm not sure where you come up with the additional 77% in losses. Considering that utilities start to get real fidgety about less than 1% losses in a transmission line. I'd just really like to see a link to a report that backs up that number.

Second, insulating a power line will do nothing to help avoid losses. in fact it actually worsens the problem by reducing the lines ability to shed heat. The only real enemy of electricity delivery is heat. So by insulating over head power lines, you make the problem worse.

Further, I would guess that only about 17% of generated power in the country is even used by residential consumers. The rest is large industrial and commercial consumers.

I'm not trying to bash you, but I'd really like to see the reports that back up what you're saying.

rbinck

06-25-2008, 08:06 PM

Just curious, where did you get those numbers? 17% of generated power?
...
I'm not trying to bash you, but I'd really like to see the reports that back up what you're saying.
I was going to ask the same thing.

unotis

06-26-2008, 09:38 AM

Just curious, where did you get those numbers? 17% of generated power? I have a real tough time even thinking that's possible. I am now working on the second of 2 - 800MW super critical coal fired power plants. The parasitic load of the plants runs about 50MW which means 750MW is made available to the grid. I'm not sure where you come up with the additional 77% in losses. Considering that utilities start to get real fidgety about less than 1% losses in a transmission line. I'd just really like to see a link to a report that backs up that number.

Second, insulating a power line will do nothing to help avoid losses. in fact it actually worsens the problem by reducing the lines ability to shed heat. The only real enemy of electricity delivery is heat. So by insulating over head power lines, you make the problem worse.

Further, I would guess that only about 17% of generated power in the country is even used by residential consumers. The rest is large industrial and commercial consumers.

I'm not trying to bash you, but I'd really like to see the reports that back up what you're saying.

Actually, looking back at the report, I understated the loss it is actually only 13% that arrives at our electrical outlets to be used.

The information comes from an report called "Actual energy supplies, coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, ethanol" June 3, 2007 ub-soft.com/public/energysu.html

And in the report it suggests insulating the transmission wires (to prevent heat loss thus power loss) and that would immediately bring the percentage up to 50% and replacement of old worn lines would raise it even further. That would reduce the energy resources needed to produce our electrical power by 75%.

Everything I put into the forum is backed by articles and research, maybe it is not everyone's opinion, I see enough evidence by researching that is seems to be the best information out there, put out by groups of scientists with a lot more knowledge and experience than I or any of us have on the subjects.

I'm very open minded and as new credible information becomes available, I will take that into account and mend any opinions accordingly.

glennb1

06-26-2008, 09:44 AM

You'll probably see electric rates rise, just like gas is. The good news there is, we can produce electricity ourselves, if we want to, and rely less on the grid.

Produce electricity with a gas powered generator ?
Back to relying on gas again.
Doh !!

QuantumIguana

06-26-2008, 10:00 AM

I've been looking into "solar shingles" that you put on your roof and blend into your other shingles. As the cost comes down, this may be more practical. This would take a lot of stress off the grid, by decentralizing some of the energy production. My roof is just fine now, but if I needed reshingling, I'd at elast consider this.

Capacitors are increasingly becoming better competitors to batteries. Right now, supercapacitors have 1/10 the energy storage capacity of batteries, but since capacitors have increased their capacity 10,000 times already, increasing it by another 10 times seems realistic. It would have the advantage of fast recharge times and the ability to be recharged many more times than are batteries.

dahur

06-26-2008, 11:53 AM

Produce electricity with a gas powered generator ?
Back to relying on gas again.
Doh !!

I would never consider producing my own electricity by using gas.
You're right. That wouldn't make any sense at all, unless you need to run a generator during outages.
We're having a 5kw grid tied system installed this year. And hopefully, that will take care of 100% or our electric. We actually over sized a bit in anticipation of getting an EV someday.

mobiushky

06-26-2008, 01:43 PM

Actually, looking back at the report, I understated the loss it is actually only 13% that arrives at our electrical outlets to be used.

The information comes from an report called "Actual energy supplies, coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, ethanol" June 3, 2007 ub-soft.com/public/energysu.html

And in the report it suggests insulating the transmission wires (to prevent heat loss thus power loss) and that would immediately bring the percentage up to 50% and replacement of old worn lines would raise it even further. That would reduce the energy resources needed to produce our electrical power by 75%.

Everything I put into the forum is backed by articles and research, maybe it is not everyone's opinion, I see enough evidence by researching that is seems to be the best information out there, put out by groups of scientists with a lot more knowledge and experience than I or any of us have on the subjects.

I'm very open minded and as new credible information becomes available, I will take that into account and mend any opinions accordingly.

First, it should be made very clear that the "report" you are referring to is not a report. It is an opinion. It is actually a very biased opinion that uses some very faulty reasoning to come to some completely wrong conclusions.

Second, he doesn't really provide any factual research based data for his assumptions about how the utility grid works. He just says things like "I think" or "I believe." In one paragraph he states that he was laughed at by the physics community. There is good reason that people would laugh at him.

Third, he is concerned only with reducing use of resources. Nothing else. That is telling by itself.

Finally, there is a very big difference between saying that only 13% of generated power is delivered to the end user and that only 13% of available energy is efficiently converted into electricity. Either way, I think he is exaggerating his claims significantly.

Some examples of where he is plain wrong.

“The most obvious improvement is to simply stop dumping enormous amounts of heat with cooling towers and the like, and instead, using some more expensive "low pressure" steam turbines to remove much of the heat from that otherwise wasted heat.”

A sub-critical high pressure coal fired power plant will operate in the efficiency range of about 36-38%. By increasing the temperature of the water to the super-critical point, above 705 F, and increasing the pressure you can increase the efficiency to above 40%. By increasing temperatures and pressures even further, to Ultra-critical, you get to 48% efficient. Lower pressure, lower temperature boilers are less efficient. Higher temperature and higher pressure allows you to take advantage of increased thermodynamic efficiency. What this guy is advocating is contrary to science.

“As to distribution electric lines, it may be possible to put thermal insulation around each wire, to reduce losses. This is done when such lines have to run in underground conduits, so the technology already exists.”

This guy has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such thing as “thermal insulation” for conductors. Insulation is added to conductors to prevent them from shorting across phases or to ground. The insulation used has very poor thermal properties intentionally. That is because as the heat increases, the resistance of the conductor material, copper or aluminum, gets higher. Higher resistance results in higher losses and more heat. It is best to keep the conductors as cool as possible to reduce resistance and in turn reduce losses. By “thermally” insulating the conductors, you trap heat in and in effect exponentially increase the losses and heat levels. Remember, this guy doesn’t care about efficient delivery; he wants to stop global warming. He is not looking to reduce the losses in the conductors, he is looking to reduce the amount of heat rejected to the atmosphere. If you actually believe that power lines contribute in any way to global temperatures, I would love to talk to you about a perpetual motion machine I have developed and I will sell to you really cheap.

As for the bit about losing heat to cooling towers, at temperature drop of only about 20-30 F is achieved during the cooling process of the cooling water. That means that the temperature rise in surrounding air is essentially negligible as the heat is dissipated very rapidly.

unotis

06-26-2008, 02:04 PM

First, it should be made very clear that the "report" you are referring to is not a report. It is an opinion. It is actually a very biased opinion that uses some very faulty reasoning to come to some completely wrong conclusions.

Second, he doesn't really provide any factual research based data for his assumptions about how the utility grid works. He just says things like "I think" or "I believe." In one paragraph he states that he was laughed at by the physics community. There is good reason that people would laugh at him.

Third, he is concerned only with reducing use of resources. Nothing else. That is telling by itself.

Finally, there is a very big difference between saying that only 13% of generated power is delivered to the end user and that only 13% of available energy is efficiently converted into electricity. Either way, I think he is exaggerating his claims significantly.

Some examples of where he is plain wrong.

“The most obvious improvement is to simply stop dumping enormous amounts of heat with cooling towers and the like, and instead, using some more expensive "low pressure" steam turbines to remove much of the heat from that otherwise wasted heat.”

A sub-critical high pressure coal fired power plant will operate in the efficiency range of about 36-38%. By increasing the temperature of the water to the super-critical point, above 705 F, and increasing the pressure you can increase the efficiency to above 40%. By increasing temperatures and pressures even further, to Ultra-critical, you get to 48% efficient. Lower pressure, lower temperature boilers are less efficient. Higher temperature and higher pressure allows you to take advantage of increased thermodynamic efficiency. What this guy is advocating is contrary to science.

“As to distribution electric lines, it may be possible to put thermal insulation around each wire, to reduce losses. This is done when such lines have to run in underground conduits, so the technology already exists.”

This guy has no idea what he’s talking about. There is no such thing as “thermal insulation” for conductors. Insulation is added to conductors to prevent them from shorting across phases or to ground. The insulation used has very poor thermal properties intentionally. That is because as the heat increases, the resistance of the conductor material, copper or aluminum, gets higher. Higher resistance results in higher losses and more heat. It is best to keep the conductors as cool as possible to reduce resistance and in turn reduce losses. By “thermally” insulating the conductors, you trap heat in and in effect exponentially increase the losses and heat levels. Remember, this guy doesn’t care about efficient delivery; he wants to stop global warming. He is not looking to reduce the losses in the conductors, he is looking to reduce the amount of heat rejected to the atmosphere. If you actually believe that power lines contribute in any way to global temperatures, I would love to talk to you about a perpetual motion machine I have developed and I will sell to you really cheap.

As for the bit about losing heat to cooling towers, at temperature drop of only about 20-30 F is achieved during the cooling process of the cooling water. That means that the temperature rise in surrounding air is essentially negligible as the heat is dissipated very rapidly.

You bring up some good points, I used that one article which was only one of several that also talked about increasing transmission lines efficiency.

I don't think from the articles and papers I've read they were discussing anything more then the loss of power from 100% production the small percentage that actually arrives to it's end user the consumer.

So I didn't feel they were discussing inefficiencies of electric production at the power plants themselves and how much cleaner and less costly Nuclear Power is for the same production duties.

I didn't take any meaning that heat from power lines contribute to global warming, maybe that particular article did, but that is not what I got from it, most of the articles and reports I've read discuss ways to get more efficient ways to produce power without resorting to fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum products.

And even though you disagree with some of his points, perhaps you can agree we need to look towards ways to conserve what resources we have, available oil resources have dropped for the last decade and it is continuing to decrease.

It would appear you have some knowledge of the new more efficient cleaner coal power plants, is it your opinion that a coal Power plant is cleaner and better then the new safe "Pebble Bed Reactor" nuclear power plants?

I'm not arguing with you , I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

I've heard about the improved Coal Power Plant design, but I admit I don't know the percentage of the coal power plants compared to the older less clean versions.

mobiushky

06-26-2008, 03:27 PM

You bring up some good points, I used that one article which was only one of several that also talked about increasing transmission lines efficiency.

I don't think from the articles and papers I've read they were discussing anything more then the loss of power from 100% production the small percentage that actually arrives to it's end user the consumer.

So I didn't feel they were discussing inefficiencies of electric production at the power plants themselves and how much cleaner and less costly Nuclear Power is for the same production duties.

I didn't take any meaning that heat from power lines contribute to global warming, maybe that particular article did, but that is not what I got from it, most of the articles and reports I've read discuss ways to get more efficient ways to produce power without resorting to fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum products.

And even though you disagree with some of his points, perhaps you can agree we need to look towards ways to conserve what resources we have, available oil resources have dropped for the last decade and it is continuing to decrease.

It would appear you have some knowledge of the new more efficient cleaner coal power plants, is it your opinion that a coal Power plant is cleaner and better then the new safe "Pebble Bed Reactor" nuclear power plants?

I'm not arguing with you , I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

I've heard about the improved Coal Power Plant design, but I admit I don't know the percentage of the coal power plants compared to the older less clean versions.

For sake of friendliness, I’m not arguing with you either. Just with the conclusions that that one particular report made. Like I said, there are a lot of valid reasons for the scientific community to laugh at that guy. He’s a bit off in more ways than one.

Just so you understand where I come from, here is the quote that he made that I went from:

“What happens to that other 87%? Virtually ALL of it winds up heating the atmosphere, being an enormous cause of global warming! Down below, there is a discussion of efficiencies of different types of electrical powerplants, all of which are generally in the 30% overall efficiency range. From there, that electricity gets sent the many miles to you through wires, which all heat up due to the massive amounts of electricity run through them. They are essentially all like those hot wires inside your toaster!”

That is crack pot talk.

As for Coal plants, like I said I am currently into the 3rd month of working on an 800 MW super-critical coal plant that will begin construction in September. I just finished up a 2 year project on a nearly identical plant that is nearing completion and will be commissioned shortly.

I wouldn’t say that coal plants are more efficient than Nukes in any way. The pebble bed reactor functions in much the same manner as an Ultra-critical coal plant. I’ve read that they can achieve efficiencies in the near 50% from pebble bed due to the ability to create such high temp/pressure systems.

Currently I know of 4 new grass roots nuclear reactors that have been awarded and will be commissioned as early as 2016. That is good news.

As for “clean” vs “dirty” coal. Remember that the federal government has recently mandated air quality controls on all coal plants nationwide. In fact, the rush to design and install air cleaning systems on coal plants has created an intense boom in my particular field. We are currently running 5 different retro-fit projects that I know of off the top of my head. These are large flue-gas de-sulfurization projects that actually scrub the flue gasses produced during the coal burning process. (Side note, one of the cool by-products of these wet-scrubbers is gypsum which is used to make dry-wall.) The days of the “dirty” coal plant are gone. What a lot of people fail to realize is that utilities are not wasteful at all. Waste costs money, and they do everything they can to not waste. And second, technology has changed incredibly over the years and companies simply don’t function to the stereotypes of 30 years ago. Coal plants are not major polluters as they are made out to be. They are quite possibly cleaner in a lot of cases than we are willing to admit.

Personally, I’d love to see nuclear used much more frequently. However, thanks to the Carter administration*, the US is not allowed to effectively re-process spent fuel in a way that would allow it to be recycled and re-used. So we are forced to store it rather than recycle it. Wouldn’t it be nice to reverse that mistake?

*Richard Garwin & Georges Charpak. Megawatts and Megatons: A Turning Point in the Nuclear Age. pp144-145.
*http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html Chapter 13 under Nonproliferation Politics

travis74

06-28-2008, 12:41 PM

unotis

06-28-2008, 01:09 PM

What is the waste product of burning coal? Is it just ash? What happens to the materials accumulated in the 'scrubbing' process?
I am glad to hear that the emissions of coal plants are improving, that is a step in the right direction.
But, like nuke plants we enter a whole new environmental dilemma. No one wants to store the waste products in their backyard ie Yucca mountain.

Not true, Yucca mountain would be the perfect and safest depository for the spent fuel rods and there would be absolutely no danger to anyone getting sick or even exposed for 10,000 years or more.

It is precisely this kind of unfounded fear that we need to educate, so the public know they have a lot more danger from fossil fuels rather then Nuclear Power, no one in the history of Nuclear Power in the United States has died from it's use and the last Nuclear accident was back in 1979 at 3 mile Island and it was only a partial meltdown and the most radiation exposure anyone got was 1/10th of the exposure you receive getting a normal chest Xray, we probably get more just walking around outside.

dahur

06-28-2008, 02:52 PM

I wonder if people fear an Chernobyl type of event happening again.
It seems that if the very small chance of an accident happened, it could be catastrophic.

hatt

06-28-2008, 03:53 PM

I wonder if people fear an Chernobyl type of event happening again.
It seems that if the very small chance of an accident happened, it could be catastrophic.
A poll (http://theheritagefoundry.org/2008/06/12/2-out-of-3-americans-favor-building-nuclear/) released by Zogby International shows that a strong majority (67%) of Americans favor building nuclear power plants. Republicans are most favorably disposed to nuclear energy (85%), with Independents not far behind (70%). Democrats, although less enthusiastic about building new plants, still have a plurality (49%) in support.

The poll also found that Americans want to build nuclear power plants more than oil, coal, or natural gas plants. A plurality (43%) of those polled said they favor nuclear power stations in their community over any alternative.

This poll suggests that the decades of propaganda from the anti-nuclear left has failed to terrify most Americans about nuclear energy. Americans understand that nuclear energy is completely safe and environmentally sound. Despite rhetoric about Three Mile Island, no American has ever died or been injured by nuclear energy. These facts seem to have been absorbed by the public and reflected in their good opinion of nuclear power.
And (http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/americansfavornuclear/)
WASHINGTON—Nearly seven of 10 Americans favor nuclear energy and 68 percent support building a new reactor at the existing nuclear power plant closest to where they live, according to a recent public opinion poll conducted for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The survey was conducted Sept. 7-10 by Bisconti Research Inc., with GfK NOP, through telephone interviews with nationally representative samples of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 or older. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. Bisconti Research has been surveying public attitudes about nuclear energy for 23 years.

The majority of Americans want more nuclear power plants to be built. I'd guess a tiny group of special interest are the reason the numbers are not much higher than 67%. Of course politics is involved also.

unotis

06-29-2008, 10:35 AM

I wonder if people fear an Chernobyl type of event happening again.
It seems that if the very small chance of an accident happened, it could be catastrophic.

Chernobyl couldn't happen here, first off it was a very old outdated design with none of the safety features required here and it even didn't even have a containment dome (something would never be allowed here in the first place) and they had not maintained it properly with very lax supervision. All things that would not happen here, too many checks and balances.

Although, most Americans do understand Nuclear power is very safe, there is that small vocal percentage that continues to cloud the issue with the old chestnuts of Three Mile island and Chernobyl and if they fail. They bring up what will we do with the spent nuclear fuel rods?

All of those have been shown to baseless concerns time and time again, but tossed out enough they must in the very least delay decisions to go forward in a positive manner.

travis74

06-29-2008, 01:35 PM

So, what does happen to the spent fuel rods? Please elaborate on how this is a 'baseless concern'?

junehhan

06-29-2008, 02:11 PM

So, what does happen to the spent fuel rods? Please elaborate on how this is a 'baseless concern'?

You bury it where the light doesn't shine very far below the surface of some mountain. With moderne nuclear technology, there is far less radioactive waste left than 30 years ago, and actually produces about 90% less than 30 years ago. Not a bad price to pay considering that we NEED to produce more electricity for an ever growing population, and nuclear plants produce zero emmissions which means it does not contribute to both "global warming" or acid rain.

mobiushky

06-29-2008, 04:47 PM

So, what does happen to the spent fuel rods? Please elaborate on how this is a 'baseless concern'?

During the fission process, only a small percentage of the useful material is lost. Unfortunately, thanks to Jimmy Carter, the US is not allowed to reprocess that spent fuel and recycle it into reusable fuel. So the US has no choice but to store it. There are plants in Europe that currently reprocess the spent fuel into new fuel rods.

The best approach would be to abolish the laws that Carter signed and allowed the US to reprocess the waste into useful fuel. The amount stored would drop drastically.

travis74

06-29-2008, 05:40 PM

junehhan

06-29-2008, 06:19 PM

If there is a way to re-use the spent rods then great, better than storing them. I haven't researched the emissions of nuke plants, so I'll take your word for it.
This does tie into my earlier post. If we have the tech to produce clean nuke then lets do it. But nothing I have read leads me to believe that coal can ultimately be clean. Unless there is some use for fly ash that I have not yet heard of.

I believe we have the most stringent environmental regulations regarding coal plants in the world, and we have some of the cleanest in the world. A lot of how cleaning burning a coal plant is really has to do with the type of coal it is burning though. If it is burning mostly the good Anthracite coal found in places like PA, it is an incredibly clean source of energy. However, the problem arises when the plant starts burning the really impure high sulfer types of coal like the bitumous and lignite types(sp???) which are known to be huge contributors to acid rain because of the sulfer content. To burn this stuff and meet environmental regulations, the coal plants actually have to run special scrubbers as well like the plants in OH run. I never understood OH laws as there was some sort of agreement that the coal plants here in OH had to run at least a certain percentage of OH coal. Problem is that the coal mined in OH is extremely impure and high in sulfer.

I believe Cinergy(now Duke energy) here did some calculations a while back and tried to make a case that being forced to use Ohio coal actually raised their costs because it was so impure.

unotis

06-29-2008, 06:35 PM

So, what does happen to the spent fuel rods? Please elaborate on how this is a 'baseless concern'?

You're new so I won't repeat what has been posted here several times.

Try doing a search and see if that explains it, if not come back and I'll try to lay it out for you the best I can. :thumbsup:

travis74

06-29-2008, 06:41 PM

mobiushky

06-30-2008, 02:59 PM

I have heard or read that about burning the different varieties of coal. And, in fact, I don't disagree that we might have among the cleanest coal burning facilities. Yet, no matter how much we might filter the EMISSIONS of a coal plant (regardless of the type of coal burnt) there is still a physical waste product, fly ash, correct? That waste product carries with it a toxic load. I am not comfortable with the notion of burying that or any other toxic product for some future generation to contend with.
I think that as our society is in transition between energy sources now is the time to look at options that fit a given geographical locale. What works politically and environmentally in southern California just won't work here in coastal Massachusetts.
With that said, I don't have any expectation of a perfect technology or that we may have need of transitional technologies. I hope only that we can be honest about the repercussions of a given method.

Fly ash is also recycled. It is often used to mix into asphalt. It can also be used to mix into soils in very dry areas to reduce the resistivity of the ground surrounding power plants and substations. Remember that in a power plant, waste means loss. Wasted materials and resources means wasted money. Modern power plants do everything they possibly can to reduce waste. Instead they recydle as much of the by-product as they can and sell it to other industries.

