I threw this out in the general blog but got no response...and yes, I saw the thread already about CA and deception, but thought I'd get somewhere with a clean slate; here it goes:

If we want to promote the Volt, perhaps penning a letter of understanding or intent to cooperate with Boone Pickens isn’t a bad idea:

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

For those that don’t know, he’s an oil Tycoon that is trying to ween us off of foreign fuels. He is promoting wind and solar power (among other things) as well as natural gas cars. IMO he has a slight disconnect with the renewable fuels to natural gas cars as the vehicles do not run on electricity–the Volt is perfect. He’s massing an army and frankly our objectives go hand-in-hand. He’d probably be happen to hear from you in particular. Perhaps even give you a link on his site and vice versa.

Thoughts anyone?

I am also looking at alternative ways.. a national push to wind and solar can make a huge difference. Other innovative ideas like this :

http://www.freewatt.com/ are also high on my list.. using NG to power the house, heat it, and recharge my volt at night at 85% efficiency vs 30% from the grid. is a no brainer.

Kill oil use and save lives becuase you remove the funding for extremist terrorist groups.

Using combined heat/power is more efficient, but is not entirely future proof. You are still dependent on fossil fuels.

For heating you can better invest in a heating pump (GSHP).

Lucas

Dave.

I do HVAC for a living. The beauty of a free watt is that is uses Nat gas, and delivers 85 - 90% efficiency versus 30 for a grid delivery.

Geo heat pumps are great, but you require grid, using coal, nuke, whatever. Even T's plan will cover only 20% by wind. You could theorhetically (I asked the engineers) use this to power your home (wait til gen 2.0 even better), residual heat from electrical production, not enough? use it to RUN your geo system, the furnace can then cover if insufficient.

The problem with geo is that it is sized for cooling loads, great for more mild climes, but not the north. Oversizing cooling capacity does not remove latent heat and feels clammy. In Canada, all heat pumps require a back up heat source. Soem geo systems can vary their output, but at 30k+ geo can be hard to justify. I agree the geo is a good idea, I look overall strategy.

I found this great video on Youtube. Folks, meet EZ Pickens:


http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=SIko3MTmxrE


I love the part where more NG will be needed when the wind dies down. My thoughts exactly. Notice how they never talk about energy storage... Funny stuff!

Picken's plan isn't bad in amongst itself. However, I am nervous to follow his plan if he is in charge of it. Look at his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Boone_Pickens">wikipedia page</a> and you will see some shady dealings with government in order to increase his profits. I.E. ballot initiative in CA to provide rebates for a company he owns. Making a donation to OSU, that is invested back into his hedge fund and then OSU using eminent domain to acquire public property it could have purchased with those funds.

I threw this out in the general blog but got no response...and yes, I saw the thread already about CA and deception-
but thought I'd get somewhere with a clean slate; here it goes: ...
... Thoughts anyone?
As a stop-gap measure, The Pickens Plan™®© is a viable option.
It would end our transportation-dependence on foreign oil, but more importantly it would give us time.
Time needed to develop the alternative & renewable energies to put us on a firm footing to truly end our dependence on foreign oil, as well as prepare us for peak oil phenomena.

But it must be stressed that this is a stop-gap measure; for while it is true that domestic natural gas has yet to reach peak, as domestic oil production peaked in the 1970's (as was predicted) we must not become complacent.
Eventually, even domestic natural gas will peak.
But in the interim, we will have time to switch our transportation from fossil fuels based, to pure electric.
I say go for it, but only as a next step in addressing oil depletion & foreign oil dependence, with an eye on the future where most of our energy is from domestic renewables.

oil-price.net (http://www.oil-price.net/)

I like Picken's plan with the exception of the NG aspect. I don't believe in waning off of one drug by giving you another. I believe it's best to make a clean break.

Pickens motives are divided.

On one hand I'm sure he's concerned, like all of us, over our overdependence on oil...especially for transportation.

On the other there is that before coming into our lives to push NG and wind power he first made heavy investments in both :)

Pickens motives are divided.
On one hand I'm sure he's concerned, like all of us, over our overdependence on oil...especially for transportation.
On the other there is that before coming into our lives to push NG and wind power he first made heavy investments in both.
Thats the one thing I don't like about his plan, that he has such a vested interest in it.

There are now 3 different threads on this one topic, and one on the same page...

As a stop-gap measure, The Pickens Plan™®© is a viable option.
...

But it must be stressed that this is a stop-gap measure; for while it is true that domestic natural gas has yet to reach peak, as domestic oil production peaked in the 1970's (as was predicted) we must not become complacent....

Only half of the plan is a stop-gap measure. Building the windmills is not a stop-gap, running your car on natural gas is.

Lucas

Only half of the plan is a stop-gap measure. Building the windmills is not a stop-gap, running your car on natural gas is.

Lucas



Actually, both are not a stop-gap measure. They both have possibility for long-term, renewable and sustainable operation. Methane and methanol can both be produced using hydrogen if needed. They are easier to store, especially for mobile applications and are as clean as the day you were born (assuming they are produced using solar, wind, etc.)


The only thing you need to ask Mr. Pickens is how he plans to store the energy. How is he going to fill the gap when the wind is not blowing (natural gas is currently the method)? I recommend pumped storage hydro and compressed air storage. I don't think Mr. Pickens and his team even thought about it. This brings me back to why we need The Apollo Energy Plan. We need a full effort by multiple energy experts to help guide our country towards the right path. Not a path of special interests but a path towards long-term energy stability and sustainability. I know it makes too much sense. Sorry.

If windmills are so great why are the Germans and Netherlands cutting funding for them?

Normally this would indicate a success of the technology, but this is not the case. Problem is they have higher than expected down time, experience RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) in high winds if their brakes or governors fail and in general cannot provide power in a sustained manner .

The latter is a particularly bad problem as it requires the coal fired plants they were supposed to replace to continue operation so as to level the available power on the circuit.

EEStor's cells, if they work, could help this situation by storing power for use during low wind conditions but as they aren't here yet.....

If windmills are so great why are the Germans and Netherlands cutting funding for them?

Normally this would indicate a success of the technology, but this is not the case. Problem is they have higher than expected down time, experience RUD (rapid unscheduled disassembly) in high winds if their brakes or governors fail and in general cannot provide power in a sustained manner .

The latter is a particularly bad problem as it requires the coal fired plants they were supposed to replace to continue operation so as to level the available power on the circuit.

EEStor's cells, if they work, could help this situation by storing power for use during low wind conditions but as they aren't here yet.....




Can you provide any references to your statements? I cannot find anything that supports your argument. Germany has tremendous amounts of installed wind capacity. Maybe the industry is more able to support itself and thus needs less help. I did however find this article that states how the US just "blew" past Germany in installed wind capacity but that the US is also being threatened by loss of tax incentives. I think you are confused about the wind power situation. New wind projects are going up all over the place. Again, please provide any references you have, if you have any at all.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/wp-content/thumbs/us-leads-in-7135.jpg



They also state:

"Although the Congress’ failure to extend the production tax credit for the renewable energy industry threatens to slowdown further development, U.S. wind capacity for 2008 is still expected to increase by 7,500MW or up 45 percent from a year ago, according to the American Wind Energy Association, Environmental Finance reports.

America is now the leader in wind electricity generation with total installed wind power capacity at about 19,600 MW, up about 2,700 MW from end of 2007, according to AWEA’s second quarter 2008 market report.

Although Germany has installed generating capacity of about 23,000 MW, AWEA says the U.S. produces more electricity because of stronger winds."

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/08/12/us-leads-in-wind-power-production/



Additionally, please check out the following German video showing how they are working to tie everything together. This is the future of power generation and it's based on solar and wind:


http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8gEMpzos4


Of course you would rather go the drill and nuke way. Right?

Windmill fire in California: YouTube video.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo&feature=related)

Windmill RUD in Hornslet, Denmark: YouTube video.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o&feature=related#)

Lackawanna, NY fiasco: YouTube video (News story).... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liNIqYNHRXE)

One aspect of windmill operation is the amount of power used by the windmill itself for its operation;

yaw mechanism
blade pitch control
lights, controllers and communications
heating the blades (to prevent failures dut to cold induced brittleness)
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle
oil heater, pump, cooler and filtering system for the gearbox
hydraulic brake for the blades (see RUD when these fail)
thyristors (graduate and disconnection between generator and the grid)
magnetizing the stator
using the generator as a motor (to start the blades in low winds)

All told this consumes more than half of the max output of the windmill, meaning they only put out from 20% to 45% of their rated power....and that's only if they're running. Under low wind conditions the output drops to maybe 10% of rated capacity.

As for Europe;

The Danish government has canceled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Why? Because they're not economically viable.

Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. On August 31, 2004 Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.

A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 (after some political delay) stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. (Link to UK story.... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy))

Switzerland is cutting subsidies as "too expensive for the lack of significant benefit".

The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004.

Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause (sorry, you can't make the wind blow consistently).

In December 2003 Ireland halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. The Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 stated "The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives." (Report (PDF).... (http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf)). Translation: it's cheaper and more effective to put scrubbers on coal and natural gas fired plants.

In 2005 Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. A year later the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for wind power.

Getting the drift?

Windmill fire in California: YouTube video.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N4HQv-UyUo&feature=related)

Windmill RUD in Hornslet, Denmark: YouTube video.... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o&feature=related#)

Lackawanna, NY fiasco: YouTube video (News story).... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liNIqYNHRXE)

One aspect of windmill operation is the amount of power used by the windmill itself for its operation;

yaw mechanism
blade pitch control
lights, controllers and communications
heating the blades (to prevent failures dut to cold induced brittleness)
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle
oil heater, pump, cooler and filtering system for the gearbox
hydraulic brake for the blades (see RUD when these fail)
thyristors (graduate and disconnection between generator and the grid)
magnetizing the stator
using the generator as a motor (to start the blades in low winds)

All told this consumes more than half of the max output of the windmill, meaning they only put out from 20% to 45% of their rated power....and that's only if they're running. Under low wind conditions the output drops to maybe 10% of rated capacity.

As for Europe;

The Danish government has canceled plans for three offshore wind farms planned for 2008 and has scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from existing sites. Development of onshore wind plants in Denmark has effectively stopped. Why? Because they're not economically viable.

Germany reduced the tax breaks to wind power, and domestic construction drastically slowed in 2004. On August 31, 2004 Bloomberg News reported that "the unstable flow of wind power in their networks" has forced German utilities to buy more expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices for the consumer.

A German Energy Agency study released in February 2005 (after some political delay) stated that increasing the amount of wind power would increase consumer costs 3.7 times and that the theoretical reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved much more cheaply by simply installing filters on existing fossil-fuel plants. (Link to UK story.... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy))

Switzerland is cutting subsidies as "too expensive for the lack of significant benefit".

The Netherlands decommissioned 90 turbines in 2004.

Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind-generated power they buy, because of the instability they cause (sorry, you can't make the wind blow consistently).

In December 2003 Ireland halted all new wind-power connections to the national grid. The Irish grid manager in a study released in February 2004 stated "The cost of CO2 abatement arising from using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives." (Report (PDF).... (http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/uploads/Publications/Wind%20Impact%20Study%20-%20main%20report.pdf)). Translation: it's cheaper and more effective to put scrubbers on coal and natural gas fired plants.

In 2005 Spanish utilities began refusing new wind power connections. A year later the Spanish government ended -- by emergency decree -- its subsidies and price supports for wind power.

Getting the drift?



Ha! DocM that rebuttal was moronic! You put up a few videos of mechanical failures and that was supposed to support your argument that wind power is not cost effective? You just lost all respect on this forum. Absolutely ridiculous!

Your second claim we even more obtuse! Of course you didn’t list any references that say windmills do not produce their rated power, you just made that up! lol. What a joke. You realize that the wind turbine manufacture takes into account all of it’s functions before they put a power rating on it. Right? Oh my God that was funny... Just 20% of their rated power!

OK, let’s talk about Denmark. Here’s the Danish Wind Industry Association site:

http://www.windpower.org/en/core.htm

Here is a graph showing their growing energy exports. You do know that if you don’t have energy storage systems and you can’t use the energy you can either throw it away or sell it. They sell it! They have a great wind resource like another countries have oil. When the wind blows they make their money. If you want to know the whole story about Denmark and why they got into wind power long ago just read the following:



http://www.windpower.org/media(2291,1033)/Yearly_Export_Statistics_2008.jpg


http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/26wind.htm


Remember that wind is still a very new industry and better wind turbines come out every few years. Some people will just dismiss it because it’s so early on the technology curve but there are many places on earth with great wind resources. Our Midwest has an amazing wind corridor.

DocM would also like you to know that traditional fossil fuel power plants are cheaper. Of course they are! That’s why we are using them. Unfortunately, non-renewable sources of energy eventually run out. If you look at the problems we are having with oil you can see this can be very serious. It’s also the reason Denmark got into wind in the first place. Don’t feel sorry for Denmark, they have one of the highest standards of living on earth:


“ECONOMY

Denmark's industrialized market economy depends on imported raw materials and foreign trade. Within the European Union, Denmark advocates a liberal trade policy. Its standard of living is among the highest in the world, and the Danes devote about 0.8% of gross national product (GNP) to foreign aid to less developed countries. In addition, Denmark in 2006 devoted 0.81% of GNP for overseas development, including for peace and stability purposes, refugee pre-asylum costs, and for environmental purposes in central and eastern Europe and developing countries. ”

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3167.htm



Well, I could go on but I think you get the point. DocM has some personal interest in making wind power look much worse than it is. Is wind perfect? Nope. However, take it for what it is. It’s completely renewable and sustainable. Couple it with good electrical storage like pumped storage hydro or compressed air storage and you have a workable option. Wind also works well with solar because they often are producing at different times. Thus, there can be extra energy input when the sun is not shining. If coupled together in a good system and using economies of scale renewables will work great.

People also need to stop comparing renewables with non-renewables. I’m amazed that even after our oil problems people just don’t get it. Burning of fossil fuels also causes all kinds of pollution. Those are the hidden costs that are not in most analysis. DocM wants to continue drilling, nuking, and burning coal for our future energy policy. Great! Sounds like a winning plan for the future.

In the future DocM, please give real references and refrain from pulling things out of your butt if you want us to take you seriously.

This brings me back to why we need The Apollo Energy Plan.

On another site http://www.energyenvironmentforum.com someone suggested reassigning NASA's scope over to energy solutions. Energy is the main problem threatening our national security. I thought it was a great idea.

Some other ideas from that website was using Thorium instead of Uranium, and instead of sequestering CO2; turning CO2 into fuel http://www.dotyenergy.com.

There's some really good ideas there that with the proper support could be very helpful in making the US energy independent. The more I keep finding out about alternative energy the more I realize that is is definitely possible for America to get energy independent and all America has to decide if now is the time. I believe it is. The oil companies won't like it, but they have had it good for a very long time.

One aspect of windmill operation is the amount of power used by the windmill itself for its operation;

yaw mechanism
blade pitch control
lights, controllers and communications
heating the blades (to prevent failures dut to cold induced brittleness)
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle
oil heater, pump, cooler and filtering system for the gearbox
hydraulic brake for the blades (see RUD when these fail)
thyristors (graduate and disconnection between generator and the grid)
magnetizing the stator
using the generator as a motor (to start the blades in low winds)



Ever work at a regular power plant? They consume vast quantities of electricity too. All those motors used for things like pumps, conveyors, crushers, scrubbers, etc at a coal burning or trash burning power plant really add up.

I used to work at a power Plant at a Bethlehem Steel plant in Sparrow Point, MD, and also for Bechtel designing power plants.

The latter is a particularly bad problem as it requires the coal fired plants they were supposed to replace to continue operation so as to level the available power on the circuit.

EEStor's cells, if they work, could help this situation by storing power for use during low wind conditions but as they aren't here yet.....


Or massive amounts of pumped storage hydro. But that also requires a lot of space, and water. Either way it's pretty expensive to use electricity unless it's generated from nuclear sources.

Wind Turbine Noise Affects Health (http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/wind-turbine-noise-affects-health/)

Looks like wind power might not be the be-all and end-all that some think. . . Give me that silent radioactive waste any day! ;)

Ever work at a regular power plant? They consume vast quantities of electricity too. All those motors used for things like pumps, conveyors, crushers, scrubbers, etc at a coal burning or trash burning power plant really add up.

I used to work at a power Plant at a Bethlehem Steel plant in Sparrow Point, MD, and also for Bechtel designing power plants.
Did your power plant consume 50-90% of the power it produced? Did it unpredictably vary its output because of ambient weather conditions?

I think not.

Ha! DocM that rebuttal was moronic! You put up a few videos of mechanical failures and that was supposed to support your argument that wind power is not cost effective? You just lost all respect on this forum. Absolutely ridiculous!

No, you not reading the UK and Irish reports is what's rediculous.


Your second claim we even more obtuse! Of course you didn’t list any references that say windmills do not produce their rated power, you just made that up! lol. What a joke.

Go check the various manufacturers sites, it's right in the specs. Do you deny they have those systems? Surely you can find them without my help. Get real.


In the future DocM, please give real references and refrain from pulling things out of your butt if you want us to take you seriously.

Do you deny that the European nations have taken those steps? Did you research it at all? Are you just pulling the pro-wind stuff out of your bodily orifices?

In the future you might read the links I provided, both media and the Irish report. More coming (trying to keep them simple for you)

BTW: I have no vested interest. I just hate multi-billion dollar government driven projects of that can only make it with subsidies and are sensitive to weather. My rule of thumb is that if government mandates it, or sets the playing field to achieve the same end, it's very likely a boondoggle.

My preference: liquid salt nuclear reactors based on the Thorium fuel cycle. Tons more power at sustained levels, they cannot melt down into a "China Syndrome" like the old Uranium reactors and they produce less than 1% of the nuclear waste - and that waste has a half life measured in single digit years instead of millennia. They can even "eat" waste from conventional nuclear plants, including Plutonium, converting it into that short half life waste.

There is even a promising Uranium design that is also meltdown proof: PBMR - pebble bed modular reactor. The fuel is housed in carbide pellets the size of a billiard ball so no fuel rods to get stuck. The pellets are put in a hopper from the top (the fuel vessel) and continusously extracted from the bottom when they are worn out, meaning no refueling shut down. Helium cooled, so if there is a coolant leak it goes straight up to outer space. If this happens the pellets heat up to a temp far lower than their structure limits and stabilize there. Good for small plants and spacecraft, and of course its waste could be fed through a Thorium plant for reduction.

Reactor design has come a LONG way since 3 Mile Island.

My preference: liquid salt nuclear reactors based on the Thorium fuel cycle. Tons more power at sustained levels, they cannot melt down into a "China Syndrome" like the old Uranium reactors and they produce less than 1% of the nuclear waste - and that waste has a half life measured in single digit years instead of millennia. They can even "eat" waste from conventional nuclear plants, including Plutonium, converting it into that short half life waste.

There is even a promising Uranium design that is also meltdown proof: PBMR - pebble bed modular reactor. The fuel is housed in carbide pellets the size of a billiard ball so no fuel rods to get stuck. The pellets are put in a hopper from the top (the fuel vessel) and continusously extracted from the bottom when they are worn out, meaning no refueling shut down. Helium cooled, so if there is a coolant leak it goes straight up to outer space. If this happens the pellets heat up to a temp far lower than their structure limits and stabilize there. Good for small plants and spacecraft, and of course its waste could be fed through a Thorium plant for reduction.

Reactor design has come a LONG way since 3 Mile Island.

The more I read about Thorium the more I like it. Thorium can be mined solely in the US. With Uranium, I believe something like over 90% currently is imported. If we are going to be energy independent then we need to be totally energy independent and to me that means leaving Uranium out of the mix.

Here is another interesting wind power topic I read today. I'm sure you all heard that Denmark signed on with Project Better Place but I didn't make the connection until just now.

We talked earlier about how Denmark has such a great wind source (much like our Midwest) but no matching electrical energy storage system. Well, here is the article that made the connection for me - Denmark is indeed perfect for a PBP like system"



"In March of 2008, DONG (Danish Oil & Natural Gas) Energy signed an agreement with Better Place, clearing the way for Denmark to move off of oil for transportation. Renault-Nissan’s electric cars will be among the first to be on Danish roads by the middle of the next decade.

"Similar to Israel, Denmark’s size and gasoline taxes makes it an ideal early adopter for Better Place’s sustainable transportation infrastructure. It also has very progressive environmental policies, which have helped develop a sizeable wind turbine industry that supplies 20% of the country’s energy. DONG Energy will be able to store the unstable excess output of its turbines into the electric recharge grid, allowing the zero-emission cars to have a reliable source of renewable power."


http://www.betterplace.com/why-electric/nations-plug


Well, maybe they could trash all of the wind turbines and go with what DocM suggests (pebble reactors and liquid salt reactors) but they only have a few test pebble reactors in operation today and will take another 10 years or so of development to reach commercial status. Then there is the actual commissioning, manufacturing, etc. So let's say a minimum of 15 years or so before we get any amount of usable power IF everything, including the economics of operation, works out. Is that what you are suggesting for our energy plan, DocM? I guess that makes sense because all of your other logic is flawed, weak and not based on any reality at all.

If windmills are so great why are the Germans and Netherlands cutting funding for them?

...

EEStor's cells, if they work, could help this situation by storing power for use during low wind conditions but as they aren't here yet.....

Who is cutting funding? Everything I've read indicates more capital is being pumped into them.

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/02/06/wonder-wind-power-activate/

AltairNano pulled off a test not too long ago where they stored energy for a short period of time that would be useful in wind power...I can't recall where I saw that press release though.

Wind Turbine Noise Affects Health (http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/wind-turbine-noise-affects-health/)

Looks like wind power might not be the be-all and end-all that some think. . . Give me that silent radioactive waste any day! ;)

Fine and dandy; what's wrong with both? The point here is to have as many reliable sources of energy as we can--without dependence on a foreign country or sole corporate entity for that matter. Why not have both...

BTW: I have no vested interest. I just hate multi-billion dollar government driven projects of that can only make it with subsidies and are sensitive to weather. My rule of thumb is that if government mandates it, or sets the playing field to achieve the same end, it's very likely a boondoggle.


You can not wait, until wind and solar becomes competitive and then decide to build wind and solar. Then you are too late.



My preference: liquid salt nuclear reactors based on the Thorium fuel cycle. Tons more power at sustained levels, they cannot melt down into a "China Syndrome" like the old Uranium reactors and they produce less than 1% of the nuclear waste - and that waste has a half life measured in single digit years instead of millennia. They can even "eat" waste from conventional nuclear plants, including Plutonium, converting it into that short half life waste.


Thorium reactors do not exist yet! You have very expensive reprocessing, because of the high radio-activity of the U-233.

Breeder reactors might work, but Kalkar, Superphenix and Monju are technical and economically total failures. Much more expensive than wind turbines.

Kalkar would cost about 20 dollar cent per kWh, IF YOU ONLY COUNT capitical cost and TAKE 1980 PRICE LEVEL!

As I said, it could work, but currently they are more expensive.



There is even a promising Uranium design that is also meltdown proof: PBMR - pebble bed modular reactor. The fuel is housed in carbide pellets the size of a billiard ball so no fuel rods to get stuck. The pellets are put in a hopper from the top (the fuel vessel) and continusously extracted from the bottom when they are worn out, meaning no refueling shut down. Helium cooled, so if there is a coolant leak it goes straight up to outer space. If this happens the pellets heat up to a temp far lower than their structure limits and stabilize there. Good for small plants and spacecraft, and of course its waste could be fed through a Thorium plant for reduction.

Reactor design has come a LONG way since 3 Mile Island.

U-235 is a depleting source. I don't mind to build some nukes, but I do mind if we neglect wind or solar.

What I don't understand is why the pro-nuke people are ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY attacking wind and solar.

Coal is our enemy. Attacking wind and solar is political stupid.

Lucas

First Thorium is an emerging technology, just like solar and wind.


What I don't understand is why the pro-nuke people are ALWAYS and CONSISTENTLY attacking wind and solar.

Coal is our enemy. Attacking wind and solar is political stupid.

Lucas

First: coal scrubbers WORK, making them easier and cheaper to implement because they're a tech that's working now and in production. Even as we speak sequestration add-ons are being developed which will make them even more viable.

Second: the problem with wind is that it's highly variable in output, and sometimes there is NONE. As such without a practical energy storage system (huge LiION's, EEStor etc.) to buffer the output they aren't very practical. Show me an effective buffering system and I'd be the first on board supporting them BUT - a lot of people don't want them around for various reasons: they see them as eye sores, they don't like the noise (LOUD!) and when one decides to go RUD you don't want to be anywhere near it.

Third: photo-voltaic solar is a great idea, but until production costs and efficiency improve past the 20% - 30% level in todays panels it'll be a niche solution only. There are candidates that can either be produced cheaper (NanoSolar) or have higher efficiencies (record = 40.8% announced yesterday), but they are still in the lab, meaning impractical.

Thermal solar is another matter, it works well enough but it too has limitations: it works best in the desert (duh) and we don't have any handy deserts in Michigan, Minnesota or the rest of the midwest. Also: too many clouds, so again a buffering system would be required.

Transmitting that power from Arizona etc. to the Midwest makes our current transmission problems worse; instead of losses from a transmission of 20 miles (us to the Fermi nuclear plant) you're talking 1500+ miles. Uh-huh :p

On the other hand nuclear (the modern, much safer designs of course), can be put most anywhere that is geologically stable. Thorium would be great, and India among others are making strides in developing that tech, but it isn't the only apple on the tree - there are others like PBMR and some very interesting light water designs.

First Thorium is an emerging technology, just like solar and wind.


Second: the problem with wind is that it's highly variable in output, and sometimes there is NONE. As such without a practical energy storage system (huge LiION's, EEStor etc.) to buffer the output they aren't very practical. Show me an effective buffering system and I'd be the first on board supporting them BUT - a lot of people don't want them around for various reasons: they see them as eye sores, they don't like the noise (LOUD!) and when one decides to go RUD you don't want to be anywhere near it.

Third: photo-voltaic solar is a great idea, but until production costs and efficiency improve past the 20% - 30% level in todays panels it'll be a niche solution only. There are candidates that can either be produced cheaper (NanoSolar) or have higher efficiencies (record = 40.8% announced yesterday), but they are still in the lab, meaning impractical.




You always have your facts screwed up. What a joke! Yet you keep coming on here. It would be very entertaining if it wasn‘t so stupid!

OK, Here are the benefits of thorium fuel as listed on their website:

"Proliferation-resistant fuel cycle - no production of nuclear weapons-usable materials in spent fuel
Reduced nuclear waste
Improved industry operating economics "


Can you post us when this fuel is actually in commercial operation? Thank you. Even when it is, it still generates nuclear waste that has to be guarded and put in mountains. Having a gram of Anthrax is not as bad as having 2 grams of Anthrax but it's still bad.

Wake up! There is pumped storage hydro for large-scale electrical storage. Look it up. Used all over the world. Also, check out YouTube videos for new wind turbine operation. Very little noise and the people that have them on their land don't even notice them. You are really stretching for reasons. Generating tons of nuclear waste is OK but a slight turbine hum is bad? You have got to be kidding us. You are right about the turbine being more visible than nuclear waste cooling in underground chambers but I'll take the turbines, thank you very much. We now know how you think - out of sight out of mind.

OK, on to your third paragraph of complete lies and misinformation. Why do panels have to be past a 30% efficiency level to be effective? Do you know what a plant gets? Look it up and you will be amazed. You have no idea how to even calculate simple things so I can see how this would confuse you. How about this... If I could give you a 100 watt panel that has only 5 percent efficiency but only costs 35 cents (made on a roll-to-roll machine - just like a garbage bag) would that not be viable? It's an extreme example but you can now see how wrong your minimum efficiency numbers are. Just asinine.

Oh, and finally you said that Nanosolar is still in the lab. Do you even read the news or does your bullcrap filter skip anything factual? They have been in production since last December and even have their 1 GW line ramping. Hardly in the lab. Volume constrained yes. However, they are rolling (literally) and you just have to be patient. Of course you never worked on any manufacturing project in your life ( I can't imagine anyone giving you a job).

There, now would you kindly stop the flow of false crap coming from your fingers and try to read a few articles before you post? It's embarrassing. Of course if you are just being a silly troll then can't you find some other forum to occupy?

Solar and wind can be producing a large fraction of our power within a few years versus 10, 15 or more years for a new nuke or coal plant. Plus it's actually cheaper than a nuke plant. And the variable output of wind farms isn't nearly as big an issue as you seem to think. If ALL of our power came from wind farms then yes, that would be a drawback. But right now wind power would only serve to displace dirtier non-renewable power sources. If the wind stops blowing you can start up some natural gas plants, just like we do already. Or you can copy germany and have bio-gas stations (fuel supplied by farming waste) ready to go to fill in the gaps. I find it very strange that people can argue against wind and solar in favour of nuclear when we clearly need more power NOW, not in 15 years. Investing in renewables is the smartest thing we can do right now.

And calm down there Texas, you're gonna scare them away.

On the other hand nuclear (the modern, much safer designs of course), can be put most anywhere that is geologically stable. Thorium would be great, and India among others are making strides in developing that tech, but it isn't the only apple on the tree - there are others like PBMR and some very interesting light water designs.
I didn't object nuclear. So, why are you putting yourself in a corner?

I said, that I do object neglecting solar and wind. If you look to uranium mining you see the following picture:

http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/uranium_production.gif

The supply gap comes from 40% use of uranium from Russian missile war heads.

Now, read the following article:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=ff43f7f4-5eb4-48a2-9969-bd592fbbe75c

If this mine keeps flooding, we wil get a real uranium problem. 6 of the 10 biggest uranium mines will be depleted in 2020.

Probably these numbers are too negative, but still, it is unlikely that you can do great replacements with nuclear. Doubling might work, but tripling is very questionable, at least for the coming 15 years.

The Pickens Plan, is to "free up" carbon sources. Natural gas and coal (okay, coal was not there).

So, given the limits of nuclear on the short term, you need wind and solar. Still, the pro-nuke guys are consistently attacking those forms of energy. Read their website, on 50% of the pages there is something negative about solar or wind. While on the solar and wind sites, you find hardly something about nuclear.

Thorium is not yet available. Proliferation-resistance is questionable. The proposal is to mix the thorium with uranium-238. When you burn the thorium you get u-233, but since it is mixed with u-238 you need enrichment. However, if thorium mining becomes common, it might not be that difficult to get some pure thorium. Then put that pure thorium in your reactor and you have your u-233.

For reprocessing you might need a fully robotized factory, because of the high radioactivity of u-233.

The pro-nuke guys don't see that as problem, but when there is a problem with renewable they suddenly have lost any engeneering ability or other intelligence.

The fluctuation of wind can be solved by:
- Supergrid.
- Storage, pumped hydro, CAES, Sodium Sulphur batteries, Vanadium redox batteries or lead acid.
- Backup

Storage can be done for shifting between night and day. This halves the requirement for backup or supergrid. This will cost something but is still in reasonable range.

Storage for multiple days, becomes prohibitive expensive.

Backup costs money, but if in the form of a gas turbine, it is quite cheap. This is a common misconception. When fossil prices where cheap, you payed mostly for the turbine and not for the gas. However, with current prices, the price of the turbine is quite small.

Now, look at the following link of nuclear billions:

http://www.fairhome.co.uk/2008/07/30/nuclear-costs-hit-73-billion/

73 billion pound is about 110 billion dollar. Building a supergrid would be 80 billion (including for solar). Mostly that is a one time cost.

Lucas

As a stop-gap measure, The Pickens Plan™®© is a viable option.
It would end our transportation-dependence on foreign oil, but more importantly it would give us time.
Time needed to develop the alternative & renewable energies to put us on a firm footing to truly end our dependence on foreign oil, as well as prepare us for peak oil phenomena.

But it must be stressed that this is a stop-gap measure; for while it is true that domestic natural gas has yet to reach peak, as domestic oil production peaked in the 1970's (as was predicted) we must not become complacent.
Eventually, even domestic natural gas will peak.
But in the interim, we will have time to switch our transportation from fossil fuels based, to pure electric.
I say go for it, but only as a next step in addressing oil depletion & foreign oil dependence, with an eye on the future where most of our energy is from domestic renewables.

oil-price.net (http://www.oil-price.net/)

No Worries, "UserName". Plug-ins will succeed NG (natural gas) internal combustion engine (ICE) cars because they solve the efficiency problem (35% vs 10-15% for a conventional ICE car even NG). A natural gas ICE (internal combustion engine) is only slightly more efficient that a gasoline engine but like a gasoline engine it's efficiency CAN be very good (i.e. 35% efficient) if it is run at a constant speed and constant load like in the Volt (see http://serieshybrid.com/FreedomFormula/images/Effic.htm ). So a natural gas powered Volt would be a powerful combination. 40 miles at 50% efficiency (power plants) and hundreds more at 35% efficiency still using no Foreign Oil; Wow!

I own an electric Toyota MR2, but as much as I like EVs and believe they are the ultimate solution we can't afford to wait for 225 million cars to be replaced by E-Flex drivetrains. Even by 2012 Plug-in sales won't even reach 1 million, so we might be talking 50% plug-ins by 2020, if there even is a USA by then. So the urgent solution is to IMMEDIATELY sell NG cars but more important is to economically convert existing cars to NG. At $2/gallon equivalent how hard would you have to beg customers to pay $1000 for a retrofit like that?

I've also heard that GM has 6 NG models they sell overseas; anyone else know about this? When I heard that, it made me mad as H... So, you GM sniffers that surf the Forum, let your management know that some of us consider it treason to withhold cars from the market that can run totally on a cheap U.S. energy resource. This is no joke, in a post-9/11 world, what are you thinking?!?!? Why don't you try being the first at something and actually turn a profit NEXT year instead of waiting for the Volt to bale you out in 2013. I'm all for any American corporation making billions on a great product (like iPhones and Dell computers), so don't be timid, go for it!

Dr Mark

No Worries, "UserName". Plug-ins will succeed NG (natural gas) internal combustion engine (ICE) cars because they solve the efficiency problem (35% vs 10-15% for a conventional ICE car even NG). A natural gas ICE (internal combustion engine) is only slightly more efficient that a gasoline engine but like a gasoline engine it's efficiency CAN be very good (i.e. 35% efficient) if it is run at a constant speed and constant load like in the Volt (see http://serieshybrid.com/FreedomFormula/images/Effic.htm ). So a natural gas powered Volt would be a powerful combination. 40 miles at 50% efficiency (power plants) and hundreds more at 35% efficiency still using no Foreign Oil; Wow!

I own an electric Toyota MR2, but as much as I like EVs and believe they are the ultimate solution we can't afford to wait for 225 million cars to be replaced by E-Flex drivetrains. Even by 2012 Plug-in sales won't even reach 1 million, so we might be talking 50% plug-ins by 2020, if there even is a USA by then. So the urgent solution is to IMMEDIATELY sell NG cars but more important is to economically convert existing cars to NG. At $2/gallon equivalent how hard would you have to beg customers to pay $1000 for a retrofit like that?

I've also heard that GM has 6 NG models they sell overseas; anyone else know about this? When I heard that, it made me mad as H... So, you GM sniffers that surf the Forum, let your management know that some of us consider it treason to withhold cars from the market that can run totally on a cheap U.S. energy resource. This is no joke, in a post-9/11 world, what are you thinking?!?!? Why don't you try being the first at something and actually turn a profit NEXT year instead of waiting for the Volt to bale you out in 2013. I'm all for any American corporation making billions on a great product (like iPhones and Dell computers), so don't be timid, go for it!

Dr Mark


For those of you who are wondering why this post makes so much sense, it's because this is the real Dr. Mark. The other poster is DocM and he is a just a troll. I myself was about to write, "Wow, you finally are talking sense, did you get off the drugs?" Then I realized it was the real Dr. Mark. Nice post!

I recommend pumped storage hydro and compressed air storage.

Tex, from six days ago. Who were you making recommendations to ??

Tex, from six days ago. Who were you making recommendations to ??



Now I know in your mind your post makes perfect sense. However... Please get off the drugs and trolls. ;)

Sometimes when people say, "I recommend" it does not have to be directed to any one person. Almost like a rhetorical question doesn't expect an answer. It is used for effect.

Never mind.
Might as well stick a fork in it; its done.

Pickens Calls Off Plans For Vast Texas Wind Farm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702455.html?hpid=sec-business)

Well, I guess it was fun while it lasted :(

Never mind.
Might as well stick a fork in it; its done.

Pickens Calls Off Plans For Vast Texas Wind Farm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702455.html?hpid=sec-business)

Well, I guess it was fun while it lasted :(

You do realize that is because there is no way to distribute the power. He's looking at places closer to main distribution lines and there are a lot of them. He'll get back to Texas after the grid gets expanded.

You do realize that is because there is no way to distribute the power. He's looking at places closer to main distribution lines and there are a lot of them. He'll get back to Texas after the grid gets expanded.






So Pickens didn't know this before he started this huge project? I'm guessing he did. Sometimes people come up with excuses that sound a lot better. Like EEscam saying they didn’t have enough funding and that's why they didn't reach their delivery milestone. Come on, nobody believes that. They could have billions if they wanted. Of course they might have to build one tiny prototype but...

If you look at the current energy situation one can see more realistic, but potentially embarrassing, reasons why Pickens had to back out. Cheap NG, economic collapse which reduces the global amount of petroleum used, etc.

Since Pickens wanted to use the wind turbines to free up NG for use in transportation the whole concept broke down. Even though he is right that we are near peak oil, he didn't count on the world contracting it's petroleum use so dramatically. We now have plenty of oil and it looks like the recession is going to drag on for quite some time.

We can also use conservation and efficiency programs to reduce our need of more electricity generation for a long time, especially since it looks like fossil fuel prices are going to stay low as long as the recession drags on.

The biggest problem I have with his vision is that I don't think we will go the CNG path and instead we will go the EV, plug-in EV and hybrid EV path. Now, it all depends on what technology improves the fastest but the EV path is renewable and sustainable while the NG path is not. It just delays things but eventually even NG will peak. If we are going to transition our transportation infrastructure we might as well go for the electrification of it.

Now if there are some breakthroughs with super efficient hydrogen electrolysis and hydrogen storage or some great biofuel technology shows up then who knows.

Not that CNG won't still be useful, it has the ability to run buses and even semi-trucks (other countries are already using it for those vehicles). I just don't think Pickens chose the correct path. He now agrees with his critics.

Here is Dearth's emotional quote:


Solar and wind can be producing a large fraction of our power within a few years versus 10, 15 or more years for a new nuke or coal plant. Plus it's actually cheaper than a nuke plant. /QUOTE]

And here is a statement made by energy an company (s) in Texas.

[QUOTE]The San Antonio utility will keep rates down by selling half of the capacity it will own, or 20%, on the wholesale electricity market. Construction of the two new plants will begin in 2012 and they will enter revenue service in 2015 and 2016.

Hysteria and misinformation vs reality. Not 10 or 15 years. More like 3-4 years, tops. Yet flowmouths keep repeating the same misinformation over and over and over.

From this article:

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/

Hysteria and misinformation vs reality. Not 10 or 15 years. More like 3-4 years, tops. Yet flowmouths keep repeating the same misinformation over and over and over.






OPEC SUCKS, did you just come out of hibernation or something and your brain is still a bit cloudy? First you post an article about a formula 3 car that is over 2 months old and now you are saying that a nuclear reactor that is planned (notice I said planned and not the actual date it will be completed - there are almost always delays - just check the record of completed power plants and how long they took) to be completed in 2016 is only 3-4 years? What's the matter with you. Do you realize it's only 2009 and they have been already working on those projects? Hello? You have to factor in the whole time of the project, from conception to application to approval to engineering through construction and certification to finally the point where the power is added to the grid. You didn't know this? lol.

There are a few nuclear power plants in different stages of completion around the world, some have been in various stages of completion for decades! Yes, I said decades. Let's not even talk about the decommissioning times. Those projects are projected to last over 50 years! That's 5 decades, OPEC SUCKS.

Do you seriously want to challenge these points? If so, you are going to go down in flames. Let's do it! Let's check out how long the average power plant took from concept though applied power. Shall we? Oh, do you know the difference between adding a reactor at an existing power plant site and starting a new power plant? For one, the whole process is shorter for adding a reactor because most of the infrastructure is already in place and the site has already been approved for future expansion.

However, if you want to start a new nuclear revolution we are going to have to start at square one and build new power plant sites. Good luck with that. Do you still think they will be up and running in 3-4 years? Hahahahahhaha. OPEC SUCKS, go back to sleep.