FIGHT AGW! Just... Dont' spoil our desert with...

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Realistically given the output power of Nuclear, the right application of nuclear would make Solar useless in its current form..

Of course it would.

there's no real rational opposition to nuclear power...just opposition to the by products, and the fear that's always bred by ignorance.

And that doesn't even begin to address the fact that modern reactors can't suffer catastrophic loss of coolant accidents like the one that wrecked TMI2.

 

[Renae]

1 MwH = 1000 KwH....

What you forgot in your post was the "billion"....12.4 x 10^9 (that nine's an exponent, I got it for free) kwh is 12.4 x 10^6 Mwh.

Just clearing up the math a little, is all.

I sucks with math. So how many solar plants then? I was REALLY tired last night and just cheated with a KW to MW unit converter...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I sucks with math. So how many solar plants then? I was REALLY tired last night and just cheated with a KW to MW unit converter...

Don't know. I figured one time that it would take 10 square miles of photovoltaic cells to replace the 2500 Mw generating station melted at TMI2.

Let's just pretend that their number of 10,000 square miles of desert is accurate.

10,000 square miles....OH...now you know why those people are calling it a square 100 miles on a side....most people aren't smart enough to think for themselves, and hey, what's hundred mile square among friends?

Well, it could be the whole state of Taxechussets...10,555 square miles, but with enough room for Bean Town, right?

Or all of Vermont (9614 sq mi) with some hanging over the edges.

Or New Hampshire (9350 sq mi) with a bigger overhang.

Or it could be Rhode Island (1545 sq mi) plus New Jersey (8721 sq mi).

Connecticut (5543 sq mi) plus Delaware (2489 sq mi) plus Rhode Island (1545 sq mi) plus the District of Columbia (68 sq mi) plus a little more would do it.

Almost all of Hawaii....but the power lines crossing the oceans would be a bitch, I suppose.

Maryland is 12,407 square miles.

It could be half of West Virginia, which is 24,230 square miles.


How about if we used only one quarter of Kentucky, which is about 40,000 square miles...would that be acceptable in size?

It's only 9% of Arizona, which rolls in with 114,000 square miles...that would be okay, wouldn't it, covering up only 1/11 of a whole state, right?

Or hell, let's keep it in California, the land of fruits and nuts, and use up 10,000 square miles of a 163,000 square mile state...hell, that's a mere 6% of huge old California, or a mere 1/16. Nobody will notice that, right? It won't have any deleterious effects on national weather patters, right?

10,000 square miles...how idiotic can ya get?

State Areas

 

[Renae]

Haha, you went the serious route, I was going more off this:

Nine Solar Electric Generating Stations (SEGS) were built in the southwestern U.S. from the mid-1980s to 1990. The plants, all of which continue to operate, range in size from 14 to 80 megawatts (MW), with a total capacity of 354 MW.28 While the early CSP plants have produced power reliably for decades, early CSP technology, like all new technologies, was expensive

Basically all I did was divide an average of 75 MW per hour over the amoutn of power a Nuclear plant provided, I didn't DARE try to figure out the area..

 

[bhkad]

I don't trust algore... at all. He NEEDS solar to work, his investments are all in green so he'll say whatever he has to to make money.

So what? If investors don't support a technology it goes nowhere. Even nuclear.

 

[bhkad]

Don't know. I figured one time that it would take 10 square miles of photovoltaic cells to replace the 2500 Mw generating station melted at TMI2.

Let's just pretend that their number of 10,000 square miles of desert is accurate.

10,000 square miles....OH...now you know why those people are calling it a square 100 miles on a side....most people aren't smart enough to think for themselves, and hey, what's hundred mile square among friends?

Well, it could be the whole state of Taxechussets...10,555 square miles, but with enough room for Bean Town, right?

Or all of Vermont (9614 sq mi) with some hanging over the edges.

Or New Hampshire (9350 sq mi) with a bigger overhang.

Or it could be Rhode Island (1545 sq mi) plus New Jersey (8721 sq mi).

Connecticut (5543 sq mi) plus Delaware (2489 sq mi) plus Rhode Island (1545 sq mi) plus the District of Columbia (68 sq mi) plus a little more would do it.

Almost all of Hawaii....but the power lines crossing the oceans would be a bitch, I suppose.

Maryland is 12,407 square miles.

It could be half of West Virginia, which is 24,230 square miles.


How about if we used only one quarter of Kentucky, which is about 40,000 square miles...would that be acceptable in size?

It's only 9% of Arizona, which rolls in with 114,000 square miles...that would be okay, wouldn't it, covering up only 1/11 of a whole state, right?

Or hell, let's keep it in California, the land of fruits and nuts, and use up 10,000 square miles of a 163,000 square mile state...hell, that's a mere 6% of huge old California, or a mere 1/16. Nobody will notice that, right? It won't have any deleterious effects on national weather patters, right?

10,000 square miles...how idiotic can ya get?

State Areas

On the Repower America site The Analysis | Repower America they say this:

And, if sited together, all of the estimated solar thermal would fit in an area equivalent to metropolitan Atlanta.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

On the Repower America site The Analysis | Repower America they say this:

And, if sited together, all of the estimated solar thermal would fit in an area equivalent to metropolitan Atlanta.

I didn't realize Atlanta was sooo huuuuge....when did it become bigger than Vermont?

 

[bhkad]

I didn't realize Atlanta was sooo huuuuge....when did it become bigger than Vermont?

It isn't. There are two separate assumptions being referred to.

Atlanta sized siting refers to the A or B scenarios at their website.

The Analysis | Repower America

 

[obvious Child]

You mean as opposed to you introducing science-fiction elements to solve present day engineering problems?

Science fiction you say? Since you (and Vicco) consider super conductors to be science fiction, explain to me how high speed trains which utilize super conductors in magnetic levitation work since it's "fiction?"

What, you think superconductivity is free or easy to achieve or maintain?

What is truly sad is that people here are assuming things to attack people that the original person never said. What you did was while typical, dishonest. I never said it was easy or free. You assumed that and for that you are acting dishonestly. If we only did what was easy and free we'd never do anything.

No, superconductivity is not a current solution for the problem of tranferring terawatts of power from Arizona to Boston.

Not at the current moment no. But it can help solve the problem in the future. Some of us aren't limited to seeing what's only in the next year.

What do exponents cost? I've never bought any.

You can tell the decent, mature debtors from the children by how they act.
Guess which one you are?

Make the lawyers filing the frivolous suits pay for them. They caused them, they should pay for them.

Then maybe they'll stop causing them.

No industry in the United States has a better safety record than the nuclear power industry.

You really have no idea why Nuclear power has such cost overruns do you? Hint: it's got virtually nothing to do with lawsuits.

Please educate yourself before posting in the future.

Then screw nuclear, lets burn more coal.

I'm easy.

Clearly. Long term viable plans to get off of fossil aren't something you wish to implement.

Oh, you mean like the 50% increase in efficiency if we switched from steam turbine technology to MHD technology with our nuclear power plants. Great idea, that.

Sure, but that alone won't do it. Increased efficiency across the board from production to usage.

 

[Renae]

So what? If investors don't support a technology it goes nowhere. Even nuclear.

If it's such a great solution, why isn't money flowing into it to make it happen?

 

[UtahBill]

Except... you couldn't get that power to the people... and what do you do for power at night? Hmmm? What about during an extended rain event?

Algores a simpleton.

we agree, finally, on something....

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Science fiction you say? Since you (and Vicco) consider super conductors to be science fiction, explain to me how high speed trains which utilize super conductors in magnetic levitation work since it's "fiction?"

That's pretty obvious.

Choo-choo trains use their stupor-conductivity locally, making it a feasible engineering project. Also, stupor-conductive circuits are dia-magnetic, (or is that para-magnetic...whichever the one is that prevents outside fluxlines from penetrating the stupor-conductive coils.) thus providing the needed lift to the trains, they're not made stupor-conductive merely to reduce I^2R losses in transmission.

Transmission wires spanning a whole friggin' continent can't be made stupor-conductive with today's technology, hence relying on stupor-conductivity to resolve the issues of I^2R losses is science fiction.

You can tell the decent, mature debtors from the children by how they act. Guess which one you are?

I pay my bills on time, I must be one of the decent mature debtors.

You really have no idea why Nuclear power has such cost overruns do you? Hint: it's got virtually nothing to do with lawsuits.

It's got everything to do with lawsuits and the law, practically nothing to do with the engineering costs.

Please educate yourself before posting in the future.

How many power-range test cycles have you been a part of? When was the last time you took a reactor "solid"?

Clearly. Long term viable plans to get off of fossil aren't something you wish to implement.

When we have two to three centuries of available reserves? Why bother?

 

[UtahBill]

Indeed. It needs upgrades but it is possible. Furthermore, work in super conductors will further reduce the leakage of electricity over long distances.

The problem you're encountering is that Vicco keeps raising the bar, a known fallacy tool in debate. You show that it is indeed capable of producing the necessary power. Then you have to prove the heat based solar energy doesn't have the night time/day day time problem. Then you have to go over the raised bar of transportation. Eventually he'll raise the bar to a height nothing can match.

The problem with nuclear beyond storage of waste is the exponential cost. How exactly are we going to fund these given the historical cost overruns that nuclear plants are notorious for. You're extremely luck to get a 30% cost overrun. Some jobs have seen overruns exceeding 200%. As banks can't and won't fund it, that means taxpayer funding. That means more taxes and more government. And given projected increases in electricity usage, we'll need to build them faster then China's building coal plants. Not going to work on its own.

What we need is a basket of new electricity sources and a serious increase in efficiency. I'm talking 50% increase.

What is your major in college? engineer? science? the things you speak of have been old news for decades. We haven't found a way to reduce the losses due to transmitting power long distances over wires. You can't power up NYC from New Mexico or AZ. Large power plants near large cities are a good idea, but large ones several hundred miles away are not a good idea. The NIMBY attitude is going to have to fixed, first. People don't want to live near power plants or transmission lines but do want power 24/7.

If you can't tell us your engineering credentials, why should we listen to YOU?
As for me and several others here, we learn as much about power in one year of nuclear power school than many do in 4 years of college.
The educational requirements to get hired as a reactor operator is either navy nuke school, or a BA degree in math or science....
What do YOU have? besides a subscription to Popular Mechanics?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What is your major in college? engineer? science? the things you speak of have been old news for decades. We haven't found a way to reduce the losses due to transmitting power long distances over wires. You can't power up NYC from New Mexico or AZ. Large power plants near large cities are a good idea, but large ones several hundred miles away are not a good idea. The NIMBY attitude is going to have to fixed, first. People don't want to live near power plants or transmission lines but do want power 24/7.

If you can't tell us your engineering credentials, why should we listen to YOU?
As for me and several others here, we learn as much about power in one year of nuclear power school than many do in 4 years of college.
The educational requirements to get hired as a reactor operator is either navy nuke school, or a BA degree in math or science....
What do YOU have? besides a subscription to Popular Mechanics?

Some of us went to engineering school after they got discharged from the Navy, and I can say, in no uncertain terms, that the NNPS treatment of thermodynamics was more in-depth, more comprehensive, and more hands-on in terms of pratical applications than those taught in the junior year requirements of a major accredited university for engineering and science students.

 

[bilbus]

Modern nuclear power plants produce much less waste then the older ones. If you permit the waste to be reprocessed, the waste is even less.

With reprocessing radioactive waste can become non radioactive much quicker.

As for overruns, it would not be so hard to build a nuclear power plant if the federal government and environmental groups did not hold up the process .. causing over runs.