F91

08-10-2008, 04:16 PM

The grid is being added to every day. As alternatives move forward, there will be more home based generation to eliminate the need and costs of more transmission lines. As was mentioned, solar recharging from the Panels in your own home will eliminate any need for new lines. Our company just bought in to a Wind Power site to supply us with 25MW and it will be incorporated into the existing grid.
Nuclear Power is one of the biggest special interests out there. LOTS of big money goes in to marketing Nuclear and they are as dedicated to expanding and controlling aspects of the energy market as Big Oil is. When it comes down to it, do you really want to risk a 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl where you live? No? Yes? Personally, I'll take wind, water and sun.

Anything that is an alternative is good news right now. However, our electrical grid is going to be an issue as more of these types of alternatives start coming out.

dahur

08-10-2008, 10:10 PM

[QUOTE=F91;670433]
Personally, I'll take wind, water and sun.

Me too.

mobiushky

08-11-2008, 09:35 AM

When it comes down to it, do you really want to risk a 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl where you live? No? Yes?

This is quite possibly the most uniformed statement you could possibly make. Do you really even understand what you are talking about? Please explain to me EXACTLY how 3 mile island and Chernobyl are related. Compare and contrast the events that occured in both cases. Can't do that? Wanna get some basic information?

The truth is, 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl are so utterly unlike each other that to mention them in the same sentence is essentially proving you don't have a clue.

Let's start with Chernobyl. What kind of reactor was it? OK, fine, I'll tell you. It was an RBMK-1000. A Russian design of the late 50's that was outlawed in the US because it is an unstable system prone to problems. The disaster that occured was one that was essentially all bu predicted by the US based only on the design of th ereactor.

3 Mile Island was a PWR type reactor. The main advantage being that is a very stable reactor in contrast to the RBMK type. Further, the chain of events at 3 Mile represent a complete success in the emergency systems incorporated into US reactors as opposed to a complete failure shown at Chernobyl. The 3 Mile Island reactor did exactly what it was supposed to do in the event of a failure. It shut down. The system worked the way it was supposed to and the amount of "leaked" radiation was so small that it was deemed harmless. Several in depth studies since that have shown that the average exposure of the 2 million people around the plant was around 1 millirad. A typical chest x-ray exposes you to 6 millirads.

Would I want a nuclear plant next to my house? Darn right I would. Considering that in California there are over 1000 individual power plants on-line. 2 of them are nuclear. Those 2 plants provide over 20% of the power for the state. That means that less than 0.2% of the plants produces 20% of the power. I'd love to have that kind of clean efficient power available at a much lower cost. Now if only the US would reverse Jimmy Carter's blunder of outlawing reprocessing spent fuel, we wouldn't have to store the spent fuel, we could recycle it. Thanks Jimmy.

As was mentioned, solar recharging from the Panels in your own home will eliminate any need for new lines.

Again, have you ever designed and installed a solar system? I have. It c0st over $50,000 to put up 42 cells that at peak sunlight would produce just enough power to run a coffee pot*. The payback time of a solar system is not measured in years. It is measured in hundreds of years. Solar systems are not the answer in any way.

*We determined based on the efficiency, that the 42 panels system would generate 1500Watts peak during the summer assuming that now clouds blocked the sun. The average house requires about 20-25 kilowatts to operate. That means that you would have to have 560 panels at about 2'X4' each. That's at peak sunlight, so you really need to have about 2-3 times that many to make up for off axis sunlight and clouded days. So a minimum of 4,480 square feet of solar panels at about $750,000 to $1,000,000 for the system depending on the battery capacity. Odds are you are really talking about a $1.5million system to power a single house. But where do you put that?

dahur

08-11-2008, 12:02 PM

mobiushky

08-11-2008, 04:10 PM

Where we are moving to in New Mexico in a few months, they are rated at 6.2 sun hours per day, with an average of 306 sunny days per year. The 5kw, or 5000 watt system we're putting in, should provide us with about 30 kw per sunny day,(5000w x6.2 sun hours). Allowing for occasional cloudy, rainy days, and overheating of the panels, we hope to average 25kw per day.
Here in Michigan, we average about 18-20kw per day usage.
Systems cost an average $9 per watt installed ( across the country). So ours will cost around $45,000. New Mexico and federal tax credits knock off $11,000. No sales tax applies on renewable energy systems in NM.
The Utility is going to pay us 13 cents for every kw we produce under net metering. Then we pay about 8 cents for what we use. Monthly net excess of less than $50 is credited to the customers next bill. Greater than $50 is purchased by the utility, and they send you a check.
Bill Richardson has passed through several other great incentives, but I don't want to list each and every one.
We are figuring our payback at around 8-10 years. But as energy costs continue to rise, that payback becomes shorter. The federal and NM tax credits also apply to each system you install (geo-thermal, solar hot water, hydro, etc.) Besides, we will save thousands of tons of CO2 from being dumped in the air, by producing our own power.
And we're using the grid for the battery bank, and that saves a lot $$. So, though still expensive, we can't wait to do it. Being immunized from ever increasing rate increases, and doing our part for the planet means a lot to us.

I hate to say it, but that's a bit optimistic. 6.2 sun hours per day is not going to translate into 6.2 hours of 100% peak generation per day. Unless you intend to install sun tracking systems on your panels which will exponentially increase the cost. If you are planning to simply tack the panels onto the top of your house, you are at the mercy of the angle of the sun in relation to the panels themselves. An article I recently read built a system very similar to the one you are considering and measured the payback into the 20 year timeframe at $18,000 for a 5kw system including incentives. And that's assuming you will ever be generating more than you consume. I assume you will be turning off your A/C as well? And refusing NG water heating? Have fun in NM during the summers. with your A/C not running. Just so you know, that system I built was installed in Yuma, AZ. The 1500W, was based on sun angle during those 5-5.5 sun hours. Had the sun actually been directly on the panels (ie sun tracking) that system would have produced more like 3300 Watts, but since we didn't install sun tracking, that reduced the effective efficiency of the panels to roughly half.

http://www.solarpowerauthority.com/archives/2008/01/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house.html

AS for the carbon business. You go right ahead and reduce your carbon foot print. I'll choose to follow actual science and pay the cheaper electric rates that we have and save the money so I don't have to make it up in 20 years knowing full well that "carbon footprint" is synonymous with a type of waste product generated by cattle. Oh and for reference, check out the post I had about NASA having to re-do their climate models because they determined that CO2 does not translate into warming in anyway. Oh and that 95% of so called greenhouse gasses in simple water vapor.

mobiushky

08-11-2008, 04:22 PM

Where we are moving to in New Mexico in a few months, they are rated at 6.2 sun hours per day, with an average of 306 sunny days per year. The 5kw, or 5000 watt system we're putting in, should provide us with about 30 kw per sunny day,(5000w x6.2 sun hours). Allowing for occasional cloudy, rainy days, and overheating of the panels, we hope to average 25kw per day.
Here in Michigan, we average about 18-20kw per day usage.
Systems cost an average $9 per watt installed ( across the country). So ours will cost around $45,000. New Mexico and federal tax credits knock off $11,000. No sales tax applies on renewable energy systems in NM.
.

Let's look at your numbers. First we'll assume you are 100% dead on. That somehow you will miraculously generate 25 kWhrs per day on the average. Let's also assume that you will some how only draw 20 kWhrs per day even in one of the hottest areas in the country. Your total bill for your panels should end up being around $34,000 after incentives. Essentially you are looking at generating an excess of 5kWhrs per day. Now at 8 cents per kWhr, you would have to pay about $1.60 per day for 20kWhrs. But since you are going to sell 5kWhrs per day back, you are actually going to be making $0.65 per day from the utility. That produces a net savings of $2.25 per day. That's for not having to pay the utility and for earning money back. Divide $34,000 by $2.25 and you get 15,111.11 days. Or roughly 41.4 years. So even using your numbers, it will take 41+ years to pay back that system.

More realistically, you are not intending to add a sun tracking system, since that would seriously increase the cost. And odds are you are not going to be getting an optimal 5kw except for a hour or so surrounding noon. Odds are you are really looking at what we had with about 50% efficiency of the system, but we'll give you 75% for fun. So really you'll be getting about 3750watts per hour or closer to 23,250. Not accounting for any losses due to clouds, you are now closer to 46 years. Also, I doubt you are going to be only averaging 18-20kwhrs per day in NM. you are going from a relatively mild climate to one that is much hotter. I'd be willing to bet that in reality you will be looking at a wash at best. Now you are looking at only saving the cost of the utility. (PS, don't forget to keep up the maintenance on those panels so that they don't drop in efficiency.) A more realistic time frame puts you closer to 60 years before payback.

mobiushky

08-11-2008, 04:36 PM

Oh lest I am accused of hating solar, quite the opposite. If you want to go solar, be my guest. I have no problems with anyone wanting to install solar panels. Honestly it means less demand on the system and in turn lower prices for the rest of us in the long run.

And unless things have drastically changed in the last 4-5 years, when you see a "5kW" system, you are not being told the expected output but the max output at 100% sun utilization. In other words, the max the panels are capable of in the most ideal conditions. Reality does not always fall under the "ideal conditions" category.

unotis

08-11-2008, 05:00 PM

This is good thing, people posting obviously wrong statements and educated members correcting them and explaining why their wrong and misinformed.

Education needs to happen so people can make informed decisions about what we need to do to help advance our energy prospects for the future.

A good example is in Kansas recently, there was an attempt to build a new coal-fired power plant in western Kansas to produce electricity.

You would have thought the way people reacted they were going to burn toxic waste and pump it directly into your lungs!

Most of the people had no idea about how clean and efficient coal-fired power plants can be.

They just decided using old so called common knowledge to decide against it being allowed.

The earlier post comparing 3 Mile Island and Chernobly is another prime example of how ignorance can hurt us in the future, and you answered that very well.

dahur

08-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Wow, I just read about Larry Hagmans' solar system. He owns the largest residential system in the US, rated at over 102 kw! He said he paid $750,000 for it, and Edison gave him a check for $310,000 back.
He also said his last full year paying for electricity was just under $40,000, and now it's $18. He generates in excess of 10,000kw per year on top of what he uses himself.

He talks about it here:
www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=1428627762&channel=1214147015

I didn't want to talk about each detail of our system, but maybe I should have mentioned we are having a geo-thermal system put in too. We were told our summer cooling will be about 1/3 what a normal refridgerated AC will use. We will use electricity to run the heat pump in the winter, instead of the existing propane true. The numbers supplied to us say it will still be cheaper than the existing propane ( which is rising dramatically), using the heat pump. We figured using no propane into our payback as well .

You can't help but wonder about the payback, but we aren't putting any weight on that. Our mission is energy independence. We'll pay for it, but that's what we want.

kbaker2002de

08-12-2008, 07:05 AM

I recently heard of a breakthrough in solar that once it is perfected can cut the cost of solar by 10x. There was apparantly a research group in New Zealand that has had a breakthrough on putting solar recepters into pigments. The Projected use of the technology is to put it in the pigment of your car, clothes and shingles. The primary savings would apparantly come from the pigment being able to absorb solar energy even under cloudy or sub-prime angles of the sun. If this technology is accurate, in the next 5-10 years we could have an exposion in Solar installation that will cost a great deal less to manufacture and install and genereate more energy.

I think that many energy companies in the SW should look into sharing the cost of the solar panels in residential areas. They have been doing this in the south, and it has been effective. The biggest reason is that the power company can make an investment with a 20 yr payoff and it be OK. I cannot, you might not be able to either. Particularly in CA, AZ, NM and NV there is large energy drains in daytime and the summer, this would help releive the pressure off the grid during peak times.

mobiushky

08-12-2008, 08:34 AM

You can't help but wonder about the payback, but we aren't putting any weight on that. Our mission is energy independence. We'll pay for it, but that's what we want.

This is the point that I can respect you for. If you are willing to pay more money for this on principle, you are better than 90% of the politicians that talk principle and refuse to actually pay for it themselves. So more power to ya. (PS, I'm not joking or being sarcastic, I'm serious.)

Personally? I won't even bother with it, but that's me.

I think solar panels will definitely come down in price.

Cygnus

08-15-2008, 12:31 PM

What are you all take on T Boone Picken's Plan? He is really hyping it on TV and making the news.

mobiushky

08-15-2008, 01:11 PM

What are you all take on T Boone Picken's Plan? He is really hyping it on TV and making the news.

T Boone has a lot of money invested in that project. He needs to make it real to earn his big profit. Oh, you meant the environmental impact, I doubt he really cares that much. He's looking for a big pay check out of it. CATO institue said this:

"Mr. Pickens would be out a lot of money, which is probably why Mr. Pickens wants to hard-wire the market to consume the things he's investing in and have the government lavish him with subsidies in the course of doing so. I wish Mr. Pickens well in the course of his wind energy business, but I see no reason why taxpayers, ratepayers, or consumers ought to be forced to sacrifice in order to fatten his already ample bank account."

Also, I heard on the radio that Nancy Pelosi invested in T Boone's wind project at the IPO. How does it not constitute a conflict of interest that his plan relies entirely on high energy prices to succeed and the current speaker of the US House is refusing to vote on an energy bill that could resolve the problem? I don't get that one.