On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:23:30 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
While googling I ran into this chart:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/images/LLN...y_Chart300.jpg showing energy
inputs and where
they go. Notice how much waste is in electrical distribution.
Yeah, it sounds like distribution is the problem that's holding up a lot
of
possibilities. Somebody has to solve that (not to make big improvements in
efficiency, necessarily, but just to make it possible to transmit power
over
long distances in the US -- politics and regulation are big impediments)
or
wind and large-scale solar are going nowhere. Not that I ever expect them
to
be a dominant source of power, but they could be significant.
Yes, you got it. Distribution has a lot of waste and a lot of the wind
potential is not
where the loads are. At least wind farms are not a total waste of time
and money.
Here is a picture of the grid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...sPowerGrid.jpg
There isn't much capacity where the wind is currently if you look at the
above and then
the you provided earlier.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html
It looks like the patient is suffering from a degenerative circulatory
disease.
Heh heh heh. Say, look at the South. Isn't there some way we could
design an energy source which utilizes stiflingly hot, muggy weather
to produce electricity, for use down there?
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/ The section of the site were this came from
looks like it has
some interesting reading material.
I notice that there assumptions for next few decades have coal as an
energy source. I
guess they didn't get the memo. 
Wes
I'm looking forward to seeing if my prediction made 20 years ago comes to
pass. I predicted then that more nuclear fission was inevitable, that it
would eventually dominate our electricity generation, with wind and/or
solar
being mostly of local application in a few areas. My heart sunk when Three
Mile Island put the final nail in fission's coffin for at least a
generation. I hope I live long enough to see something happen.
TMI and that damn movie did a huge amount of damage. Chernobyl, a reactor
that would
never be built in the US or any western country did a fine job of shoving
the corpse back
into the coffin when some of the hysteria wore off.
Verily.
Yes, but there's another side to the story. A nuclear expert says the movie
may have contributed to making nuclear power safer. Unless I'm mistaken,
Larry currently is reading a book written by this guy:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...-a-guest-post/
Yes, and the book they mention is the one I'm reading. It'll be a good
reference book and I'm sure I'll reread it many times in order to suck
all the marrow out.
I believe in nuclear generation, we have learned so much now that current
technology so
much safer than what was at TMI. I've said before and I'll say it again,
give me decent
rates and you can put it next door.
You can put a nuclear plant near where the loads are. Likely easier than
moving loads to
where the wind is.
Wes, I just read the chapter on wind and it doesn't look good. Grid
operators HATE wind power because it's not a source of steady power.
In Denmark, the world leader in windmill usage, one fifth of the
annual power is developed by windmills, but power usage is only 4%.
They have to export the rest to other countries. Wind is more steady
at night and the need is low. Other operators have found that they
have to limit the mix of windpower to 20% or they can't balance the
grid.
Right now, gov't tax breaks are making the use of wind power sweet so
people like Boone Pickins can offer his investors a 25% return on
their investments, straight out of the federal tax credits. Also from
Tucker's book:
"A study of a wind farm proposed for Blairsburg, Iowa by Warren
Buffet's MidAmerican Energy found that, with all the federal and state
subsidkes, the $323 million project could breakeven after only six
years without even producing a kilowatt of electricity."
Tucker sees wind as a backup power source which needs a backup itself,
since wind isn't steady. I wouldn't go investing money in wind
technology.
Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.
Nor do I, and that's good. I just hope the greenies jump ship far
enough to embrace it and phase out that nastyass coal stuff. Talk
about a lose/lose relationship...
Speaking of coal, did anyone else know that over 60% of coal burning
facilities are still not using sulfur scrubbers due to grandfathering
clauses in the 1970 Clean Air Act? And those which do are putting out
vast amounts of coal sludge, tarry calcium goo. I didn't read about
this spill in my paper. Did any of you?
http://www.env-econ.net/2009/01/vide...dge-spill.html
This is called coal sludge but all I see is ash, which is bad enough.
The sludge is a form of gypsum which can't be used in construction.
Check out this leading sentence on their "learn about nuclear plants"
page (boo!) but then look at the next to last paragraph, where the NRC
says that 34 new nuke plants will have apps in by 2010! That's good
news. (Caution: this is a heavily biased, alarmist site)
http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php...3&Item id=296
--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool