Slashdot Mirror

True ("only" about 2/3 is burned). But just because it's not burned does not necessarily mean that it's safe for the environment. Consider the mountains of plastic we create. So the system would still be appropriate, methinks.

From http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/fossil-fuels/

• 45.2% gasoline for use in automobiles
• 29.1% heating oil and diesel fuels
• 20.9% other products, including those derived from petroleum for the manufacturing of chemicals, synthetic rubber, and plastics.
• 9.5% jet fuel
• 2.3% asphalt

Related to my previous argument (the comment that some projects cost a "considerable amount" for the power generated), check out this list of loans and the physical assets that were developed as a result.

One of the more extreme examples was a loan to NRG Energy/BrightSource for $1.6 billion which was used to build a solar plant which produced just under 400 MW of power. That's $4 per watt. But it should be more like $1 per watt (which I understand is the threshold for economically viable, large scale, unsubsidized solar power). But there are several other solar plants on that list getting loans in the $3 to $4 per watt range.

That should have been an automatic "no go" for funding of this scale. If someone wants to try an experimental and costly design, then they can try it for at least an order (and probably two orders) of magnitude less, like sane businesses do.

I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.

How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:

to pass a critical point in a process

The dictionary above gives an example of its use.

The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.

It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.

Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air.

Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.

If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.

Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity? I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.

I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.

Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.

Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired as a result of the loans, or creation of a continuing money sink which can pay its guaranteed loans, but only by consuming considerable public funding.

And glancing through the list of outstanding loans as of mid-2012, they're pretty big for the projects they're covering.

For example, there's a $1.6 billion loan guarantee for a NRG Energy/Brightsource solar plant that generates 392 MW. That's about $4 per watt of generating capability. From what I understand, $1 per watt for solar is considered barely competitive with natural gas or other current peaking load power generation. Now maybe that particular loan will buy other things than just the plant, but as it stands, it seems around a factor of four too costly for what is obtained.

And Abengoa SA, which has received about $1.5 billion in loan guarantees looks to me like a WorldCom style failure waiting to happen. It's high debt, low cash flow, and probably using whatever assets it purchases as collateral for future loans. But it'll probably keep building up debt until the US and EU cuts back on renewable energy subsidies.

According to this site, we have enough oil for 200 years

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/03/13/exposing-the-2-percent-oil-reserves-myth/

And yes, I understand it's biased, but I haven't found anything refuting it.

Or maybe not: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/08/01/generating-companies-are-shuttering-coal-plants-at-record-rates-eia-reports/

Granted, I'm not sure about the politics of this site, but it looks like a lot of capacity will be going off-line in the near future.

I really thought our cunning plan of exporting our coal consumption to Asia was going to work. I mean, nothing that happens over there is in the Environment, right?

YOU are wrong. I was incorrect in thinking that solar subsidies were higher than for coal, but even if you add coal and natural gas/LP subsidies together they're less than for wind alone.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/11/23/global-fossil-fuel-and-renewable-subsidies/

"On a per unit of production basis, however, renewables had the largest subsidies with biofuels the highest at 5.1 cents per kilowatt hour, renewable energy for electricity generation at 5.0 cents per kilowatt-hour, nuclear energy at 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour, and fossil fuels at 0.8 cents per kilowatt hour.[xi] (See graph below.)The biofuels number is lower than actual because the calculation is based on taking the subsidies for the 8 countries and dividing by the total global biofuels production, rather than the biofuels production for just the 8 countries."

Polywell looks like it has a good shot, in any case it won't take more than a couple of million to find out and less than a year and a half. The funding has already been granted.

Dense Plasma Focus is now getting a serious examination, has their first device mostly built, and succeeded in their first test pinch.

Tri Alpha Energy and Helion Energy have separate colliding beam projects.

Magnetic confinement (ITER) looks like a loser.

Solar PV is the most expensive way to generate electricity, and adding in launch costs can only make it worse. That said, we are far from a good solution to energy storage, and the two cheapest methods (pumped hydro and CAES) aren't usable by Japan on any major scale due to site requirements. SBSP does eliminate several problems with solar. The NSSO assesment released two years ago flat out says that cheap access to orbit is an absolute must before SBSP can be economic.

It's Japan's money, but I think their research on extracting uranium from seawater has a lot better chance of being useful