Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Paul Keinanen on 10 Aug 2010 01:39 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:21:19 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >I don't believe there >will be any distance transmission of energy, the way we do it today. If you intend to use unpredictable sources, such as wind energy, you definitely are going to need a much larger and stronger transmission network to even out the local production variations. For wind energy, be prepared to transfer energy at distances that are similar to the size of a large high or low pressure area. The wind is blowing around the center of the high or low pressure area, but there is no wind in the center.
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 02:06 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:39:04 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:21:19 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: > >>I don't believe there >>will be any distance transmission of energy, the way we do it today. > >If you intend to use unpredictable sources, such as wind energy, you >definitely are going to need a much larger and stronger transmission >network to even out the local production variations. > >For wind energy, be prepared to transfer energy at distances that are >similar to the size of a large high or low pressure area. The wind is >blowing around the center of the high or low pressure area, but there >is no wind in the center. That is why they are placed in areas where there is a predictable wind pattern, which it happens to be near a large city, most of the time. But my remark was placed a bit further in the future, something more advanced, I am doing research on right now... cannot elaborate...
From: Paul Keinanen on 10 Aug 2010 02:43 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:06:11 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:39:04 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> >wrote: > >>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:21:19 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >> >>>I don't believe there >>>will be any distance transmission of energy, the way we do it today. >> >>If you intend to use unpredictable sources, such as wind energy, you >>definitely are going to need a much larger and stronger transmission >>network to even out the local production variations. >> >>For wind energy, be prepared to transfer energy at distances that are >>similar to the size of a large high or low pressure area. The wind is >>blowing around the center of the high or low pressure area, but there >>is no wind in the center. > >That is why they are placed in areas where there is a predictable wind >pattern, which it happens to be near a large city, most of the time. Perhaps on the trade wind coasts you might a capacity factor CF up to 50 %, in other areas 20-40 %. A 3 MW nominal power turbine with CF=33 % would produce only 24 MWh each day on average.
From: CIC on 10 Aug 2010 03:17 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 09:43:09 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 23:06:11 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: > >>On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:39:04 +0300, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> >>wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:21:19 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I don't believe there >>>>will be any distance transmission of energy, the way we do it today. >>> >>>If you intend to use unpredictable sources, such as wind energy, you >>>definitely are going to need a much larger and stronger transmission >>>network to even out the local production variations. >>> >>>For wind energy, be prepared to transfer energy at distances that are >>>similar to the size of a large high or low pressure area. The wind is >>>blowing around the center of the high or low pressure area, but there >>>is no wind in the center. >> >>That is why they are placed in areas where there is a predictable wind >>pattern, which it happens to be near a large city, most of the time. > >Perhaps on the trade wind coasts you might a capacity factor CF up to >50 %, in other areas 20-40 %. > >A 3 MW nominal power turbine with CF=33 % would produce only 24 MWh >each day on average. Right. The coastal areas are the best, but there are some very good inland wind corridors were have been placed. http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/images/home_usmap.jpg http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html
From: Don Klipstein on 10 Aug 2010 03:39
In <8b65b930-c14c-4fb0-844f-b2a5bb0f1019(a)l14g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, miso(a)sushi.com wrote: >On Aug 9, 7:04�pm, d...(a)manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote: >> In <d4a8f600-f532-4b35-84b1-5be2cb148...(a)l6g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, >> >> m...(a)sushi.com wrote: >> >The waste issue hasn't been solved. >> >> � The barriers are political. >> >> � For example, there are plenty of salt domes that have contained >> petroleum for a couple hundred million years. �Vitrified waste would stay >> there quite well. �Then there are depleted uranium mines, which held >> uranium ore for a couple hundred million years or so. �Vitrified waste >> with a few feet of concrete around it would do fine there. �A doable >> amount of concrete will absorb enough radiation to make "high level" >> radioactive waste safe to store there. >> >> � However, there is NIMBY. �States don't want other states' trash, even if >> they can be paid well to take it. >> >> � And there was the artificial barrier enacted in the early 1980's, >> requiring muclear waste to be monitored and retrievable. �That rules out >> dumping it in salt domes or exterrestrially. >> >> > �Reprocessing is very very messy, well unless you like vats of acid. >> >> � Why am I not hearing complaints about manufacture of vehicle batteries? >> >> >I used to be pro nuclear until I read Helen Caldecot's "Nuclear Power >> >Is Not The Answer." No rants in the book, just facts laid out in a >> >linear fashion. >> >> �- Don Klipstein (d...(a)misty.com) > >Have you read the book? If not, I wouldn't comment on it's contents. I did not comment on content of a book that I did not read. At least, unless the book is no news to me, in which case I don't need to bother for reading it. I commented only on common "anti-nuke" arguments that I have heard plenty of, without reading the above book that you suggested I not comment on in the case that I did not read it. And, how could I comment on a specific book's contents unless I read them or had someone read them to me? Or am I experiencing someone summarizing such or part thereof into "common anti-nuke arguments", and "asking me if I am still beating my wife" by advising me as done above to not comment on contents of a book that I have not read? - Don Klipstein (don(a)misty.com) |