Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how
long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has
changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how
long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount of
electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for less
using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

There are a number of windy areas in the world and many in the south west
and other places. One of the first was in southern California - gap towards
Nevada. There are unique designs now that are verticle and horizontal turbines.
They have promise. They are used in big city canyons and roof tops...

Solar Cells have a problem with the clouds. I would get 6 months of use at
about 50% loading and the rest of the time in the 20's. That is a 250,000 USD
design. Only if I were mega rich would I spend that kind of money for some
power.

Their issue is they don't see UV light at all. If UV then most of the time they
would work. Another issue

Martin

Wes wrote:
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

What scale are we talking about, Wes? Home or commercial with a 90'
wingspan?


Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering
how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific
numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite different.
One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of photovoltaics is
that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For example, I saw an audit
of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up most of today's
installations, that didn't include the energy cost of growing the
crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made from rejected
ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost nothing in terms of
energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the embedded energy in the
cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics, which
may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure often used
for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells, so far, have
much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety of
sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables. So
far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

What scale are we talking about, Wes? Home or commercial with a 90'
wingspan?

Definitely commercial. I'm trying to make sure wind power isn't a feel good thing like
using corn for gasohol.


Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Doesn't look like it has changed much.


Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

Does the book go into his reasons for being anti nuke? That man has been an embarasment
all around.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"ATP*" wrote:

Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html


From that it looks like the coastal areas of Michigan have a lot of potential. Since I
live in that state that is the part of your link that caught my interest.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering
how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables.
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress
I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol. I think wind power
installations are a hideous blight on the environment, I don't see
technology changing that aspect much.

You could try asking in alt.energy.homepower. A few of the posters
there have actual functioning hardware.

Jim Wilkins

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I just need to get a rough idea if windmills are net energy plus and what the span is.


I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

I googled a bit and didn't find something better yet. That one gave me a good enough idea
of inputs and how long to recover them.

Near the end where they break down financial payback was an added plus, saved me another
question. However, my googling shows estimated life of about 20 years for these
machines. About the time the project recovers the expendature it needs major renovation.

Of course getting longer life than estimates could happen and the designs are going to
improve over time as a body of experience is collected.

At least now I have something in my head to detect if someone is trying to run some bs on
me.


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.

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

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:26:01 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

What scale are we talking about, Wes? Home or commercial with a 90'
wingspan?

Definitely commercial. I'm trying to make sure wind power isn't a feel good thing like
using corn for gasohol.

Right, and that turned into a nightmare which is ongoing. I HATE
gasohol and 10% ethanol fuel for its horrible mileage. It's gutless.


Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology has changed
drastically.

Doesn't look like it has changed much.

The power factor has doubled (at minimum, while costs have gone down)
every decade since the 70s. They're up to 30% efficient now. We're
getting there.


Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

Does the book go into his reasons for being anti nuke? That man has been an embarasment
all around.

Not so far as I've read. S. David Freeman, author of "A Time to
Choose", was anti-nuke and had Carter's ear. Skipping ahead in the
book, I see that it was Pres. Ford who actually halted nuclear
reprocessing, then Carter deferred any Fed help on the plants which
would have done the work. Carter was afraid that the recycling of
spent fuel would leasd to nuclear proliferation.

I was mistaken that he'd been fully trained in nuke operations, as
shown in this Wiki excerpt:

"Carter has said that he loved the Navy, and had planned to make it
his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations.
Carter felt the best route for promotion was with submarine duty since
he felt that nuclear power would be increasingly used in submarines.
During service on the diesel-electric submarine USS PomfretTemplate:WP
Ships USS instances, Carter was almost washed overboard.[7] After six
years of military service, Carter trained for the position of
engineering officer in submarine USS SeawolfTemplate:WP Ships USS
instances, then under construction.[8] Carter completed a non-credit
introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting
in March 1953. This followed Carter's first-hand experience as part of
a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning
up after a nuclear meltdown at Canada's Chalk River Laboratories
reactor.[9][10]

Upon the death of his father, James Earl Carter, Sr., in July 1953,
however, Lieutenant Carter immediately resigned his commission, and he
was discharged from the Navy on October 9, 1953.[11][12] This cut
short his nuclear powerplant operator training, and he was never able
to serve on a nuclear submarine, since the first boat of that fleet,
the USS Nautilus, was launched on January 17, 1955, over a year after
his discharge from the Navy.[13]"

It appears that he saw only the worst side of nuclear. He also
couldn't pronounce the word properly, a thing which always amazed me.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

Wes wrote:
From that it looks like the coastal areas of Michigan

And which OCEAN does Michigan border? :-) "coastal: along an ocean"

OH! You mean "Lakeshore" :-)

have a lot of potential. Since I
live in that state that is the part of your link that caught my interest.

Wes

...lew... (couldn't help my self) :-)

I put a huge amount of personal energy into windmill electrical
generation between 1982 and 1984.

Your results are very dependent on the wind in your area.

The wind power available is proportional to the cube of the wind
speed.
If the wind is too low, you shut down.
If the wind is too high, you shut down.
If the wind is just right, you convert power.

The Seattle are is a terrible place for wind generation.
The wind is mostly too high or too low.

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering
how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the
wind corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a
payback in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small
amount of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on
tax-free municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and
other aid had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels
installed for less using small contractors employing illegal aliens.
Wind power is only feasible in areas where there is sustained wind
available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables.
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress
I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol.

Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the hill.
When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in 1981-82, I
was working with an MIT prof who had developed a phosphorescent-augmented
solar cell that was going to revolutionize the technology. It didn't, and I
learned a few lessons from that experience (I had reported it
enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic physics of solar cells
are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new to go. Another is that
this doesn't stop people from trying, and that many of them, including a lot
of college profs involved in research, are working a different side of the
street. They're after research money and investment dollars. They seem to
recognize that they're more or less playing in a sandbox.

There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as basic
science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to strip down
the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be synthesized.
The last two are not about generating electricity directly, but rather
towards producing an intermediate fuel.

It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a couple
of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.

I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.

I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my jaw
drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind turbines
placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may leave it
stillborn, but I want to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there are
lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on "wind
power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind power life
cycle analysis."

I just need to get a rough idea if windmills are net energy plus and what
the span is.


I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in
6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for accuracy,
here's something that shows how it's calculated and some specific numbers.
There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

I googled a bit and didn't find something better yet. That one gave me a
good enough idea
of inputs and how long to recover them.

Near the end where they break down financial payback was an added plus,
saved me another
question. However, my googling shows estimated life of about 20 years
for these
machines. About the time the project recovers the expendature it needs
major renovation.

Of course getting longer life than estimates could happen and the designs
are going to
improve over time as a body of experience is collected.

At least now I have something in my head to detect if someone is trying to
run some bs on
me.


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.


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.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:26:01 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. I'm wondering
how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

What scale are we talking about, Wes? Home or commercial with a 90'
wingspan?

Definitely commercial. I'm trying to make sure wind power isn't a feel
good thing like
using corn for gasohol.

Right, and that turned into a nightmare which is ongoing. I HATE
gasohol and 10% ethanol fuel for its horrible mileage. It's gutless.


Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Doesn't look like it has changed much.

The power factor has doubled (at minimum, while costs have gone down)
every decade since the 70s. They're up to 30% efficient now. We're
getting there.


Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

Does the book go into his reasons for being anti nuke? That man has been
an embarasment
all around.

Not so far as I've read. S. David Freeman, author of "A Time to
Choose", was anti-nuke and had Carter's ear. Skipping ahead in the
book, I see that it was Pres. Ford who actually halted nuclear
reprocessing, then Carter deferred any Fed help on the plants which
would have done the work. Carter was afraid that the recycling of
spent fuel would leasd to nuclear proliferation.

I was mistaken that he'd been fully trained in nuke operations, as
shown in this Wiki excerpt:

"Carter has said that he loved the Navy, and had planned to make it
his career. His ultimate goal was to become Chief of Naval Operations.
Carter felt the best route for promotion was with submarine duty since
he felt that nuclear power would be increasingly used in submarines.
During service on the diesel-electric submarine USS PomfretTemplate:WP
Ships USS instances, Carter was almost washed overboard.[7] After six
years of military service, Carter trained for the position of
engineering officer in submarine USS SeawolfTemplate:WP Ships USS
instances, then under construction.[8] Carter completed a non-credit
introductory course in nuclear reactor power at Union College starting
in March 1953. This followed Carter's first-hand experience as part of
a group of American and Canadian servicemen who took part in cleaning
up after a nuclear meltdown at Canada's Chalk River Laboratories
reactor.[9][10]

Upon the death of his father, James Earl Carter, Sr., in July 1953,
however, Lieutenant Carter immediately resigned his commission, and he
was discharged from the Navy on October 9, 1953.[11][12] This cut
short his nuclear powerplant operator training, and he was never able
to serve on a nuclear submarine, since the first boat of that fleet,
the USS Nautilus, was launched on January 17, 1955, over a year after
his discharge from the Navy.[13]"

It appears that he saw only the worst side of nuclear. He also
couldn't pronounce the word properly, a thing which always amazed me.

--
That whole era was rather anti-"nucular". In NY, even conservative
Republicans were against nuclear power and wouldn't allow the completed
Shoreham power plant to operate. I knew a guy who worked at the plant for
ten years, while they were building and low power testing it, and then they
mothballed it.

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:24:49 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:


Let me finish the book first, then I'll tell you if Tucker had stats
in there. _Terrestrial Energy_ is quite a good book so far (I'm 129
pgs into it now.) It's subtitled "_How Nuclear Power Will Lead the
Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey_" He (and lots of
others in the know) is banking on nuclear power for the base and
solar, etc. to provide the peak power on a daily basis.

Until this book, I had no idea that it was the nuclear-_trained_
President Carter who derailed the nuclear industry, caused the
proliferation of nuke waste (by not allowing rod recycling), and
brought back coal, the dirtiest of all possible power sources.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

I'm going to guess that maybe President Carter, who was trained in nuclear
technology, maybe he knew something that you and I didn't?



http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp...v=menu484_2_10


Hanford Toxic Burial Ground Cleaned Up Near the Columbia River


HANFORD, Wash-- One of the most hazardous Hanford burial grounds along the
Columbia River has been cleaned up.

Cleaning up the 618-7 burial ground at Hanford was a very difficult process.
Clean-up staff had very little records about what was underground. It was three
trenches and between 1960 to 1973 the site received nuclear fuel waste.

This is part of the careful cleanup of 800 barrels of toxic waste. Hanford
officials say a milestone is reached that holds true to the Tri-Party Agreement.

"We found a lot of unknowns and a lot more material than we expected. We handled
that very well and completed the project on time," said Dave Brockman, Manager
of the Richland Hanford Office.

Clean-up of the burial site cost more than $20 million. The Environmental
Protection Agency oversaw the process and says it went smoothly.

"It's probably the most challenging waste site that they have done at Hanford to
date and they've shown that they can meet this challenge and do it," said Dave
Einan, EPA.

Some of the trenches contained chips of zircaloy which can easily ignite. Most
of the waste came from Hanford's fabrication and research facilities. Before
removal, samples needed to be tested to see what type of materials they were.

"You anticipate what's going to happen, you create a series of boundaries, and
you go step by step by step by step very carefully, then stop and you go back
and evaluate," said Chuck Spencer, Rresident of Washington Closure Hanford.

During excavation of the trenches, last August a small fire broke out but there
was no injuries or contamination spread.

"It was a very hazardous project but we have more hazardous one's to come. We
learned a lot from this now we fell we're ready to move on to a couple more,"
said Brockman.

The next clean up project is a site north of this burial ground and another one
that's near Energy Northwest. After this site was cleaned, which took about a
year, workers had removed 180-thousand tons of waste.

I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol.


Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the hill.
When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in 1981-82, I
was working with an MIT prof who had developed a phosphorescent-augmented
solar cell that was going to revolutionize the technology. It didn't, and I
learned a few lessons from that experience (I had reported it
enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic physics of solar cells
are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new to go. Another is that
this doesn't stop people from trying, and that many of them, including a lot
of college profs involved in research, are working a different side of the
street. They're after research money and investment dollars. They seem to
recognize that they're more or less playing in a sandbox.

There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as basic
science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to strip down
the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be synthesized.
The last two are not about generating electricity directly, but rather
towards producing an intermediate fuel.

It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a couple
of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.


I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.


I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my jaw
drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind turbines
placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may leave it
stillborn, but I want to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress




Wind energy is another boondoggle financed by govt grants. I am
supprised that the enviomentalists are not up in arms about windmills
growing like mushrooms across the enviorment.
You know its a boondoggle because of the way they rate the output of
them vs. true cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...able/wind.html


This one nuke plant dwarfs the output of all the windmill generation
systems in the whole country.

19,046,000 megawatt-hour facility vs 26.6 billion kWh per year


http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation...fact+sheet.htm


They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.

I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.


John

Ed Huntress wrote:
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.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law
of physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an
exhaustive search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.
I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.


Jon

"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






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.

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

Lew Hartswick wrote:

OH! You mean "Lakeshore" :-)

Okay. You got me. I could try to quibble with this though

# Obsolete The frontier or border of a country.

"john" wrote in message
...





I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback,
not dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the
production of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce
the cost and energy input. The potential for improvement through
innovation in solar cells is probably much higher than in corn to
ethanol.


Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the
hill. When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in
1981-82, I was working with an MIT prof who had developed a
phosphorescent-augmented solar cell that was going to revolutionize the
technology. It didn't, and I learned a few lessons from that experience
(I had reported it enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic
physics of solar cells are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new
to go. Another is that this doesn't stop people from trying, and that
many of them, including a lot of college profs involved in research, are
working a different side of the street. They're after research money and
investment dollars. They seem to recognize that they're more or less
playing in a sandbox.

There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as
basic science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to
strip down the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be
synthesized. The last two are not about generating electricity directly,
but rather towards producing an intermediate fuel.

It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a
couple of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.


I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.


I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my
jaw drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind
turbines placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may
leave it stillborn, but I want to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress


Wind energy is another boondoggle financed by govt grants. I am supprised
that the enviomentalists are not up in arms about windmills growing like
mushrooms across the enviorment.
You know its a boondoggle because of the way they rate the output of them
vs. true cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...able/wind.html

"The Energy Kid's Page"?? That's where you get your engineering and
economics data? Hoho...No wonder the country is in trouble. g

If you like that page, John, you'll love this one:

http://www.thekidzpage.com/colouring_menus/index.htm

Tell us, please, what data you extracted from "The Energy Kid's Page" that
leads you to believe that wind power is a boondoggle? Specific references,
please.



This one nuke plant dwarfs the output of all the windmill generation
systems in the whole country.

19,046,000 megawatt-hour facility vs 26.6 billion kWh per year


http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation...fact+sheet.htm

Uh, John, you've got generating capacity rates and Watt-hours a bit mixed
up. The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 MW facility. The installed wind
power capacity in the US is 22.0 MW -- almost ten times as much as PPL's
nuke. PPL produces 19.0 terawatt-hours of energy per year from that plant.
Wind energy produced in the US is 48 TWh per year -- 2-1/2 times as much as
PPL's nuke, and roughly 2,000 times as much as you state above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po..._note-AWEAQ4-6

If you don't like Wikipedia references, you'll see that those numbers are
linked extensively to original sources.

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a lot
more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its infancy, it
replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad thing.



They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.

I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own nuke
at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my power.

The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder) in
their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley.
d8-)

The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state money,
which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the state.
Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of our Oyster
Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.


I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.

Well, if there's a market for certified welders, we'll always have them.
Meantime, let me make clear that I'm all in favor of building a lot more
nukes. In most of the country, they're likely the best bet for handling base
load capacity. But the economics of wind are looking pretty good from what
I've seen. The limitations are significant, but they look like they pay off,
where they can be well-sited, as long as you don't try to use them for too
much of your base capacity.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

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 was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
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.


There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law of
physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an exhaustive
search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm

Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.

One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.

I hope so, and I hope it doesn't require a depression or political coercion
from some tin-pot dictatorship to accomplish it.

I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.

Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 18, 4:28*am, "ATP*" wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

...



"ATP*" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Is there someplace that has an analysis of how much energy is put into
making, erecting,
and commissioning a windmill vs typical energy output. *I'm wondering
how long it takes to
recover the energy used to put it in place.

Since wind is a bit variable, we can assume it is somewhere in the wind
corridor that T.
Boone Pickens was pitching.

I know solar cells have a lousy break even point unless the technology
has changed
drastically.

Thanks,

Wes

Do you need something precise, with documentation, etc.? If so, there
are lots of studies, using different methods of measurement. Search on
"wind power embedded energy," wind power embodied energy," or "wind
power life cycle analysis."

I did this a few years ago. At that time photovoltaic was showing a
worst-case payback of around 24 years, while wind power showed a payback
in 6 months or even less.

Just grabbing one from a Google search, without checking it for
accuracy, here's something that shows how it's calculated and some
specific numbers. There are better studies that you can find, I'm su

www.rogerhelmer.com/sustainability.pdf

--
When I analyzed small solar installations to be constructed under a
prevailing wage scenario, the installations generated such a small amount
of electricity that they would not even cover the interest on tax-free
municipal bonds, and that is after generous utility rebates and other aid
had been applied. Of course homeowners can get the panels installed for
less using small contractors employing illegal aliens. Wind power is only
feasible in areas where there is sustained wind available:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.r...nds/fig13.html

The cost issue is one thing, and the embedded energy can be quite
different. One thing to watch out for in the optimistic assessments of
photovoltaics is that they sometimes mix-and-match technologies. For
example, I saw an audit of monocrystalline photovoltaics, which make up
most of today's installations, that didn't include the energy cost of
growing the crystals/ingots. The rationale was that the cells are made
from rejected ingots from the semiconductor industry, and thus cost
nothing in terms of energy. ! Those ingots are a large part of the
embedded energy in the cells.

I also saw a quick energy payback claimed for thin-film photovoltaics,
which may or may not be true, but they used the 25-year lifetime figure
often used for monocrystalline cells. But apparently the thin-film cells,
so far, have much shorter lives.

So it pays to be careful in reading the evaluations. That's why I put the
disclaimer in that note to Wes, above. I'd want to see the complete
methodology and a detailed accounting of any report on photovoltaic
payback.

In terms of dollars, most people acknowledge that they're a loser.

Wind, on the other hand, keeps looking better. I don't know enough to
evaluate the construction costs and so on, but the numbers from a variety
of sources look very promising. Of course, there are a lot of variables..
So far, the costs work out best when wind is just a small percentage of a
system's input.

--
Ed Huntress

I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback, not
dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the production
of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce the cost and
energy input. The potential for improvement through innovation in solar
cells is probably much higher than in corn to ethanol. I think wind power
installations are a hideous blight on the environment, I don't see
technology changing that aspect much.

Here is the problem with solar cells (PV cells). They convert only a
single wavelength of light. Someof that light slips through the cell.
When a reflector is placed behind the cell,it is able to convert
almost all of the energy of that particular wavelength of light to
electrical energy Some of the more efficient PV units are mixtures of
material that are able to convert two different wavelengths to
electrical energy. As designed, the PV cells are almost 100%
efficient.

However, the amount of energy from the sun at any specific wavelength
is not very much energy. This is the problem that must be overcome for
PV to be viable.

Paul

"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.



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.

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/


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

Yup. I see no way around a vast increase in our use of nuclear power, at
least within 30 years or so.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

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 was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

It's something like the gun-control argument. You aren't going to settle
that argument by means of rational statistics. You're dealing with a scary,
mysterious and evil thing that comes right out of a horror movie -- while
you're celebrating Christmas dinner with your family.

I don't know what it will take to change attitudes. Dismissive arguments,
though, aren't it.

--
Ed Huntress

"We should have a recession. People who spend their lives pounding nails in
Nevada need something else to do." John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago professor
of economics, Nov. 2008

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:39:24 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

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 was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

Like that cosmic radiation which only gets flight attendants?

Oh, I'm sure that nobody -downwind- in the Ukraine was happy for years
afterwards, even if they weren't evacuated. That's a bad way to live,
whether you die or not. _But_, the -very- vast majority didn't even
get sick, let alone die.

But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?


It's something like the gun-control argument. You aren't going to settle
that argument by means of rational statistics. You're dealing with a scary,
mysterious and evil thing that comes right out of a horror movie -- while
you're celebrating Christmas dinner with your family.

Right. Why spoil a good argument by injecting facts into it? g
Then again, some folks still aren't worried about their homes:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...412954,00.html


I don't know what it will take to change attitudes. Dismissive arguments,
though, aren't it.

Who's trying to change attitudes? I was having a happy rant. shrug


--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

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

Ed Huntress wrote:
Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since.
I was lazy and only cited the first relevant article I came across. I've
read several articles in recent years on newer
reactor designs. TMI was just a glorified and scaled up version of the
first reactor. In typical human fashion,
since the concept worked, nobody invested a whole lot of time and money
trying to come up with something better.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.

When electricity bills start climbing like gas did (and will again),
maybe some lights will come on.
Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)
I surely will! But I hope you make it.

Jon

SNIP

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a lot
more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its infancy, it
replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad thing.



They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.

I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own nuke
at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my power.

The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder) in
their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley.
d8-)
Wouldn't the alley no longer be dark if one of those crabs was in the
alley?
ERS
The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state money,
which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the state.
Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of our Oyster
Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.


I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.

Well, if there's a market for certified welders, we'll always have them.
Meantime, let me make clear that I'm all in favor of building a lot more
nukes. In most of the country, they're likely the best bet for handling base
load capacity. But the economics of wind are looking pretty good from what
I've seen. The limitations are significant, but they look like they pay off,
where they can be well-sited, as long as you don't try to use them for too
much of your base capacity.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:35:19 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.
=============
Unfortunately, as long as we have the mindset where the cheapest
bidder gets the contracts and the lowest cost operator runs the
reactors we will have problems.

An analog is airline safety. An airline can be safe or they can
be cheap but not both.

Because of the cheap-cheap-cheap mindset, practices such as
rotating and 12 hour shifts are common that guarantee operator
sleep deprivation, fatigue and inattention. FWIW -- this also
statistically reduces the operators lifespan by several years [c.
5-20%], even if no radiation is involved.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3463801
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/224105.pdf
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/224105.pdf
http://www.ttuhsc.edu/amarillo/som/e...resenation.ppt
http://www.ttuhsc.edu/amarillo/som/e...Guide_2006.doc


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:39:24 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:16:40 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:

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 was the next to last nail. Chernobyl was the last.

Of the 4,000 children who developed thyroid cancer in the USSR after
Chernobyl, only 10 died, and they died only because Russian medical
people weren't prepared for it. Adding the soldiers and firefighters
who went into the known extremely radioactive areas to put out fires,
the total number of dead is still benign compared to the global
reaction to the accident: generational paranoia. But both of these
proved that the China Syndrome could never happen. The meltdowns were
self-limiting.

Well, there are several arguments implicit in that paragraph, and they
aren't necessarily compatible.

They boil down to this: You know as well as anyone that there are bad ways
to die, and there are scary ways to die. Dying because you hit a garbage
truck in your car is a bad way to die. Dying because of something you
can't
see, that you know is penetrating your body and that you can't escape it,
that you don't know IF or WHEN it's penetrating your body, and whether
it's
triggering a cancer or just passing through on its way to the center of
the
Earth, is a scary way to die. Rather, I should say it's a scary way to
*think* about dying.

Like that cosmic radiation which only gets flight attendants?

Oh, I'm sure that nobody -downwind- in the Ukraine was happy for years
afterwards, even if they weren't evacuated. That's a bad way to live,
whether you die or not. _But_, the -very- vast majority didn't even
get sick, let alone die.

But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?

It's their problem until they vote. Then it's our problem. And that's the
big problem.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
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?

Pipe it up here. We could use some of it just as it is.



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.

Yeah, 20% seems to be the target number. However, a long-distance
distribution network helps by distributing the source geographically. It's
difficult to predict how such a network would behave.


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?

Yes. They're still getting acid rain in the Adirondacks -- and I still
haven't gone back there to fish, as a consequence.

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

Heck, yes. It was all over the front pages here. And it was on TV -- which
is why you missed it. d8-)

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

Ed Huntress wrote:

"john" wrote in message
...




I see now that the original question referred to energy input/payback,
not dollars. Hopefully we will see much greater efficiencies in the
production of solar cells as the technology evolves, which will reduce
the cost and energy input. The potential for improvement through
innovation in solar cells is probably much higher than in corn to
ethanol.


Like batteries for cars, its promise always seems to be just over the
hill. When I was doing new-materials research for Japan's MITI, back in
1981-82, I was working with an MIT prof who had developed a
phosphorescent-augmented solar cell that was going to revolutionize the
technology. It didn't, and I learned a few lessons from that experience
(I had reported it enthusiastically g). One lesson is that the basic
physics of solar cells are pretty well wrapped up -- there's nowhere new
to go. Another is that this doesn't stop people from trying, and that
many of them, including a lot of college profs involved in research, are
working a different side of the street. They're after research money and
investment dollars. They seem to recognize that they're more or less
playing in a sandbox.

There are new places to go with materials, however, and the thin-film
approaches are where the action is. Without studying it, my impression is
that they're looking for a magic potion that they can deposit in multiple
layers of different materials, which will involve low embedded energy and
fairly long life. Honda's CIG cell is one example. It looks like a layer
cake. Sony has a "dye-sensitized" cell that's still in early stages, and
there are in-situ electrolysis cells that generate hydrogen. As far as
basic science is concerned, there is action in biologicals, trying to
strip down the biochemistry of photosynthesis to some basics that can be
synthesized. The last two are not about generating electricity directly,
but rather towards producing an intermediate fuel.

It's been a frustrating half-century of research, IMO, filled with
disappointments and blind alleys. It's hard not to be cynical about it if
one has followed it with hope through all that time, as I did for a
couple of decades. Now I just sit back and wait.



I think wind power installations are a hideous blight on the environment,
I don't see technology changing that aspect much.


I think they're kind of inspiring. g We see some in Indiana, off to the
south of I-80, that I pass by a couple of times a year and they make my
jaw drop. There's a new project getting started here in NJ, with wind
turbines placed 10 miles or so off the coast. Present circumstances may
leave it stillborn, but I want to see it happen.

--
Ed Huntress


Wind energy is another boondoggle financed by govt grants. I am supprised
that the enviomentalists are not up in arms about windmills growing like
mushrooms across the enviorment.
You know its a boondoggle because of the way they rate the output of them
vs. true cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...able/wind.html



"The Energy Kid's Page"?? That's where you get your engineering and
economics data? Hoho...No wonder the country is in trouble. g

I guess the DOE lies to kids. Now that I think about it, lately the
govt lies all the time to everybody.




If you like that page, John, you'll love this one:

http://www.thekidzpage.com/colouring_menus/index.htm

Tell us, please, what data you extracted from "The Energy Kid's Page" that
leads you to believe that wind power is a boondoggle? Specific references,
please.


I used the kids page on the DOE sight so as not to overtax anyones
mental comprehension.



This one nuke plant dwarfs the output of all the windmill generation
systems in the whole country.

19,046,000 megawatt-hour facility vs 26.6 billion kWh per year


http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation...fact+sheet.htm


Uh, John, you've got generating capacity rates and Watt-hours a bit mixed
up. The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 MW facility. The installed wind
power capacity in the US is 22.0 MW -- almost ten times as much as PPL's
nuke. PPL produces 19.0 terawatt-hours of energy per year from that plant.
Wind energy produced in the US is 48 TWh per year -- 2-1/2 times as much as
PPL's nuke, and roughly 2,000 times as much as you state above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po..._note-AWEAQ4-6

If you don't like Wikipedia references, you'll see that those numbers are
linked extensively to original sources.


The numbers on the wind generation are bent. There is a big difference
in capacity and actual watt hour output due to the fickle nature of wind
conditions. What they are rated to put out and what they can actually
generate in a given year are two different numbers. The nuke plants run
continiously and usually near or at their max rated output.


I go buy some windmills about twice a week and they arent always
turning. The nuke plant is always putting steam out of its cooling
towers. That sucker nets about 1 million a day. I did a job a couple of
months ago that was going to a nuke plant in Florida.

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a lot
more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its infancy, it
replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad thing.


There would have been windmills up a long time ago if they were
profitable. A little bailout money always helps. It looks like GE is
the one that is getting the bailout dollars.




They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.


I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own nuke
at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my power.

You better tell that to PPL since they are getting the permits and right
of ways to run a major power line into NJ. It is ****ing off a lot of
local people in the Poconos that are forced to grant easements to PPL.

The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder) in
their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley.
d8-)

The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state money,
which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the state.
Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of our Oyster
Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.

The federal goverment has all types of tax incentives for wind farms. I
wonder how long the windmills will hold up in the sal****er enviorment
and gale coditions the frequently occur. Maintanece will be a big cost.

60 mph winds and salt spray does wonders to machinery.



I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.


Well, if there's a market for certified welders, we'll always have them.
Meantime, let me make clear that I'm all in favor of building a lot more
nukes. In most of the country, they're likely the best bet for handling base
load capacity. But the economics of wind are looking pretty good from what
I've seen. The limitations are significant, but they look like they pay off,
where they can be well-sited, as long as you don't try to use them for too
much of your base capacity.

--

I gotta figure out how I can get some of that windmill incentive money.
making windmills.


John

Ed Huntress wrote:

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

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.



There's some new designs proposed and actually being built, that are
failsafe in that the safety mechanism is built in and relies on the law of
physics, not human judgment to control a runaway. Hardly an exhaustive
search, but this was the first Google hit I looked at:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/~ans/info/reactor4.htm


Yeah, but note that the article is 18 years old. A few things have happened
since. The French apparently are using a breeder technology now that
produces a non-weaponable reprocessed product, rather than plutonium. And my
very limited understanding is that the action now is in designing a
universal, modular power plant. It will be much easier to control, build,
train for, etc. And the red-tape approval stage should be slashed to a
fraction of its present, miserable state.

All in all, it sounds to me like we're ready for it. What we need is a whole
new national attitude.


One of the more interesting facts in the site above is that coal fired
plants routinely release more radioactive particles than any nuclear
facility.
I think when things get tight enough, attitudes are going to change.


I hope so, and I hope it doesn't require a depression or political coercion
from some tin-pot dictatorship to accomplish it.


I too hope to live long enough to see safe nuclear power live up to it's
promise.


Well, have a drink for me if you make it and I don't. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



The Salem Nuke is one of the best run plants in the country. Several
other companies have tried to take it over but so far PPL has held on.

As far as getting rid of nuclear waste, France has come to terms with
it. In the US they worry too much about what will happen in the far
future and don't address the present problem of not enough reliable and
inexpensive energy under domestic control, not relying on foreign oil.

Since there is no more gold in FT Knox put all the waste there.

John

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:09:33 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


But you're right. There are some folks over here who retain their
aluminum or tinfoil beanies, just in case. Some folks just gotta worry
or they aren't "complete." That's _their_ problem, right?

It's their problem until they vote. Then it's our problem. And that's the
big problem.

Hopefully, most of the beanie wearers don't vote. I mean, they'd have
to go out into the unprotected bombardment zone to do so. But, yeah,
that could be a problem.

--
Even with the best of maps and instruments,
we can never fully chart our journeys.
-- Gail Pool

wrote in message
...
SNIP

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a
lot
more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its infancy, it
replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad thing.



They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.

I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own nuke
at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my power.

The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder) in
their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark
alley.
d8-)


Wouldn't the alley no longer be dark if one of those crabs was in the
alley?

Maybe. We're not allowed to catch them at night. It's too easy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"john" wrote in message
...

snip

Wind energy is another boondoggle financed by govt grants. I am
supprised that the enviomentalists are not up in arms about windmills
growing like mushrooms across the enviorment.
You know its a boondoggle because of the way they rate the output of them
vs. true cost.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...able/wind.html



"The Energy Kid's Page"?? That's where you get your engineering and
economics data? Hoho...No wonder the country is in trouble. g

I guess the DOE lies to kids. Now that I think about it, lately the govt
lies all the time to everybody.


If you like that page, John, you'll love this one:

http://www.thekidzpage.com/colouring_menus/index.htm

Tell us, please, what data you extracted from "The Energy Kid's Page"
that leads you to believe that wind power is a boondoggle? Specific
references, please.


I used the kids page on the DOE sight so as not to overtax anyones mental
comprehension.



This one nuke plant dwarfs the output of all the windmill generation
systems in the whole country.

19,046,000 megawatt-hour facility vs 26.6 billion kWh per year


http://www.pplweb.com/ppl+generation...fact+sheet.htm


Uh, John, you've got generating capacity rates and Watt-hours a bit mixed
up. The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 MW facility. The installed
wind power capacity in the US is 22.0 MW -- almost ten times as much as
PPL's nuke. PPL produces 19.0 terawatt-hours of energy per year from that
plant. Wind energy produced in the US is 48 TWh per year -- 2-1/2 times
as much as PPL's nuke, and roughly 2,000 times as much as you state
above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_po..._note-AWEAQ4-6

If you don't like Wikipedia references, you'll see that those numbers are
linked extensively to original sources.


The numbers on the wind generation are bent. There is a big difference in
capacity and actual watt hour output due to the fickle nature of wind
conditions. What they are rated to put out and what they can actually
generate in a given year are two different numbers. The nuke plants run
continiously and usually near or at their max rated output.

John, that's why I posted both the ratings and the actual, annual outputs.
That's what the terawatt-hours numbers a actual annual output, in
Watt-hours. If you looked at the numbers you noticed that, contrary to what
you said, the actual Watt-hour output of the wind generators in the US is
2-1/2 times that of the PPL Susquehanna plant. If you didn't look at the
numbers, you're not getting it.

The annual energy output relative to the power rating for wind, and for
solar, are much lower than for a coal-fired plant or a nuke. But that isn't
what I was comparing with the TWh. Are we on the same page here?



I go buy some windmills about twice a week and they arent always turning.

I guess that means the wind isn't blowing, huh? g

The nuke plant is always putting steam out of its cooling towers. That
sucker nets about 1 million a day. I did a job a couple of months ago
that was going to a nuke plant in Florida.

That's not to say that wind power is going to replace nukes -- we need a
lot more nukes, IMO -- but, even now, with wind power still in its
infancy, it replaces 2-1/2 decent-sized nukes in the US. That's not a bad
thing.


There would have been windmills up a long time ago if they were
profitable.

They weren't profitable until fairly recently. Now, many of them are.

A little bailout money always helps. It looks like GE is the one that is
getting the bailout dollars.

"It looks like"? Does that mean you have actual data?



They are now in the process of building another plant so Ed can keep his
lights on in NJ.


I don't think we get any power from PPL. We do, however, have our own
nuke at Oyster Creek, which, my utility tells me, supplies 28% of my
power.

You better tell that to PPL since they are getting the permits and right
of ways to run a major power line into NJ. It is ****ing off a lot of
local people in the Poconos that are forced to grant easements to PPL.

The power isn't for NJ. I checked it out: it's running across NJ and into
the NYC grid.

PPL and PSE&G are part of the 13-state Eastern interconnection grid that
runs all the way out to Illinois. The connection to the NYC grid is one that
the DOE identified as a major congestion area in 2006. PPL wants to send
power to the grid but the butthead governments in the Poconos, and in 15
butthead towns in north Jersey, are blocking it.

This is what Wes, Larry, and I were talking about. Every pipsqueek town in
most states, with a town council of ignorant buttheads, can stop or
seriously delay a transmission line. As long as that goes on there is no way
the US can have an efficient electical network with long-distance
transmission. On top of the butthead towns, there are the butthead states.
g

Local government is stupid government, and the more local, the more stupid
they are. BTW, I knew the mayor of Berwick, which is the town closest to the
PPL nuke -- Lou Biachii. His big accomplishment was teaching the junior-high
football team how to chew tobacco. After that, he ran out of intellectual
steam. Lou could be the poster boy for stupid local government.


The thing I like about it is that you can catch fluke (summer flounder)
in their cooling stream until the end of October. And the crabs they grow
there...well...let's just say you wouldn't want to meet one in a dark
alley. d8-)

The proposed offshore wind farm in NJ is getting $19 million of state
money, which is a drop in the bucket. It's just over $2 per person in the
state. Its capacity will be 346 MW, which is more than 50% the size of
our Oyster Creek nuke. Not bad for a start.

The federal goverment has all types of tax incentives for wind farms. I
wonder how long the windmills will hold up in the sal****er enviorment and
gale coditions the frequently occur. Maintanece will be a big cost.

If you can come up with some specifics relating to the offshore systems
planned for NJ, and now for NY, we're all ears.


60 mph winds and salt spray does wonders to machinery.



I do admit though that a local company that manufactures the towers for
windmills is doing quite well, but with the building of the second nuke
plant, the stimilus to the local economy will be a welcome addition. A
certified welder can make a fortune in the coming years. They are
becomming very hard to find.


Well, if there's a market for certified welders, we'll always have them.
Meantime, let me make clear that I'm all in favor of building a lot more
nukes. In most of the country, they're likely the best bet for handling
base load capacity. But the economics of wind are looking pretty good
from what I've seen. The limitations are significant, but they look like
they pay off, where they can be well-sited, as long as you don't try to
use them for too much of your base capacity.

--

I gotta figure out how I can get some of that windmill incentive money.
making windmills.

Good luck.

--
Ed Huntress