Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 10 Aug 2010 10:22 On 11/08/2010 12:13 AM, Tim Williams wrote: > "Jim Yanik"<jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote in message > news:Xns9DD05B8447173jyaniklocalnetcom(a)216.168.3.44... >> so you have to store nuclear waste for 1000's of years,so what? >> (just the high level stuff,of course) >> France and Japan do it,no problem. > > Well, they obviously haven't stored it for "thousands of years". > Remember, almost all waste today is stored at the site it was made at, in > power plant cooling ponds. > > I don't know if even a gram of waste is actually officially interred > anywhere on the planet. There isn't a large scale storage facility in > operation, so it can hardly be considered a closed case. > > It is true those countries only store the high-level stuff -- they > reprocess their fuel, which about triples the fissionable supply (the > process is quite expensive and energy intensive, so it's not the ~50x you > would expect by fissionable content alone), while reducing the amount of > end product significantly (of course, the waste is much more dangerous, > and there's still an awful lot of it). > > It's not true that they do it "no problem". The French have been putting > it off just as long as we've been putting off Yucca mountain. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_Research_Laboratory > Locations proposed in the 90's, repository licensed by 2015, operation > expected by 2025 (as if). > > Tim > Won't happen as long as the Greenies insist on the stuff staying above ground in containers. Sylvia.
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Aug 2010 10:59 On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 20:43:31 -0700, CIC <cicel(a)iinet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:02:33 +0000 (UTC), don(a)manx.misty.com (Don >Klipstein) wrote: > >>In <ojc1669gal5p6l83l45p54m8e1pi6c6lva(a)4ax.com>, CIC wrote in small part: >> >>>50% conversion efficiency on solar panels is achievable. >> >> Can you give a cite for this? >> >> Especially should it be more practical than a layer of indium gallium >>nitride or relative-thereof cells, over layer of a gallium arsenide or >>gallium phosphide or relative-thereof cells, over a layer of silicon ones. >> >> The LED manufacturing industry is doing little with die sizes much >>larger than a 1 mm square, despite efficiency of InGaN varying generally >>inversely with current density for die sizes and amounts of current >>generally mostly used. I am aware of only one manufacturer making dice >>of that chemistry in a size so monstrous as roughly a 3 mm square, and >>one other ramping up production of something likely smaller but much >>bigger than a 1 mm square. And InGaN LEDs have been around since about >>1996, and ones with roughly 1 mm square dice have been around since around >>2001. > > >Check this: > >http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/PV/pv_tech/Evolution%20of%20Multijunction%20Technology.pdf Sheeesh! Gore's "hockey stick" curve lives on. Any data on energy consumed to make, versus lifetime energy produced; and a cost/performance analysis? ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: Jim Thompson on 10 Aug 2010 11:26 On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:00:33 -0500, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >Koning Betweter <Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in >news:2010081001595068674-Koning(a)Stumpernl: > >> On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: >> >>> And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >>> the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >>> and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to na�ve >>> people. >> >> I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a >> solar-system! > >So do it,then.Show us how it's done. On your own dime,of course. > >> Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the >> governements of countries who are selling uranium. >> >> The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the world, >> it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy out of >> sunlight. >> I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more >> efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce >> solarpanels too. > > > >Utopian dreaming. > >> >> Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network >> for transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they >> generate their own energy. >> >> That's not na�ve, that's clever!!! > >Show me. The naivete, and ignorance (�), of tree-huggers is stunningly profound. I suspect it's because they're not engineers... they think arm-waving and warm and cuddly feelings are what make things work. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: Jim Yanik on 10 Aug 2010 12:53 "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote in news:88d8o.6388$wJ1.4037(a)newsfe08.iad: > "Jim Yanik" <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote in message > news:Xns9DD05B8447173jyaniklocalnetcom(a)216.168.3.44... >> so you have to store nuclear waste for 1000's of years,so what? >> (just the high level stuff,of course) >> France and Japan do it,no problem. > > Well, they obviously haven't stored it for "thousands of years". > Remember, almost all waste today is stored at the site it was made at, > in power plant cooling ponds. > You can thank Comrade Obama for that,he closed down Yucca Mountain Repository. > I don't know if even a gram of waste is actually officially interred > anywhere on the planet. There isn't a large scale storage facility in > operation, so it can hardly be considered a closed case. France stores all of their high level waste in a single room,I've read. > > It is true those countries only store the high-level stuff -- they > reprocess their fuel, which about triples the fissionable supply (the > process is quite expensive and energy intensive, so it's not the ~50x > you would expect by fissionable content alone), while reducing the > amount of end product significantly (of course, the waste is much more > dangerous, and there's still an awful lot of it). the low level stuff is not hazardous,it's radioactivity is comparable to background levels in many places.sure,you don't want to live with the stuff in your basement,but storage of it is no problem. > > It's not true that they do it "no problem". The French have been > putting it off just as long as we've been putting off Yucca mountain. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meuse/Haute_Marne_Underground_Research_Lab > oratory Locations proposed in the 90's, repository licensed by 2015, > operation expected by 2025 (as if). your cite doesn't turn up. > > Tim > The French do NOT have any problem with their storage. Name these "problems". And Japan manages storage,too. BTW,we haven't "put off" Yucca,Comrade Obama CANCELLED it;defunded it,and instituted a new study and site search,as a method of effectively killing new nuclear power for several decades. He WASTED all the money spect on Yucca Mtn,without having any realistic alternative,and Yucca was close to opening. It's part of Comrade Obama's plan and desire to have energy prices skyrocket. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 10 Aug 2010 14:02
On 10/08/2010 16:26, Jim Thompson wrote: > On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:00:33 -0500, Jim Yanik<jyanik(a)abuse.gov> > wrote: > >> Koning Betweter<Koning(a)Stumper.nl> wrote in >> news:2010081001595068674-Koning(a)Stumpernl: >> >>> On 2010-08-07 23:35:07 +0200, John Doe said: >>> >>>> And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >>>> the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >>>> and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to na�ve >>>> people. >>> >>> I don't have a garden on my roof, so there is many room for a >>> solar-system! >> >> So do it,then.Show us how it's done. On your own dime,of course. >> >>> Nuclear energy need uranium. I don't like the >>> governements of countries who are selling uranium. >>> >>> The sun delivers much more energy as all nuclear systems in the world, >>> it's only a matter of getting better equipment to make energy out of >>> sunlight. >>> I gues with Nano-technology Solar systems will gonna have much more >>> efficiency in the near future. It will be cheaper to produce >>> solarpanels too. >> >> >> >> Utopian dreaming. >> >>> >>> Nuclear-energy will always be dangerous, besides it needs a network >>> for transport, solar systems make consumers independent when they >>> generate their own energy. >>> >>> That's not na�ve, that's clever!!! >> >> Show me. > > The naivete, and ignorance (�), of tree-huggers is stunningly > profound. > > I suspect it's because they're not engineers... they think arm-waving > and warm and cuddly feelings are what make things work. > > ...Jim Thompson So you have some reason for believing that solar panels are going to remain at around $400 per sq m when at least one company is manufacturing them at a third of that price? And that manufacturing cost will never fall below that value? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |