Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Solar Array to use Stirling Engine

An anonymous reader writes "Stirling engines are not a neglected or forgotten technology after all, according to a story at PESN. With 20 years of in-the-field fine-tuning, Stirling Energy Systems is now ready to go big -- real big. They signed a purchase agreement Tuesday with Southern California Edison (SEC), to install a 20,000 dish array that will cover 4,500 acres and will be capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity -- more than all other U.S. solar projects combined -- making this the largest solar installation in the world. Each collector has a 37-foot-diameter array of mirrors to focus the sun's rays on the Stirling engine, which turns the heat into rotational torque for electricity generation. According to a spokesperson for SCE, this purchase will be in their commercial interest, requiring no subsidy in order to compete, implying that the efficiencies of the technology will give them an edge in the market."

720 comments

  1. Good by RandUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to see alternative energy sources being developed, I just wish public opinion would change faster so we can get some more nuclear plants as well.

    1. Re:Good by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as they're pebble bed reactors, I'm all for it. The hugemongous three mile island style are white elephants in comparison.

    2. Re:Good by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If gas hits $3/gallon, and stays there for a year, the American public will accept anything. While I cringe when I have to buy gas, I hope the price keeps going up. Maybe then, we will have the economic incentive to kick the oil habit.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Good by Aaron+England · · Score: 1

      Bush could really do well for the country if he were to sieze the moment and make an appeal for developing nuclear powerplants in the name of national security.

    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some prominent ex-envirowhackos have seen the light that is fission and hopefully the future with fusion. just need to convert all the other envirowhackos that consider anything nuke automatically undiscussable.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes..

      The key is the diversification of energy production.

      Solar energy works fine, but only in certain areas. but it's currently not cost effective.

      Wind energy has very severe limitations.. only in very certain areas with constant and strong winds will be able to produce energy.. and that's only for small local areas. It will probably never be cost effective (meaning it will use up more resources then it ever produces)

      Hydroelectric is pretty much already used as much as it can be, except if people figure out how to use tidal forces.. and that's not easy and only for certain areas.

      Nuclear is the only thing that is a universal solution. If they standardize nuclear plant design it can be cost effective and safe.

      Then after that we can begin using hydrogen fuel as a effective energy transportation method.

      (right now you need a source of electricity to generate hydrogen fuel, and that uses up more fossil fuels then simply putting the fossil fuels in the cars themselves. It's more efficient and consumes less fossil fuels just to use gasolene.. but if we get a non-fossil fuel source of electricity then it can make hydrogen a effective source of energy to power our cars.)

      If solar-powered sterling motors can be cost effictive and a company can make a profit using them.. with NO subsidies this is VERY significant.

      You have to understand that money is how we distribute resources in a successfull country. (ie communism is a complete failure were ever it's been used) If you make a profit, that means that your creating a product that is efficient and effective.

      This means that if they make money then solar energy will realy be a REAL solution we can use! And not no self-dillusional feel-good bullshit like wind power.

    6. Re:Good by Bin_jammin · · Score: 0, Troll

      Right... Because once we kick the oil habit, we can all drive solar powered sterling cycle engined cars to where we're going. Or perhaps you're going to spout off on how great hydrogen is going to be once we figure out how to farm it cheaply. And build an infrastructure for it. And on and on. Gas and diesel cars aren't perfect, but they have come a long way (probably a lot further than you expect). Further, it's not as if a new green technology would supplant the internal combustion engine overnight. Nobody would stand for their cars being outlawed to make way for new, hippier cars. I know I'd certainly fight to drive my 1965 Cadillac whenever I please. Oh, and $3 a gallon? My Caddy gets 10mpg. Holds 30 gallons. Only burns 92 and higher octane, so figure that at $3 per gallon for regular, $3.50 for high test, and I'll still drive it, and look cooler than you.

    7. Re:Good by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting nuclear powered car engines? While that would run cleaner, a small car accident could have the potential to do something a slightly more damaging than this.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    8. Re:Good by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      In another thread you state you make a piddly $20/hr (if I understood your comment correctly). Yet you don't mind paying $0.35 to drive a mile?

      $3.50 for high test, and I'll still drive it, and look cooler than you.
      And if you think your car makes you look cool, then you really are a shallow individual.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:Good by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      What do mean if?

      GPW currently shows Nantucket, MA enjoying $3.15/gal gas.

      The Gas Buddy affiliate site shows Bridgeport, CA paying $3.39/gal. The cheapest reported price in CA is $2.47.

      I was going to comment that even these rates are comparable to past peaks when inflation is taken into account, but I would've been wrong.

      CA gas prices adjusted for inflation

      The highest yearly avg. in 2005$ is from 1981 - $2.50. The peak from that year is $3.08.

      In other words, The lowest current price in CA is almost above the highest yearly average and the current peak is over 10% higher than the last record peak even after inflation is accounted for.

    10. Re:Good by norwoodites · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let see, it is about $5/gallon in the UK and the US is complaining about $3/gallon wtf. This is just under estimate too because I am converting from £ to $ and liters to gallons.

    11. Re:Good by SECProto · · Score: 1

      If you are thinking that two nuclear-powered cars colliding would create an explosion similar to that... or even something similiar to a hydrogen bomb... you're terribly wrong. Hydrogen bombs need tonnes of explosives surrounding the fusible material to compress it to begin a chain or fusion or whatever. The piddling velocities of two cars colliding could do nothing close to that.

      If, on the other hand, you are speaking simply about spills of radioactive materials, then yes, it would be dangerous. But if so, your comparison to a truck full of explosives is completely off topic.

    12. Re:Good by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If nuclear plants can prove to be finacially viable on their own then I am all for lifting the regulations against new ones. The problem I have is that US population essentially pays all of their liability insurance; in that there is a federal law mandating that they don't have to have any. If they had to pay that liability and still could be finacially sucessful I would think they would have reached a pretty safe point. If they are as safe as everyone says then why do the need us to pay their insurance?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    13. Re:Good by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      "Bush could really do well for the country..."

      I think I've heard this one before.

    14. Re:Good by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      He was responding to a post which mentioned nuclear. It is conspiciously absent from your post. What, are you just pretending it doesn't exist and the only technology we have beyond fossil fuels is solar powered sterling engines?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    15. Re:Good by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Interesting link. Do you know anyone who has personally haved their Prius or other car?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    16. Re:Good by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      s/haved/hacked.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:Good by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah but britain is much smaller and its economically feasible to build nationwide mass transit systems.

      The US relies on trucking and personal automotives for its economic basis because of the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need, to equate.

      --

      -

    18. Re:Good by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      This might be why... UK commute 'longest in Europe'

      According to the report, the average distance travelled by UK workers is 8.5 miles

      bwahahahaha... 8.5 miles is a long commute?

      California Survey Results.

      The average one-way commute distance in 1996 was 23.1 miles.

      So the UK pays ~2/3 more for gas than they're US (California specifically for this case) counterparts, but the reason why their legitimately griping is that they drive almost 3 times as far to work.

    19. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear power is a short-term solution to a long-term problem: uranium is just as exhaustible as coal or oil, there is a finite amount of it.

      In the long run, our energy consumption can only be sustained with nuclear fusion. All other technologies either run out of gas (fossil/uranium), won't produce the kinds of energy we're currently consuming (solar/geothermal), or are technically infeasible (dyson sphere, planet-sized solar mirrors).

      With that in mind I don't see why we're not pumping more money into fusion research.

    20. Re:Good by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      Before any grammar nazis jump me, yes I know I swapped up "they're" and "their" - twice. Mix and match to suit your pleasure. I'm going to sleep now.

    21. Re:Good by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Hmm... as a Georgia resident, I'm going to have to check and see if my representative can help change his mind about that.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:Good by Atryn · · Score: 1
      US population essentially pays all of their liability insurance
      Is this a mis-interpretation of recent current event news? The legislation within the Energy Bill (as I understand it) does NOT have the government paying the ongoing liability insurance (i.e. meltdown). What it does is obligate the government to insure the ventures against unforseen and out-of-their-control events which impact their ability to obtain licenses for, build, and turn up new nuclear power plants. Basically the government is paying to insure them against groups filing frivalous lawsuits and tying it up in the courts for years. In addition, this obligation of the government under the legislation only applies to the first 4 new nuclear plants built.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    23. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed...

      Currently Australia (my home country) has 0 nuclear power reactors (not counting the research/medical one in sydney). Yet we complain about brown outs in summer and the pollution caused by our lacking fossil fuel reactors.

      There's plenty of public opinion on the negatives of nuclear power.. but people don't seem to get just how much worse fossil fuel is

    24. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah. Because everyone wants a nuclear reactor that combines the wonderful properties of graphite (see "The graphite fire" subsection) as a moderator, with water (graphite generates explosive hydrogen with high temperature steam) often in the primary or secondary cooling loop (helium is the primary coolant), with safety features such as no containment structure (this list is just a start - there's many times more that didn't make the list)

      Yes, PBMRs have a negative void coefficient (reaction slows as temperature increases); big deal, so does almost every reactor build in the west in the past three decades. Yes, helium is the primary coolant; that doesn't help when there's a jam or corrosion that leads to a rupture, in which case water and/or air enters the chamber (a much hotter chamber than PWRs) - and yes, this has already happened. Containment structures have saved our collective arses from the unexpected too many times to be omitted.

      PBMR proponents talk about safety, but they're really about reactor cost. They're hardly the only innovative reactor design out there, but they're apparently the only one that your average slashdotter knows about. There are thorium breeders, reactors that run on unenriched fuel, and designs like my favorite, BREST - a lead-bismuth breeder which can cool itself with natural convection, uses the ground as shielding, has the fuel naturally encased in lead, and unlike most breeders, uses no liquid sodium.

      As an aside, we really should move to safe breeder designs, either thorium or uranium based.
      U-235 is only 0.7% of natural uranium, and natural uranium isn't incredibly plentiful in deposits concentrated enough to justify mining (I read once that known deposits would supply the world at current power consumption for only a few hundred years). It's a shame that most U-238 goes to waste (yes, some is used in things like armor, bullets, and weights, but we produce far more of it than is used for such tasks)

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    25. Re:Good by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Yay for cheap(er) gas in the Bible Belt! Woo Georgia! I usually see around $2.09-2.29 for regular unleaded.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    26. Re:Good by norwoodites · · Score: 1

      But that is not the normal laws of supply and demand. As the demand goes up the price goes up so what you are saying the normal economic rules don't apply. This is only true when there is a monopoly. So Petrol supply is a monopoly and abuses its monopoly power. Why have the US not gone after them, even the EU for that matter?

    27. Re:Good by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Funny

      The UK would fit in my basement if I moved some stuff around. Why do you people even have cars?

    28. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good lord...screw nuke power...we will never need nuke power if we go wind, solar and tide, bio mass, etc...c'mon...decentralize the power grid and give it to the common community. Give small energy production from the individual household to the local community. This is the way to change public opinion. Human waste, garbage disposal waiste can all generate power...c'mon think about it!

    29. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      Bah, I bet one could do the design for two nuclear powered cars in such a way that would go supercritical from the force of the impact. It would take some design work, and precise drivers to carry it out, but it should be doable, even if low yield.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    30. Re:Good by Draveed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I share your enthusiasm for pebble bed nuclear tech, but I would think the reason this southern power company isn't planning on using it is because it's not a proven technology. Given how nuclear energy is such a sensitive issue, they probably want to stick with proven designs and concepts. Yeah it's not innovative but it's safer for them. I mean how many reactors have actually been built using the pebble bed concept? AFAIK, just one test reactor in South Africa.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    31. Re:Good by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not sure why the lack of interest in pebble beds, but I'm guessing they need some political pressure...

      As I understand it, the pebble bed nuclear reactors make it really hard to re-enrich the uranium after usage. This is a bad idea as re-enriched uranium can be reused and produces less radioactive waste in the long run. All we have to do to solve the reenrichment problem and a large part of our nuclear waste is to build a fast breeder reactor and start recycling the used material.

      This was the original plan when nuclear power plants were first developed. President Carter used execuitive order to ban fast breeder reactors back in the 70's, so it wouldn't take much to undo that ban.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    32. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because, naturally, you know more about the economics, safety, and other issues relating to various nuclear reactor designs than Southern Company.

      Do you even know *any* next-gen reactor designs besides PBMRs?

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    33. Re:Good by HeroreV · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the size of their cars?

    34. Re:Good by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      I'm planning on buying a Honda hybrid personally

      If you can afford it, I would recomend buying the Accord hybrid over the civic hybrid. The civic hybrid feels chea and plasticy on the inside (as do the regular ones now). Also, the dash panel is a big distraction (atractive blue LEDs). Not sure about the accord hybrid as they sell out too fast for me to get a look at them, but they appear to be built much better, even if they do not get as good milage.

      On the other hand, if you are looking at this insight tell me what you think about it. I have seen it, but haven't been able to tell much about it.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    35. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh! Logic train a'comin!

      ding ding ding Ding Ding DING DING DING Diing diiing diiiing.....

      Darn, missed it. :P

      Plain and simple, gas prices in Europe are high because of taxes.

      Oil companies aren't monopolies - it's a very varied industry, and fiercely competitive. It's worse than many industries, because they're all selling essentially the same thing. They'll push particular blends and additives, but it really comes down to the same product, so it's really down to whoever can sell it the cheapest.

      By the way, the main reason that oil companies are turning such tidy profits right now is because they had been working to be profitable at 20$/barrel, and suddenly it's at 60$/barrel. Note that the high prices are much more of a benefit to producers than refiners, although the whole industry is quite profitable right now. If you have infrastructure or build infrastructure, it's in such demand, you're going to make money.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    36. Re:Good by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't really a reaction to "recent news," unless you consider 1957 "recent" (you could with respect to a lot of things, but not nuclear).

      The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 provided indemnity coverage to protect the public from the low probability of a high-cost catastrophic nuclear accident and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry.
        http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n1/reg15 n1-rothwell.html

      While a lot of that indemnity has changed since then it is still present to a large degree.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    37. Re:Good by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Car engines can't be nuclear. While nuclear reactors can be made with the appropriate power output for a car, the biggest problem is that the driver would be killed by the neutrons that would drift out of the engine. Neutrons are a bitch to shield against and a car would not be able to carry the necessary material.

    38. Re:Good by CoyoteGuy · · Score: 1

      Tell me this.. Do you think you'll have a choice to drive your 65 Cadillac when there isn't any more oil left to refine? We're on the virge of a peak oil crisis, yet asshats like you believe you look cool driving an ancient, inefficient, rustbucket.

      Hats off to you tho.. I couldn't have made an ass of myself any better than what you did to yourself in that post.

      --
      Slashdot.. Land of nerds, trolls, and FlameBait..
    39. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More important, I think, is the fact that the British government taxes gasoline highly, whereas in the US it is hardly taxed at all. In a high (logical, reasonable, etc.) tax environment, it is unsurprising that more efficient mass transit systems were developed.

      Now that the price of gasoline on the market is going up irrespective of taxation, the UK could cut taxes to steady the rise. In the US, however, this is not an option.

      Should the price increase be a sign of a failing supply, then the UK is still in a better position by virtue of its mass transit system which is more efficient and, since it has a rail component, easier to run on electricity generated by other means.

    40. Re:Good by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      From what I remember from what my AP US History teacher told me, it's that the government is holding prices artificially low. I'm surprised Bush hasn't attacked this yet, but yet, I'm still not surprised, seeing as how wasteful and polluting Texas is ala all of its industry.

    41. Re:Good by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

      I just had a weird thought. If the volume of Gasoline sales decrease, the tax collection decreases and the government will only be forced to raise the Taxes for the better good.

      While I'm not sure about a point I was shooting for, I'm just mad that last I remember I was paying 49.9 cents per galloon in Taxes here in Wisconsin. Isn't that funny?

    42. Re:Good by orz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt that slashdotters (or policicians) making decisions based upon idealogy and buzz will produce better reactor designs than people who have incentive and resources to make smart decisions.

      That said, I'd be happy to see more research into pebble bed reactors, and into energy amplifiers / ADS (subcritical fission reactor plus a particle accelerator), and other promising nuclear reactor designs that come along.
      I just wouldn't assume that just because pebble bed reactors have some clever safety and efficiency benefits means that they are automatically better for commerical power generation than conventional reactor designs today.

    43. Re:Good by Rickler · · Score: 1

      I know... it seams people would rather shoot the pollution into the air (52% elec. is coal power) instead of keep it contained.

      --

      The human race is artificial intelligence created using object orientated programming.
    44. Re:Good by mccabem · · Score: 1

      Hey all!

      A.C. and I go way back, but I have to say he's talking out the side of his mouth.

      Solar:
      First RTFA. OF COURSE it's cost effective in LOTS of places.

      Wind:
      Lots of places can harvest wind to varying degrees. http://www.google.com/search?q=wind+map

      Nuclear:
      So all that's been missing all these years is standardization of plant design, eh? Genius. Let's see them do one without massive government subsidies. Let's see how far the safety claims go with the general public when you want to build one in anyone's back yard but YOUR OWN. Actually, your neighbors wouldn't let you do it either.

      Communism? Breathe deeply and just do some Google searches on these things. The Communists are not out to get you. No they're not under your bed either.

      You've completely neglected to neglect biomass and geothermal power generation. Wha?

      The information is out there.

      Lots of it is here:
      + http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/processnj/Process_prod uction_njava.htm
      + http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html

      The bottom line maybe we can agree on. If we don't start moving away from oil dependency soon, we are going to hurt once the peak oil period hits.

      (Going off topic a bit..)
      Focusing purely on the energy side of the equation is deceiving as well. Almost nothing in our economy is made without some oil by-product. Everything from paint, to pharmaceuticals, to house construction products, containers. Are the renewable materials industries going to be ready to pick up the slack, or are we going to be as treeless as we will be oilless? We'll need wood, steel, glass, ceramics in volumes never before seen.

    45. Re:Good by krayfx · · Score: 1

      its about $5.6 in India (though a large part of it is tax component). moreover - the oil marketing companies have been asked not to hike the prices(by the government which still has the price control mechanism) - sending the oil companies into a tailspin financially. in the near future the gas here is supposed to touch 7 dollars a gallon in india - going by the price of 60 dollars a barrel! imagine that - you guys in the USA are lucky to be buying gas so cheap!

      (the reasons for the high price of gas is varied. they have umpteen cess included like: highway development, road maintenance, check the oil pool deficit, subsidising diesel,kerosene and cooking LPG, etc. etc. - so there's already a dis-incentive for the people not to enjoy thier SUVs, expensive cars etc)

    46. Re:Good by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Nuclear is the only thing that is a universal solution.


      You may think so, but most people would say it's (to use your phrase), "only for certain areas". In particular, areas where the local government and infrastructure can be trusted with the guardianship of nuclear materials. It only takes one accident (or covert sale to Al-Qaeda) to make the world a very unhappy place.


      This means that if they make money then solar energy will realy be a REAL solution we can use! And not no self-dillusional feel-good bullshit like wind power


      C'mon, be even-handed... if wind power can make a profit, then it's just as valid an energy source as solar. If it can't, then it can't... but I wouldn't write it off just yet.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    47. Re:Good by 2short · · Score: 1


      Diversification of energy production is definitely a good thing. But I don't understand why you think wind power will "probably never be cost effective". It is cost effective right now. It's not quite as good as coal (for example) in cost per kilowatt, but it's close enough to make up the difference in reduced transmission costs (because many are willing to live closer to a turbine than to a coal plant). For many areas, wind is the cheapest thing going.

      Nuclear is almost as cheap the way the nuclear plant industry figures it. i.e. ignore the massive costs being covered by federal tax money: long term waste storage and liability insurance. If you figure either of those, much less both, nuclear isn't in the running. Plant design standardization won't help much there.

      Even being the eco-freak I am, I don't oppose nuclear power on safety grounds; I assume those issues can be handled. But it just isn't free energy. It's not even very cheap energy. We probably need some nuclear power in our power generation mix. But building a ton of new nuke plants isn't the "universal solution".

    48. Re:Good by ickpoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gas will be available as long as there is any demand for it. Because of collectors cars that means close to forever. It will be pricy though.

      I see it more like this. 30 years from now I'll be able to stop at the classic gas station and top off my '62 Alfa Romeo with some high test gas for roughly $20 a gallon (current dollars, who knows then).

      --
      I am not a script! .Sig?
    49. Re:Good by Atryn · · Score: 1
      The article you cite is interesting. I'm not expert enough to refute it, but I do find the following interesting:
      The small-numbers problem remains because there has been little experience with these types of accidents. An insurer will never know the underlying probability of a catastrophic accident. Nor can the insurer anticipate the loss. Therefore, reasonable premiums are difficult to determine.
      After making these statements Rothwell goes on to say that he and a friend did in fact come up with a premium based on unspecified "estimates". Since his estimate is $22M per reactor-year, he assigns that as the "subsidy" of the US government under the legislation.

      In reality, we don't know. And we won't know unless we have more experience with nuclear disasters (let's hope not) here or elsewhere areound the world.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    50. Re:Good by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      designs like my favorite, BREST

      Imagine that, a Slashdotter liking a design called "BREaST".

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    51. Re:Good by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Have they been proven? I heard there was a problem with the spheres cracking.

      I'm all for nuclear plant design, building, and testing. But the only way we can find out what works best is to be allowed to build nuclear plants.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    52. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      (shrug) Either I can give money to Saudi Oil barons who fund the fundamentalist Wahabbi cult, or I can get irradiated by my unshielded nuclear car. It's really not THAT bad of a trade off.

    53. Re:Good by Lehk228 · · Score: 0, Troll

      oh god not the 'Peak Oil' crap again. really it's getting old.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    54. Re:Good by skiflyer · · Score: 1

      It won't be near $20 a gallon unless alot of other stuff goes weird.

      There're some funny things that will happen to the economics of oil really soon.

      If prices ever stabilize around thist 65-75$ a barrel, then suddenly all the shale oil in Canada and the US becomes worth mining... right it just doesn't make economic sense as there'd be a negative economic return on the oil... but at those prices, it becomes worthwhile. Hence, at that price the supply greatly increases (it's estimated Canada has more oil trapped in shale than the entire middle east has in the wells being used today.)

      So $20 a gallon isn't too likely, $5 or $6 isn't so silly though, maybe even $10 if it gets to the point that we develop enough alternative methods such that it's a true collectors commodity as you suggest... though about $4 of that $10 would likely be taxes.

    55. Re:Good by Impotent_Emperor · · Score: 1

      Don't CA and MA have higher taxes on gas (compared to other States)?

      Of course, it could just be local businesses meeting demand...

    56. Re:Good by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      They rely on that because that's the way it's been for the past 50 years. When Gas gets too pricey, you'll see the suburbs and the cities change to reflect the fact that people can't afford to drive that much anymore.

      I loved the neighborhoods in England and Europe, I can hardly wait for the US to go that way.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    57. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only a few hundred years"? Hell, even fifty years of greenhouse gas emission-free energy would be hitting the jackpot.

    58. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool idea.

    59. Re:Good by Gherald · · Score: 1

      One hundred years should be /plenty/ of time to figure out Fusion.

    60. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oil companies aren't monopolies

      That is because they are an Oligopoly

    61. Re:Good by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      And the effects are obvious.

      Have a look at an average UK street. 40%+ of private cars are supermini - Clio, Peugeot 106/206/207, Fiesta/Ka/Fusion, Corsa, Yaris, C3, Charade/Sirion and the like. Have a look at an average US suburbia street - at least 60% of private cars are penis extenders with no other function, but to compensate for the sense of inadequacy in their owner.

      3 years of same gas prices and they will become very much alike.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    62. Re:Good by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but people that can afford a $40,000 Tahoe or Hummer aren't going to be too bothered by $3 gasoline.

    63. Re:Good by VagaStorm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since I'm probably not the only one that don't know my reactors that well: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact -sheets/next-gen-reactors.html :p

    64. Re:Good by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1
      Leaving aside the impracticality of building a lightweight containment vessel / radiation shield, a car-sized nuclear reactor wouldn't explode with much energy. The most likely explosion scenarios would be explosive failure of the pressure vessel and / or secondary hydrogen explosion. The energies involved would be orders of magnitude less than a truck-load of high explosive.

      The likelihood of a reactor (of any kind) going off like an atom bomb is about zero. An atom bomb requires enough fissile material to form a critical mass to be brought together VERY quickly. It is physically impossible for this to happen in a reactor.

    65. Re:Good by msevior · · Score: 0

      Just to set the record straight about PBMRs.

      1. It's not the graphite that burned in Chernbyl. It's pyrolitic graphite that fits over the nose-cones of re-entry vehicals. The stuff is much less likely to burn than diamond.

      2. There is no water in the system at any point. The Helium directly drives a gas turbine.

      3. The pyrolitic graphite is only one of seven layers of contianment around the fuel.

      4. Without the Helium moderator the chain reaction stops. The Fission product heat stablizes *well* below any temperature that can damage the pebble and drops rapidly there-after.

      5. Gas moderated reactors are a means to make Thorium breeders. However these make no economic sense while the price of Uranium is so low.

      That said I'm all for investigating interesting reactor alternatives.

    66. Re:Good by Danger+Stevens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the big argument against all-electric (also called gas-optional) cars is that the electricity has to come from *somewhere* and coal plants aren't much better than combustion engines.

      If the grid runs off clean and safe nuclear, cars can run of batteries.

      --
      World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
    67. Re:Good by JoneK · · Score: 0

      You do realise that UK gallon and US gallon is different size.

    68. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. There is a big debate over the graphite's role in Chernobyl. The Soviets who put out the fire were insistant that the graphite was burning - they even had debates over how to put out the burning graphite without encouraging faster burning or secondary reactions. Nuclear professionals in America are insistant that nuclear grade graphite only erodes - that it doesn't burn - and lab tests of fresh graphite hold this out. Even simple erosion of radioisotope-laden graphite would be awful, of course (especially in this case where the graphite is in direct contact with the nuclear reactants and daughter products), but it's hard to deny the Soviet field reports. In all likelyhood, fresh nuclear-grade graphite doesn't burn well, but after it is bombarded by high energy radiation and corrosive chemicals for long periods, it does.

      2. There *Is* water in the system of most PBMR designs. As I stated, helium is the primary coolant; however, some use water as a secondary coolant in the core (such as China's design), and even some designs that don't use it in the core have a secondary loop in which water is pyrolized into hydrogen and oxygen.

      3. "seven layers of containment". Um, yeah right. There's only one pressure-tight containment level in PBMRs. The graphite isn't pressure tight - it's just a coating, and one that gets highly contaminated in the process. The reactor vessel and associated helium loop and pellet recycling are pressure tight. Unlike most nuclear reactors, the reactor building is not a positive pressure structure.

      4. "Without the helium moderator the chain reaction stops". This is called "a negative void coefficient", and it's nothing remotely new. Three mile island had a negative void coefficent too. The problem is that the reactor core, even if *all* reaction were to cease, still has a huge amount of heat inside of it, and this residual heat is what poses the threat. By the way, helium is not a moderator - graphite is. You'll note that in demonstrations, the only thing that they demonstrate is shutting down the helium coolant - they never violate the integrity of the pressure vessel. This is because oxygen (and even potentially water or steam) can get in, and this can have very serious consequences. And, without a containment structure...

      5. "Gas moderated reactors are a means to make Thorium breeders" - Once again, the term is "gas cooled", not "gas moderated". Do you even know what a moderator is?

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    69. Re:Good by 6th+time+lucky · · Score: 1

      yeah i bet if we stick a half critical hemisphere of enriched weapons grade uranium to the front of all cars, then head on collisions will be markedly reduced, or at least very spectacular to watch...

      This would be a much easier design than to impact implode subcritcal masses of plutonium, but with the down side of possible low-velocity parking-lot accidents.

    70. Re:Good by JoneK · · Score: 0

      Well northen europe and europe at moust parts relay on Russian GAS and OIL.

      Oil comppanies have made loats of money allways. Mainly cos they suppress countryes that have oil and exploit their resources. Like in nigeria, and nobody does anything, cos it keeps the oil pricess low.

      Europe has high taxes yes. But it isn't the cauce for high prices.

      The simple fact is, the world consumes more oil that there is offering off it. And soon like in 2011 there wont be any oil left in the earth and that is it... Well :) i'm wrong aren't I! there is oil left in this wolrd... In the poles off the earth. And my quess is that US of A will be the first to make war cos of thouse recourses. I just hope that US of A won't do it. ;)

    71. Re:Good by abradsn · · Score: 1

      Why didn't President Carter like the fast breeder reactors?

    72. Re:Good by richie2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      President Carter used execuitive order to ban fast breeder reactors back in the 70's

      As an old Navy Nuclear technician that was personally involved in atleast one radiation clean-up, I would imagine he had some very good reasons for doing that at the time. Would you happen to know his reasons for banning them and if they may still be valid?

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    73. Re:Good by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Do you even know what a moderator is?"

      Many times, I've asked the same question, when reading posts on slashdot... ;-)

      --
      --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    74. Re:Good by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      So you're saying people buy cars that reflect thier personaly desired penis size?
          I suppose you consider anything faster than a 486 a penis extender?
          Some people see thier car as more than just how to get from point a to b. Some do not. I used to be mostly in the latter category untill I had the money to buy a nicer car ('99 Mustang convertable), and now I'm in the other category.
          It's just alot of fun to drive around back (but not to back! not the best ground clearance) in early evening in nice weather with the top down.
            Do I need it? no not really, my old Aspire (barely more than 1/3 the engine size) got me around well enough using just over half the gas per unit distance. But the Mustang is just plain fun.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    75. Re:Good by DrXym · · Score: 1
      $3 a gallon is NOTHING. I hear people in the US whining about the price of fuel, but it's been more than that in the whole of Europe for a long time. For example, petrol in the UK is 90p per litre. There are just under 4 litres to a US gallon.

      Part of that is the tax that most EU governments slap on the pump price to discourage driving big vehicles. And it's not left wing thinking either - the UK conservative government started a policy of raising fuel prices by quadrupling the effects of inflation. It was Labour who stopped it, partly because of fuel protests.

      Personally I think in some ways it is a good thing it is high. There is no incentive for consumers or manufacturers to produce more efficient cars when it is so cheap that no one gives economy a second thought. People drive SUVs and fuel wasteful cars when all they do every day is use them to drive on highways between work, home and the mall. There should be financial penalties for that - if you want drive a tank then fine, but you're going to pay for the environment and health effects of that.

      Fuel prices should might also get local governments thinking too when they decide to green light stripmalls, or out of town developments which *require* people drive everywhere.

      Who knows, perhaps more centralized shops, and foot / bike friendly planning might have a positive impact on people's health and lifestyle.

    76. Re:Good by s1234d · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, gas prices will continue to climb. It's called the Hubbert Curve.

    77. Re:Good by cybpunks3 · · Score: 1

      Proven like 3-mile-island and Chernobyl?

    78. Re:Good by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      Well, let me quickly calculate the price of gas here in Belgium for you:

      one liter "super" (regular fuel for cars, no diesel): 1.40 euro / liter
      1 Euro = 1.2417 U.S. Dollars
      1 gallon = 3.79 liter

      This makes 6.59 $ per gallon, or more than double of what you consider troublesome. On a side note, cars here probably need less than half the gas you guys need for the same distance. My own car does 100 kilometers on 5-6 liters diesel (you do the conversion). Yet another side note, cars in the US are a lot cheaper ...

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
    79. Re:Good by Tekgno · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Chernobyl was purely human error.
      There were several safeguards in place and they were trying to test another one, in order to test it, it was apparently necessary to disable the other ones.
      Unfortunately the new safety failed and thus everything went up the proverbial creek.
      I know it is wrong, but I cannot help but laugh at the irony of the whole incident being caused because they were testing a feature that was supposed to prevent such a thing from happening.

    80. Re:Good by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      I agree. I wasn't trying to say that that article had the magic number for the price of the premium we are paying but rather just that that price is definitely not zero. I do have a response to your "And we won't know unless we have more experience with nuclear disasters" comment however. Take away the current government protection and see what price the insurance companies which have the ability to cover such a disaster (are there any?) come up with. It definitely isn't zero.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    81. Re:Good by Draveed · · Score: 1

      AFAIK it was because breeder reactors produce plutonium. He was concerned that if this technology really took off, all this plutonium for fuel would just lead to the spread of nuclear weapons. By banning fuel reprocessing, the US was supposed to be setting an example to stop nuclear proliferation.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    82. Re:Good by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      1 gallon=~4.5 ltr

      1 ltr=Euro 1.4= $1.6

      1 gallon in the Netherlands=$7.2

      That is way above the $3. It only affects driving a little for a short period of time (like 0.3% for a year in mileage, 0.15% in the long run). People do start buying more efficient cars.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    83. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuclear: So all that's been missing all these years is standardization of plant design, eh? Genius. Let's see them do one without massive government subsidies. Let's see how far the safety claims go with the general public when you want to build one in anyone's back yard but YOUR OWN. Actually, your neighbors wouldn't let you do it either.
      Let's see someone recoup their invesment in their solar panels within 20-30 years without government subsidies!

    84. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using those two sources of data you quote, you're entirely correct that the average DISTANCE us Brits commute is less.

      However, those sources also show that the average TIME to commute is much longer, with a journey time of 45 minutes, compared to the puny 32 minutes in Solano County, California.

      23 miles in 32 minutes is a lot more fuel efficient than 8 in 45, although it would still cost more overall. Especially with your heavy SUVs and full-blast air-con.

    85. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be called an oiligopoly ?

    86. Re:Good by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting nuclear powered car engines?
      Surely not... electric vehicles with batteries recharged via the existing grid are in keeping with this. I might even be persuaded that owning a car is something I'd like to do when such a thing is more practical - for now I'm happy with my bicycle and the train (sadly diesel, not electric, as in previous places I've lived).
    87. Re:Good by BarryNorton · · Score: 1
      I'll still drive [...] and look cooler than you
      When it's sat up on blocks, unable to run, and people are fighting wars (or, rather, many more of them) based on the fossil fuels you squandered, you'll look so coooooool!
    88. Re:Good by Squalish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been convinced after doing some research that the likelyhood of the geiger counter becoming a whole lot more active very quickly is greater in the struggle over the last few oil fields than it is from waste plutonium.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    89. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the big argument against all-electric (also called gas-optional) cars is that the electricity has to come from *somewhere* and coal plants aren't much better than combustion engines.

      Well let's not use coal plants or other 1950-style technologies then ??!?!
      Perhaps we should use...i don't know... a solar array instead....

      But wait, that would make energy prices a couple of percent more expensive which of course would immidiately destroy the US economy.

    90. Re:Good by jonatha · · Score: 1

      You may be using Imperial gallons....

      1 US gallon = 3.78 ltr ...

      1 gallon in the Netherlands = $6.06

      Still high, of course....

      --
      The SCO lawsuit makes me wish my company were in Utah. We need a new building.
    91. Re:Good by msevior · · Score: 1

      Regarding water, I was thinking of the modular South African design. I'm less familiar with the Chinese.

      3. Most of the moderation is performed by the Carbon within the pebble. The Helium definately plays an additional moderator role.

      4. "Without the helium moderator the chain reaction stops"

      Later in that paragraph I address the point of heat build up from radioactive fission products.

      The point about the PMBR is even with no coolant the high surface area and refactory coating mean that the pebble temperature only rises to 1600 C well short of the 2000 C temperature at which things start to go wrong.

      "Do you even know what a moderator is?"

      Yes.

      In any case, post TMI, Western Reactors have excellent safety records. Next generation PWRs like the AP1000 from Westinghouse have even greater safety margins most of which are passive.

      I'm quite comfortable that provided the correct Safety Culture is maintained Nuclear Power reactors are safe and reliable.

    92. Re:Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      Nuclear: So all that's been missing all these years is standardization of plant design, eh? Genius. Let's see them do one without massive government subsidies. Let's see how far the safety claims go with the general public when you want to build one in anyone's back yard but YOUR OWN. Actually, your neighbors wouldn't let you do it either.
      Been there. Done that. Currently generating 78.5% of electricity with nukes. (+11.5% hydroelectric, only 9.3% coal&oil). (Hint: France).
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    93. Re:Good by thegameiam · · Score: 1

      No, but they can be electric or hydrogen fuel-cell, and nuclear reactors would be a great way to generate both of those.

      -David

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    94. Re:Good by PerspexAvenger · · Score: 1

      He -did- say it was an estimate. :)
      Anyways, going from what I last paid to fill up (81.9p/litre), and running through google calculator and xe.com for gallons and dollars respectively, I come out with $5.62/gal.
      Funtastic, isn't it.
      (And yes, I'm -very- bitter that it's mostly tax)

    95. Re:Good by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      In other words, wait for a silver bullet? A: Isn't that basically the same argument for doing nothing about Global Warming? B: The lead time for a nuclear reactor is a decade or so from drawing board to operation, and here in the US we're already hitting problems of demand dominating supply. We have to start building *something* **NOW**, to keep from having to live with perpetual brownouts in 15 years.

    96. Re:Good by PerspexAvenger · · Score: 1

      Gah. I got all that process right, except for the initial price. 91.9p/litre, I mean.
      $6.31/US Gal.

    97. Re:Good by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      And as usual, we'll be on the back-end of that curve about to go into free-fall before the chickens realize the sky is falling. Sigh.

    98. Re:Good by True+Grit · · Score: 3, Informative
      and if they may still be valid?


      "breeder" still manages to refer to several different types, so there isn't a blanket answer. Ordinary "breeders" still have that same *potential* problem, but we don't just have "ordinary" breeders anymore.

      While the current fad seems to be over PBMRs, maybe because of the neat name I guess, my favorite still remains the Integral Fast Reactor, not only because of safety features, but because these could run for decades just by burning all the spent fuel from our conventional reactors. Newflash: we don't *need* a hole in the ground for most nuclear waste, just chuck it into an IFR.
    99. Re:Good by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      than it is from waste plutonium.

      Actually, in this case the plutonium is not waste. It can be used as a viable nuclear fuel in reactors. It's just has the duality of being capable of being a nuclear bomb. Kind of like nitrogen ferilizers having both a good and a bad side.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    100. Re:Good by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you happen to know his reasons for banning them and if they may still be valid?

      Fast breeder reactors produce Plutonium 239. For those others who don't know Pu-239 is the form of plutonium used in nuclear weapons. As for carter, See this post.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    101. Re:Good by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      As an old Navy Nuclear technician that was personally involved in atleast one radiation clean-up,

      Cite source for clean-up as the Navy had not yet had one accident by the time he was discharged. To this day, we are still waiting for a screw up.

      Frankly, I've always thought that Carter's moves on energy were irrational and borderline cookoo given that he and I attended the same nuclear power training several decades appart. He was also responsible for bringing Scheleshenger and Duncan in as energy secretaries. It's interesting that when something becomes cabinet level how quickly politicised it becomes - hence the current situation where market economics do not really apply to energy as EVERYTHING has become a regulated monopoly.

      --
      -- $G
    102. Re:Good by salesgeek · · Score: 1

      As long as they're pebble bed reactors, I'm all for it.

      Because they are:

      a) Unproven
      b) Sound Cool
      c) Prevent Recycling of Fissile Material (the expensive and rare part)
      e) Not the kind at 3 Mile Island
      f) all of the above

      Seriously - the whole concept of pebble bed was to make small light & portable reactors. That concept is not the same as producing large ammounts of power.

      --
      -- $G
    103. Re:Good by tgd · · Score: 1

      Thats not necessarily a good comparison, though.

      The American public is, collectively, a bunch of bumbling morons. Take as witness the enormous number of people trading in their giant SUVs for an economy car because gas is up fifty cents. They never ask themselves how much money they'll save on gas (typically less than $50/month) and how much of a loss they're taking on the depreciation of the SUV at trade in ($10k?). At $600/year in fuel savings, it takes a LONG time to make that up!

    104. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sick of Americans bitching about their "expensive" fuel prices. YOU HAVE CHEAP PETROL. GET OVER IT. Petrol in the UK right now costs nearly $7 a gallon, for fuck's sake!

    105. Re:Good by richie2000 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Frankly, I've always thought that Carter's moves on energy were irrational and borderline cookoo given that he and I attended the same nuclear power training several decades appart.

      Maybe you never had the misfortune of having to clean up after a nuclear accident? And maybe he had access to a lot more information about these accidents than you or I ever will? I dunno, that's why I asked if anyone knew why he banned breeders. Apparently, it was an attempt to hinder proliferation of weapons-grade plutonium, a subject I suspect never came up in your nuke power training...

      Cite source for clean-up as the Navy had not yet had one accident by the time he was discharged. To this day, we are still waiting for a screw up.

      I never said it was a Navy screwup. Non-Navy screw ups galore.

      December 12, 1952 - The first serious nuclear disaster occurred at the NRX reactor in Chalk River, Canada. A massive power excursion destroyed the core, resulting in a partial meltdown. A series of hydrogen gas explosions threw a four-ton gasholder dome four feet (1.2 m) into the air, where it jammed in the superstructure. Thousands of curies (several terabecquerels) of fission products were released into the atmosphere, and a million US gallons (3,800 m) of radioactively contaminated water was pumped out of the basement into shallow trenches not far from the Ottawa River. The core was buried. Jimmy Carter, then a nuclear engineer in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.
      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    106. Re:Good by azuretek · · Score: 1

      At work I drive an escalade it takes about 50 dollars in gas every 3 days.... I'd say the car makes me look cool, but I dislike driving it because I have to constantly keep an eye on the fuel gauge.

      I dont see how anyone would want to pay insane prices for gas no matter how cool their car looks, I'll stick to my simple fuel efficient car for now.

    107. Re:Good by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I agree. I'd rather see pebble bed than the monsters we have now.

      For those unaware pebble bed eliminates much of the complexity associated with a nuclear power plant. The only remaining problem is radioactive waste but our understanding of the world around us is growing by leaps and bounds.

      I wouldn't be all that surprised if within the next century or so the human race discovers how to tame radioactivity.

    108. Re:Good by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Imperial gallons, hum, let me adjust my stardestroyer while I am at it. Anyway: I guessed gallon to litre number. A bit on the high side, I better not go into trading (-:

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    109. Re:Good by Nept · · Score: 1

      It's more than that. Petrol is 90p/liter in the UK, so 90p * 3.7854118 = £3.407 * 1.80709 (today's rate of UK £-$) = $6.16.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    110. Re:Good by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      The reason EU if so expensive is taxes. that $5.00 a gallon is 2.50 in taxes, and 2.50 in gas. Not much more expensive really, just more taxes. Now those taxes have gone to a better mass transit system (and good roads too) luckily, so car use is much less common.

    111. Re:Good by vertinox · · Score: 1

      From the BBC:

      "There are more than 400 nuclear power stations across the globe, producing about 17% of the world's electricity."

      With that thinking you could assume it would only take 2,353 more Power Plants to achieve total global power via Nuclear. When you compare it to the scale of 6 billion people, it's a rather small number to achieve.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    112. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to feed the troll, but...
      as I said to my Mum:
      "Oh not that Running blindfolded across a highway is dangerous crap again. It's getting old."

    113. Re:Good by jmrSudbury · · Score: 1

      Nuclear energy is indeed a sensitive issue. The main problems seem to be what to do with the by products, how long they take to get up and running after a blackout (weeks here in Ontario after the August 2003 blackout where the nuclear plants needed power to make power), and some unnecessary fears about ancient disasters. To that I have some questions. The radioactive material is mined. What is wrong with putting the radioactive waste back into the emptied mines? It the final waste products too volumeous? Back on topic, I also wonder about this solar plant's effectiveness on cloudy days. It may get 500MW on a sunny day, but what is the average over a year? Or is that 500 MW over a year already?

    114. Re:Good by Zentakz · · Score: 1

      The debate in nuclear energy often focuses on two things: safety and waste. The former is usually emphasized heavily with worries of repeating the disasters of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. While even the remote possiblity of such a disaster is enough to justify serious doubts about the role of nuclear energy in our society, in day-to-day operation, nuclear power plants are relatively "safe."

      However, the second issue, waste, is often brushed under the table and ignored. Advocates make the attractive comparison between the relatively small quantity of waste produced by nuclear power plants and traditional power plants. They assure us that waste can be stored in underground geological respositories for an indefinite period of time, awaiting further processing, or gradually decaying into daughter products. It is still questionable and almost unpredictable about whether these repositories will maintain their integrity for 100,000 years. This is not something I would feel comfortable leaving my descendants to determine.

      Super radioactive, or "High-Level" waste is not the only issue though. Just as in any refining process, a huge amount of material is required to concentrate Uranium into usable quantities. The process produces tons and tons of low level radioactive waste. Some of this is used for making things like U-238 bullets, which on the surface seems productive, but think for a second about how many mildly radioactive bullets we have sccattered across the surface of Afghanistan and Iraq. Where does the rest of the waste go? Nowhere. It sits in piles of dust in refining factories or tanks underground, waiting to be spilled or mishandled and spread into the environment. This is a disturbing issue that is often brushed under the table.

      Another example of low-level difficulties comes from other nuclear countries such as France that to "reprocess" spent fuel rods from other nations. Outwardly this seems like a very good use of spent fuel other than the possible proliferation of plutonium that can be extracted from the products. Unfortunately, the process to create new nuclear fuel from spent fuel is nasty affair that involves dissolving the fuel rods in extremely strong acid. After the process completes, the left over *radioactive acid* sits in large metal tanks underground, awaiting long term storage...somewhere.

      To invoke the cliche, "not in my back yard."

    115. Re:Good by Gherald · · Score: 1

      But we don't know how to build it yet. Fission buys time.

    116. Re:Good by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to be rude but you all have no idea what you are talking about at all nuclear plants pay their own insurance and its determined buy their deductible (the number of days they can be off line before they get a check). The insurance company is called NEIL, look it up. I know my plant pays like 10 million a year in insurance, and thats just my plant. NEIL must keep like 6 billions in assets at any given time to cover two severe accidents.

      Disclaimer - Obviously, I work for a nuke plant, and I went to training on this very thing. The new insurance in energy bill that you all have been talking about is for plant building insurance. So that if you are building the plant and construction is stopped due to protests or regulatory stuff.

    117. Re:Good by solomonrex · · Score: 1

      "5. "Gas moderated reactors are a means to make Thorium breeders" - Once again, the term is "gas cooled", not "gas moderated". Do you even know what a moderator is?"

      I love this. Only on /. can you sincerely ridicule someone for their LACK of Nuclear Engineering knowledge. Unbelievable.

    118. Re:Good by vertinox · · Score: 1

      Car engines can't be nuclear.

      But Nuclear reactors can generate the energy to make synthetic fuels from organic materials or create hydrogen cells. Any other alternatives would be welcome too.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    119. Re:Good by GOD_ALMIGHTY · · Score: 1

      the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need
      More expensive than invading Iraq or paying off the Saudi's to secure oil?
      Even if you had to subsidize Amtrak, the money have a better return on investment to the global economy and our own, than our strategy to secure oil in the Middle East and South America.

      --
      Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
    120. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the crude oil industry isn't competitive at all. OPEC, which controls 2/3 of the world's oil resources, is a quantity setting cartel. For those without economics backgrounds, that means that the oil producing nations (supposedly) collectively limit their production so as to act as a virtual monopoly of sorts. That way each country produces less oil and is paid dramatically more per barrel than they would have been in pure competition. In fact, in the aftermath of the 1973 oil crisis, the price of crude rose nearly 10-fold; this is not a symptom of the scarcity resources (contrary to popular belief, there's no shortage of oil in nature), but a testament to the power of the OPEC cartel.

    121. Re:Good by Chris6502 · · Score: 1

      Don't be so sure gas prices will make nuclear power more acceptable. Petrol just hit the 1 pound per litre mark in parts of the UK (At todays rates thats $6.89 per US gallon). The only change I notice is that people seem to be less nimby'ish about wind generators.

      --
      UNIX: 'cuz you can tattoo it on your knuckles!
    122. Re:Good by Retric · · Score: 1

      You can make gas from oil or coal.

    123. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The radioactive material is still radioactive, but its still mostly toxic. You don't want it getting into groundwater. And nimby is the leading problem.

    124. Re:Good by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What? Depreciation means shit if you've already bought it. If you spend $20k on a SUV, sell it for $10k, buy a more efficient car for $5k, you're not down on the deal. You don't get the money back if you keep something.

    125. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compare the size of the UK with the size of the US and you'll have some idea of why we complain

    126. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let see, it is about $5/gallon in the UK and the US is complaining about $3/gallon wtf. This is just under estimate too because I am converting from £ to $ and liters to gallons.

    127. Re:Good by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Quite often the producers and refiners are in the same company, so it doesn't really matter which side is turning the profit.

    128. Re:Good by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      I just wish public opinion would change faster so we can get some more nuclear plants as well.

      I like the idea of nuclear power and contemporary designs for the power plants look pretty good. But I'm glad that public opinion is keeping their development in check for a while longer.

      There are two problems with nuclear power that need to be addressed:

      1. The engineering of waste disposal systems is in its infancy. We need to have something ready to handle the waste as it is produced and nothing we've got at present has more solidity than "artists' concepts". We are more than a decade away from having any commercially viable recycling / disposal process, even if the US Government mounted an Apollo Project to develop such a thing.
      2. There needs to be a revision of business accounting systems so that an industry whose greatest cost of production occurs post-production can be reliably modelled. Our current accounting system hasn't seen any fundamental improvements in cost accounting in the last 75 years or so. The only way it can handle the appropriate assignment of a future cost to the period of production is through explanatory footnotes in the P&L statement-- which means these aren't modelled at all. When it comes to nuclear power and the cost of recycling and waste management, that's bogus. There is currently no way of saying what the total cost per kwh for any existing nuclear plant is, nor any way of estimating what that cost might be for a new plant.
    129. Re:Good by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, Chernobyl was purely human error.

      Well, several purely human errors. Beginning with the use of graphite as the moderator in a high temperature, 21% oxygen environment.

      Stupid graphite, to start burning just because things got a little warmer than nominal operations called for...

    130. Re:Good by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry too much about the cloudy days. they are putting this thing by Victorville, CA; which, just happens to be right next door to where I live. We don't get much in the way of cloudy days, this year being a really anomolous exception. About the only time there will be a problem will be around January, when we get our yearly dose of rain (we get 2 to 3 weeks of rain a year, usually all at once). In summer, when we need the extra electricity for A/C, this thing will probably be getting enough sun to bleach the mirroring right off the mirrors.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    131. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      ...hey, there's a car on the tracks! quick, start the breaks...

      "It's worse than many industries, because they're all selling essentially the same thing. They'll push particular blends and additives, but it really comes down to the same product, so it's really down to whoever can sell it the cheapest."

      i think that you're missing something. it is not in these companies best interest to compete. there are only a few major oil companies (http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/ll/120mkt.html) that control basically all of the market. what is the incentive to compete? you assume that these companies are operating on some kind of free market model, but OIL'S NOT A FREE MARKET!
      their entire INDUSTRY is based on price fixing! (http://www.opec.org/home/). why compete when you can price fix? if businesses can price fix, they do. who is going to stop all of them from colluding and artificially raising prices? the market? the market doesn't have a choice. the government? no, they bought it a few decades back.

    132. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was funny. People kinda touchy for a Friday.

    133. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      I'm less familiar with the Chinese.

      Undesired heating of the pressure vessel is taken away by water cooling panels on its exterior. I once found an excellent >100 page document on the design of the HTR-PM, but all I can find right now is a brief 8 page summary :P

      The helium definately plays an additional moderator role

      You better get a cite for that. For example, from Atomic Insights:

      "The selection of gas cooling required the designers to also choose a separate material to moderate (slow down) the neutrons. In a PWR, the coolant - water - happens to also be a good moderator, but gases are too low in density to have much effect on neutron speeds within a reactor."

      PBMRs are known as helium-cooled, graphite-moderated systems.

      the pebble temperature only rises to 1600 C

      Do you know why carbon-carbon panels on reentry vehicles are covered in silicon carbide? Because when you reach those kinds of temperatures, carbon with graphene-style sp2 bonds (graphite, carbon-carbon, etc) oxidizes and erodes readily. While it is not known for certain, there is a widespread view based on Chernobyl, Windscale, and other graphite-moderated reactor accidents that graphite contaminated with decay products and bombarded with high level radiation can outright combust (very fiercely) at those temperatures.

      Note that we haven't even discussed issues that could cause greater-than-expected temperatures - these are all "if things go as planned, but there's a rupture" scenarios. For example, Germany experienced pellet jamming in their pebble recycling equipment. A jam in the reaction chamber itself, while harder to occur, would prevent pellet expansion and thus turn the negative void coefficient system into a positive one.

      Western Reactors have excellent safety records

      I strongly disagree. Containment structures have saved our arses time and time again. There have even been superheated radioactive priamry coolant containment failure accidents with what is probably our safest reactor design currently in use in the west, the CANDU (Pickering 2, Bruce 5, etc - Pickering lost 140 tons of highly radioactive coolant). I already linked to a list of well known nuclear accidents (not all of them are nuclear power accidents, but I figured you can pick them out) - however, don't trick yourself into thinking that that list is anywhere near comprehensive. More nuclear power plants older than a decade have had a leak of radioactive material of some sort or another, which almost always was contained by the containment structure than not. A good number have had serious leaks. It is the containment structures that we owe our safety to.

      Do you know why PBMRs don't use containment structures, by the way? It's about cost. PBMRs are small reactors. They'd easily be completely uneconomical if they had to have a containment structure. They use what is called a "confinement structure" - it's basically the sort of building that Chernobyl was housed in.

      By the way, don't get me wrong - I'm a big supporter of nuclear power (I wouldn't have studied it so much if I wasn't :) ). I just don't like the common misconceptions propagated about PBMRs. They're a nice general design, but the decision to make them without a containment structure is anything but justified as far as safety goes.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    134. Re:Good by Kaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      You don't need to dump the used material. It needs to be reprocessed.

    135. Re:Good by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      In other words, wait for a silver bullet?

      And what, exactly, are we doing now which is much different? It's nice to see thing like the Solar Array mentioned in the FA going up, but that is really only feasible in places like the Western Mojave, where we get 300-odd days of sun a year. It just wouldn't fly in, say, Seattle. Yes, the amount of time to get a reactor designed and built is long, but this is true of any large scale project. The previously mentioned solar array won't have any opertational capacity until at least 2007 (And I wouldn't expect them to actually be on time) And they don't mention how much longer until the full 500MW capacity will be online, with build out to start in 2008 it will be a while.
      We do need to get something building now, and this array is a nice start, but it's not the silver bullet we need. Fission won't be it either I expect, but it would be a good delaying tactic until we do find one, or at least the next delaying tactic. If we can get something like an IFR reactor going, we may be able to buy ourselves a lot of time to figure out Fusion.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    136. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You can make gas from oil or coal.

      Or turkeys. Petroleum products as fuel may become less common as alternatives become more economical, but there is not much risk of running completely out.

    137. Re:Good by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Why didn't President Carter like the fast breeder reactors?

      You'd have to ask him. Keep in mind that before he was President Carter, he was Lieutenant Carter in the US Navy, Naval Reactors Branch, where he developed procedures and training manuals to be used on nuclear submarines.

      I suspect that at least part of his opposition to fast breeders had to do with what he knew about the incident at the Fermi 1 fast breeder reactor in 1966, and its eventual shutdown for safety concerns in 1972. These puppies operate well outside the envelope of everyday engineering concerns (pumping molten sodium as a coolant, etc), and Carter would have been keenly aware of the difficulties of developing safe procedures (that had enough latitude to protect against human foibles and downright stupidity).

      Stupid sodium, to be so highly reactive chemically. Stupid titanium plating, to be so brittle that it could flake off and float in the sodium to a Bad Place...

    138. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      OPEC can't price fix any more - they're producing at their limits. Price fixing for OPEC involved setting production limits; there's an oil production shortage compared to current demand, and OPEC has the taps wide open.

      What do you mean "there's only a few companies" when you just linked to a page showing over a dozen of them, and that's hardly all of them. Huge numbers of oil companies exist, from monstrous giants like Exxon-Mobil to tiny wildcatter firms and oil services providers. Even among the giants, there are several dozen "giants" worldwide, and multiple in the United States.

      They have every incentive in the world to compete. Exxon-Mobil's profits don't go to Shell. Shell's profits don't go to BP. Etc. Right now it's a buyer's market, and everyone wants to be the seller. If they're not competitive, their shareholders will take their money out and put it into some of the hundreds of other oil companies.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    139. Re:Good by Peldor · · Score: 1
      But the US is plagued with vehicles that get poor gas mileage and on average US citizens drive more miles. The total travel cost is probably about even between the two countries even if we pay less per gallon.

      Really both pay about the same for oil. It's just that the UK taxes their petrol a lot more than US taxes their gas.

    140. Re:Good by Soulslayer · · Score: 1

      I own a 5-speed manual transmission 2000 Honda Insight.

      Essentially, it's a CRX with the steel replaced by aluminum and the plastic replaced by carbon fiber. The CVT version supposedly feels rather sluggish and gets less MPG than the manual. I find the manual to be a fairly zippy little car. 0-60 in 10 seconds and the 1/4 mile in about 18. It'll do 73 mph in second gear and hit the governed 113mph in 3rd. To dispel the myth that hybrids are boring and tame I tend to sacrifice some gas mileage to do a little tire smoking burnout in it (which is a bit of a cheat since the tires are small and low rolling resistance).

      Unlearning old stick shift habits is interesting. Leaving the car in gear as you slow (to make use of the regen) takes a little getting used to. As does putting the car in neutral on the highway periodically (the Insight will coast for miles and miles on a smooth flat surface).

      I tend to drive rather aggressively by nature so I average about 50mpg in the city and 65-70 on the highway. I've done a few trips where my ~20 mile round trip average was over 100 mpg, but that takes driving like grandpa.

      The handling is excellent. The electric power steering is extremely responsive and the car hugs the road better than most cheap sports cars I've driven. I'd like to see what it could do with a suspension upgrade and more road hugging tires. One word of caution here, though. While FWD, the Insight's rear end is narrower than the front and combined with the car's low weight it tends to want to over-steer at high speeds. It's no WRX.

      The interior is fairly spartan, but clean. The dash is very well designed. The curve of the dash matches the arc of the MOMO racing wheel making everything very easy to read at a glace. The faux racing seats are comfortable. It has power locks, power windows, a somewhat wimpy stereo (by my standards anyway), a surprising amount of storage in the back, and a nice climate control system.

      If you don't have a need to carrying more than two people (including yourself) and want something unique, fun to drive, and great on the pocketbook; go buy a new or used Insight.

      If you favor performance, but don't want a 15 mpg sports car, get the Accord.

      --


      Once more unto the breach dear friends...
    141. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What is wrong with putting the radioactive waste back into the emptied mines? It the final waste products too volumeous?


      By that logic, what's wrong with dumping raw sewage right into our freshwater lakes, ponds and streams? I mean, after all, geese and ducks and fish poop in there all the time, right? What could go wrong? A few PPB of urea and animal feces in your drinking water is not going to kill you, but drinking raw sewage will likely kill you within hours. It's an issue of concentration.

      When you have uranium ore (I used to have a small piece; I lost it) it's fairly safe to handle. You don't want to put it in your pocket or grind it up and mix it into a milkshake or anything, but picking it up and playing with a geiger counter at your school isn't going to kill you. Uranium ore is actually quite commonplace, especially in areas where you find fossilized wood. Much of the "yellowish" fossilized wood will test positive for radiation with a geiger counter.

      Handling a near-pure U-235 rod, even for a short period, will likely kill you from radiation exposure within a few days.

      Likewise, the radium on your luminous watch won't kill you, but handling a few kilograms of pure radium very likely will.

      So: dumping enriched uranium that took millions upon millions of tons of ore to extract just one kilogram of pure U-235 (not to mention the U-238, other isotopes, and plutonium that were either separated and used for other purposes or discarded) will cause contamination problems solely due to concentration. You could put it backin the mines, but the radiation will be much, much higher than it was previously because it's been purified and concentrated. You could encase it in lead-rich crystal and concrete, but a minor geological event could be enough to rupture or melt any man-made encasing.

      It is better to recycle nuclear materials as much as we can. If you read the above as my being an anti-nuke nutjob, quite the contrary. I am a firm believe in responsible nuclear power, and I am also a firm believer in bringing safe nuclear power to the masses. Nuclear batteries should hit the mass market; to manufacture a bomb you'd have you buy millions of those batteries so worries about terrorists is just ridiculous. Likewise, we should expand the construction of commercial (both public and private) nuclear power reactors, research reactors, and breeder reactors and continue to not only build conventional plants and harness nuclear power by "conventional" means but encourage private industry and universities to put a lot of emphasis on improving nuclear efficiency and hopefully eventually replace fission reactors with fusion reactors.

      Obviously clean fusion is the goal, but in the meantime fission power could solve the oil crisis, leaving oil to be used only for vehicles and plastics manufacturing, and put a pinch on OPEC and force them to bring oil back down to reasonable prices, because there IS NO SHORTAGE of reserves; only artificial shortages created by lack of production and refining capacity. The US has vast reserves that have never been tapped at all thanks to environut wackos.
    142. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plain and simple, gas prices in Europe are high because of taxes.

      It would be more accurate to say that US oil prices are so low because of taxes. The 2nd para of this article gives examples of both direct and indirect subsidies.

    143. Re:Good by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Kind of like nitrogen ferilizers having both a good and a bad side.

      Oh come on! There is an extent to which this gun nut argument make sense, but you are waaaaay past it.
      The LD-50 dose of plutonium for a dog is 0.32 mg/kg body weight. A few microgram in your body are enough to give you cancer. And the bombs you can build from plutonium are a bit worse than those from nitrogen fertilizers.

      There's no need to argue that you can use pretty much anything to do harm, we know that. The question is, how easy is it to do how much harm (by accident, negligence, or intent), is it controllable, and is it worth it.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    144. Re:Good by Castar · · Score: 1

      and designs like my favorite, BREST

      Slashdot poll: Your favorite nuclear reactor?

      A) Pebble-bed
      B) Thorium
      C) Conventional
      D) Breasts

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    145. Re:Good by Knuckles · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I posted something similar a few days ago but got no replies, and I think this is the most overlooked effect of nuclear energy (including fusion btw, but maybe less so, and except maybe the cold variety ;)

      Nuclear power leads to a militarization of society due to the huge risks involved, and adds tremendously to a concentration of power - electrical, political, and economical - due to the high complexity and costs, and necessary scale involved.

      The first big post-war waves of increased police and governmental control in Europe were pushed through by using precisely these threats, even before terrorism (another kind: RAF and Brigate Rosse, both with well-documented help by the police and secret services btw) played that role for the first time, but of course then the two scares worked together.

      Add to that how nuclear power contributes to political instability in the world, and adds danger to the already existing instabilities (take this week's developments in Iran).

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    146. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a sack of shit, and the world would be a better place without you.

    147. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's fun. It makes you feel like you have a bigger penis. People who are comfortable with the size of their penis don't drive cars like yours.

    148. Re:Good by geekpolitico · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct. I remember when Doc Brown and I used to use that old Delorean. Mr. Fusion could never get the car up to the requisite 88 mph.

    149. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The UK would fit in my basement if I moved some stuff around. Why do you people even have cars?"

      'cos it rains so much that otherwise you'd get soaked every time you went somewhere

    150. Re:Good by floormasn56 · · Score: 1

      It's not just about gas mileage. Its MORE cars! For every 10 mpg increase you can get from any car I can destroy with 10 more cars. This is why the "just drive smaller cars" argument wont work in the end

    151. Re:Good by whome · · Score: 1

      He didn't like breeder reactors because the fast breeder program had been a sinkhole of delays, technical failures and cost overruns. Pulling the plug was the right decision. Frnace and Japan have also had fast breeder programs, and both have spent massive sums of money without producing anything usable in the real world.

    152. Re:Good by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      Car engines can't be nuclear

      But you can use nuclear power to charge a battery or crack hydrogen out of water... giving you a nuclear powered car without having to bring a nuclear reactor with you.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    153. Re:Good by venril · · Score: 3, Informative
      There was an interesting documentary on what-went-wrong. They were monkeying around with power levels to perform some tests by manipulating damping rod positions, and water flow into the core. [btw, the pumps used to move water into the core were electric and, you guessed it, were powered by tapping from the plants own generators. Low or no power, no pumps =P ] While the rods could damp the reaction, water was critical to control/moderate temp change over time. Heat removal by the water buffered the the damp rod control loop. No water and temp fluctuations occur faster and acceleration changes rapidly.

      So..

      (shaking rust off memory)They ran the power (heat) output of the core low. Over controled it below min levels, decreased water flow, cranked up the power by pulling some rods to get power up. Power ran up to high side, dropped some rods in, added water too quickly, cooled core too much, no steam output, turbines stall, tech panics and pulls ALL of the rods (big no-no, he forgot to RTFM), core temp climbs, water cannot be provided quickly enough (no power), water flashes off into steam, core over heats, ignites graphite - boom. More or less.

      A nice feedback loop they they magnified causing increasing excursions with ever larger over corrections - doh! Current reactor designs use the working fluid ( or intermediate heat transfer fluid) as the moderator; the reaction cannot proceed with out the moderator being present to slow the neutrons. If the fluid drains out, the reaction halts and the reactor cools. If the reactor gets too hot, the moderator boils off, again halting the reaction. Kinda hard to get into a meltdown condition.

    154. Re:Good by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news but I predict that you will get at least one nuclear meltdown within the next 15 years. If I had to guess, I would say that it'll happen in China...

      Not trying to single out any country or preach doom&gloom, but that's what I see happening...

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    155. Re:Good by mccabem · · Score: 1

      You're telling me that was done with no form of gov't subsidy?

      Not to be a doubting Thomas, but can you dig up any source material for that?

    156. Re:Good by kb7oeb · · Score: 1

      Mr. Fusion only powered the flux capacitor. Didn't you see part 3?

    157. Re:Good by jpostel · · Score: 1

      Don't dog the moderators... it's bad juju.

      I dogged the moderators once... once.

      --
      Ummm, Jon, aren't you supposed to be dead...? - Otter(3800)
    158. Re:Good by Atryn · · Score: 1
      Take away the current government protection and see what price the insurance companies which have the ability to cover such a disaster (are there any?) come up with. It definitely isn't zero.
      Ahhhh true. But it also still won't be any more accurate. It'll just be THEIR educated guess. Real stats just don't exist.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    159. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      "Price fixing for OPEC involved setting production limits; there's an oil production shortage compared to current demand, and OPEC has the taps wide open."

      maybe i'm stupid, but they control how wide the taps are, don't they? If they set the production limits, and then there is a shortage on the production side, how are they not responsible?

      "What do you mean "there's only a few companies" when you just linked to a page showing over a dozen of them, and that's hardly all of them. Huge numbers of oil companies exist, from monstrous giants like Exxon-Mobil to tiny wildcatter firms and oil services providers. Even among the giants, there are several dozen "giants" worldwide, and multiple in the United States."

      what i mean is to look at the market capitalization numbers on the right. after the top nine companies there is a 30x drop in capitalization.

      and i believe they have no incentive to compete in terms of aggresively lowering their prices so that people will buy from them and not somebody else. think about it like this...they all have a guaranteed revenue stream coming in because people need gas, so it is to all of their advantage to keep things predictable in order to maintain that guaranteed revenue stream. if they competed by lowering prices, they would make less money, some companies would be eliminated or changed. but, if they ALL raised prices, people have no where to go and so they would be forced to pay higher prices, generating more revenue for everybody with the added plus that the companies get to stay the same. now, the government is supposed to stop this kind of thing from happening, but i don't see ol' GW getting in the way of his buddies and their profits. as a matter of fact, he seems to be putting the middle class over the barrel in order to give the oil companies things like subsidies. check out this link...
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM
      (click on the quarterly part) they have made PROFITS of $5.6 billion, $8.4 billion, $7.8 billion, and $7.6 billion in the last 4 quarters! there is no other business this successful in any industry! look at their competitors income statements too, and you'll see huge profits, year after year, quarter after quarter. does that look like competition to you?

      i think of their business model more like getting a tax on driving instead of a selling product like a watch.

      and finally, i don't trust a word these companies say. i think they are cooking the books in the opposite direction by hiding profits so that it does not appear that they are making as much money as they are.

    160. Re:Good by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      No one should building more nuke reactors until they work out what to do with the waste......and they haven't worked that out yet. There are a lot of other wasys to make power that won't poison untold generations.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    161. Re:Good by fbjon · · Score: 1

      If my control rod should touch the central core interface of a BREST, it would cause my reactant fluids to eject rapidly.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    162. Re:Good by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Diamond burns quite readily. The ignition temperature is around 800C.

    163. Re:Good by mccabem · · Score: 1

      The latest developments in photo-voltaic (PV) technology have made this into a myth.

      The sticking points in your argument though, are:
      (1) PV is only one of many aspects of solar power harvesting
      (2) the fact that the price is greater than return on some technologies was due as much to lack of economies of scale as anything
      (3) The real cost of oil-derived products and fuel are disguised - between the enormous Federal Government subsidies given directly to the oil industry and the astronomical amount of military support that is supplied.
      (4) Roll the hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, grants and foreign aid we've pumped into the Middle Eastern monarchies and dictatorships and domestic US oil companies into PV (or other renewable tech) and see if it doesn't become just as affordable as petroleum.

      e.g. Say you're the only factory in the US making PV panels. Say your factory can only make 100,000 panels a year. Say demand for PV panels in a nation of hundreds of millions is about 100,000. That manufacturer can charge what they like for their PV panels, and they will do so. (This is a pretty accurate depiction of the US PV market history, btw). Petroleum would never have become CHEAP in this model either.

      What I've seen the pro-PV crowd calling for is an incentive to manufacturers to increase production capability to drive down the relative price per watt. THIS IS THE SAME INCENTIVE WE *STILL* GIVE TO THE OIL COMPANIES FOR EXPLORATION AND FOR THE SAME REASONS.

    164. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      they control how wide the taps are, don't they?

      When they can. New field construction is ongoing at breakneck speed, but it takes half a decade from the start of a drilling project before the petroleum hits the market. Meanwhile, their existing fields have larger and larger water cuts, being pushed at their limits.
      after the top nine companies

      After the top *Nine* companies, and you call this uncompetitive? And I don't know what's limiting this list, but there's one *heck* of a lot more oil companies out there; you don't see monsters like PDVSA, Yukos, Occidental (Nexen), Ecopetrol, and dozens of others worth dozens to hundreds of billions in there. Even "little" companies are worth more than the bottom of that list - for example, a "small" company like Rio Alto Exploration Ltd. is worth 2B$. Energy (of which oil is a monstrous player) makes up a good portion of all of the world's economic spending.

      For comparison:
      * Operating systems: Microsoft has a ~90% market share - ~95% on the desktop.

      * RIAA and MPAA: Represent almost all production of music and movies in the United States, and do price fixing to boot. They're composed of several companies each, but nothing like the petroleum spread.

      * Less than half a dozen major phone providers in the US between land lines and mobiles.

      * Clear Channel Communication blows the competition out of the water on radio ownership

      I could easily go on. "9" (although there's actually many, many more) is huge competition.

      and i believe they have no incentive to compete

      Believe what you want, but you're wrong. Stock price is everything to a major company. If people stop buying your product, your shareholder bail. While OPEC, at least formerly, did their best to keep prices high, even if they had available production, they couldn't do much about it any more; non-OPEC nations are too high of a share of world oil production now, with Russian, African, non-OPEC South American, and southeast Asian production taking over from what used to be a highly middle-east centric industry. Furthermore, OPEC only affects producers who own fields in OPEC member states, and doesn't affect the US's profitability, which is transportation, sales, and refining (there are US-owned foreign fields and there are joint ventures, but as a whole, the US's share of any profit from restricting oil output by OPEC would be low).

      it is to all of their advantage to keep things predictable in order to maintain that guaranteed revenue stream

      Indeed it is! That's why the current price spike worries the heck out of them. While it's great for them in the short term, its consequences are disturbing to them in the long term. If energy prices stay high, it leads to worldwide recession which dramatically cuts into their profit margin, in addition to encouraging research into alternative energy sources (ones that they don't have investment in) and fuel efficient technologies.

      If they competed by lowering prices, they would make less money

      No, here's how it plays out. If one oil company were to undercut their competitors in any industry, they lose profit per sale but gain market share. Unless the industry is as cheap as it can get, their competition either cuts prices as well or goes extinct. This flattens out when the cost of production nears . These are the basic pinciples of competitive economies; the only thing that can violate this are anticompetitive measures, such as inter-company cooperation and monopolies. Both of these things are highly illegal, and mergers between large oil companies are subject to antitrust approval in most of the nations (including ours) that they operate in.

      would be forced to pay higher prices, generating more revenue for everybody

      Sorry, it doesn't work out that way. Refer to the paragraph on why high prices are good in the short term but devastating in the long term. Not to mention that price fixing i

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    165. Re:Good by le_defaut_tragique · · Score: 1

      Anhydrous ammonia is also a highly sought-after reagent in the synthesis of illicit methamphetamine in much of the rural USA.

    166. Re:Good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Financed by long term bonds; the "subsidy" is that they are risk free.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    167. Re:Good by tgd · · Score: 1

      See, exactly my point.

      Even people who think they get it don't understand the basic economics of it.

    168. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      to showcase monopolies, you pick out: microsoft, mpaa, riaa, phone companies, clear channel.

      all good choices, and none of them depend on an exhaustable resource in the ground. so the fact that monopolies exist in places where things like raw materials aren't much of a problem means that there are most likely more in industries where raw materials play a key role.
      this is becuase the barrier to entry into a raw material base industry is much higher, this gives less competition, more consolidation, bigger companies, more monopolies.

      "That's why the current price spike worries the heck out of them. While it's great for them in the short term, its consequences are disturbing to them in the long term. If energy prices stay high, it leads to worldwide recession which dramatically cuts into their profit margin..."

      you might think so, but i doubt it. as you said,
      "Stock price is everything to a major company."

      the fact that stock price dominates companies decision making is big part of the problem. the people in the "finance" industry seem to live and die on quarter to quarter profits , and this puts pressure on the companies to perform now. you might have noticed this pressure in the form of enron, worldcom, healthsouth, adelphia, and some that have not been discovered yet. so when a stockholder looks up an oil stock and sees that they've been having record profits, the stockholder will buy. this tells the company that they are doing something right. so the company is forced to think in the short term if it wants to continue to "grow" by getting more investment from outside.

      "Both of these things are highly illegal, and mergers between large oil companies are subject to antitrust approval in most of the nations (including ours) that they operate in."

      yeah, but if they buy the congressmen (you can tell me they don't, but i am certain that they do), then the laws don't mean squat.
      and, as for companies doing something illegal, it should be noted that this is simply a financial decision, not a "moral" one. if the benefits, in terms of profits, of doing something illegal outweigh the potential consequences, like a fine, then the company will do it. there is no doubt in my mind about that.

      just look at what bechtel did...
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/water/bolivia.html

      or maybe monsanto...
      http://www.sptimes.com/2005/07/24/Worldandnation/T he_reporter_Detroit_.shtml

      or how about what walmart and many other compaies are doing by paying chinese workers like 10 cents an hour.

      "But you try to hide a conspiracy in an industry that consumes a major portion of the entire world's economy and employs hundreds of millions of people worldwide."

      just because there are many people involved doesn't mean that there isn't a conspiracy. just look at the auto industry... over 100 years and we still have an engine that works on the same design. does that mean that, out of all of the smart engineers, no one has come up with a better idea? or that the internal combustion engine is the be all end all of inventions? no. it means that because people are still making money off of the engine, they see no reason to change. so, as people are still making money in the oil industry, there is nothing to drive them to change or to question why things are the way they are.

      and just because there are many people involved doesn't mean anything. world war II showed us that. people say "how could the germans be so blind as to not see the execution of MILLIONS of people?" i mean, millions of people simply gone, how did someeone not notice, how did WE not notice?

    169. Re:Good by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      They pay some insurance. But they have a liability cap of ~$7 billion. So, I don't mean to be rude, but no, they do not pay all of their own insurance. Not by a long shot.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    170. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      all good choices, and none of them depend on an exhaustable resource in the ground. so the fact that monopolies exist in places where things like raw materials aren't much of a problem means that there are most likely more in industries where raw materials play a key role.

      That made about as much logical sense as "If one plus one equals two, then green".

      this is becuase the barrier to entry into a raw material base industry is much higher, this gives less competition,

      As just demonstrated, there is far MORE competition. How could you forget that so soon?

      more monopolies.

      Contradiction in terms

      you might think so, but i doubt it. as you said, "Stock price is everything to a major company."

      If Amazon.com says "we're going to have a great next quarter! Two quarters from now, though, we're going to be out of business", people would sell Amazon stock like hotcakes.

      yeah, but if they buy the congressmen (you can tell me they don't, but i am certain that they do)

      You're telling the daughter of an oil pres/VP and niece of a former US congressman. That's bloody rich. Sorry to ruin your fantasy world, but we don't live in a batman comic.

      if the benefits, in terms of profits, of doing something illegal outweigh the potential consequences,

      The potential consquences are "going out of business". I've worked in an industry that did illegal activity before (in this case, a much lighter crime than price-fixing: Rockwell-Collins they ripped off the Shuttle program in the 80s). They're still paying for it to this day.

      (several links)

      How on earth are these applicable to the oil industry? Heck, you could at least have cited things that were illegal - there's certainly enough of them out there. Oh wait, though, if you had cited companies doing illegal things, you'd then have to cite their punishments, and that would ruin your argument.

      The number of different people that would required to be involved for a worldwide oil fixing price scheme to not be known about is staggering. Even if you can just keep it to upper management and key figures in accounting, we're talking about tens of thousands of people, minimum, in addition to defeating the judicial systems of dozens of countries. That just plain doesn't happen.

      just look at the auto industry... over 100 years and we still have an engine that works on the same design.

      And do you know why? It's called economics. Cite me, from the USPTO, any engine design that is more economically and technologically feasable. Stirlings are too bloody heavy. Rotaries have had seal problems (some companies are trying to get better rotaries working). Diesels are too heavy for small vehicles. Etc. The first economical and technologically sound change to the engine design for small vehicles, hybrids, is spreading faster than anybody anticipated. Heck, GM is all but betting the farm on a set of technologies that don't even exist yet (hydrogen-related) so that they can get more efficiency out of the system - they've tied billions up in it. They're risking their future to promote a change that would require essentially a complete retooling if it were successful, all because they think that getting higher efficiency would win them market share.

      I know you want to see a conspiracy everywhere, but science has no magic bullet. By the way, while the general IC design hasn't changed, the details are heavily changed. Your 30% efficient IC engine compares greatly to the 5-10% efficient IC engines of 100 years ago.

      i mean, millions of people simply gone, how did someeone not notice, how did WE not notice?

      Please don't display your ignorance of WWII here. Everyone noticed that they were missing, in Europe and in the west. There were movements in every major occupied city and most major German cities to hide people from the Nazis. The Nazi roundups were one of the motivating factors of our soldiers fighting

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    171. Re:Good by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      So it has beneficial uses

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    172. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      "If Amazon.com says "we're going to have a great next quarter! Two quarters from now, though, we're going to be out of business", people would sell Amazon stock like hotcakes."

      yes, but Amazon wouldn't say that. if they were about to go out of business, i would guess that, given what previous companies have done, they would most likely try to cook the books.

      "You're telling the daughter of an oil pres/VP and niece of a former US congressman. That's bloody rich. Sorry to ruin your fantasy world, but we don't live in a batman comic."

      oh, it's rich alright. so's this.
      http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/00/09/200 0921959.html
      wow. a "cost of living" increase. and they even set it up so that they don't have to vote for it!
      hey, would your uncle pass a law that would put your dad's company in peril? oh, wait, this isn't batman is it?

      "It's called economics."

      my point exactly. if you notice in my previous post, i said that the reason why we still have the same design...
      "it means that because people are still making money off of the engine, they see no reason to change. so, as people are still making money in the oil industry, there is nothing to drive them to change or to question why things are the way they are."

      i was simply trying to say that there are plenty of smart people out there and that we could do a lot better than the internal combustion engine. if you sit there and say, "well, we've made a lot of improvments," i would respond, is that good enough? why should we settle for 30% efficiency?

      and now, i hope can restrain myself as i respond to this...
      "How on earth are these applicable to the oil industry? Heck, you could at least have cited things that were illegal - there's certainly enough of them out there. Oh wait, though, if you had cited companies doing illegal things, you'd then have to cite their punishments, and that would ruin your argument."

      are you a moron ?
      in case you are, here are some more links...
      (warning, some may involve oil companies...)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon-Mobil
      (scroll down to allegations)

      http://www.law.washington.edu/pacrim/abstract/12.2 .htm#Awaiting_doe

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20 C14FB3B5B0C778DDDAB0994D9404482

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50 617FD38590C708EDDAC0894D9404482

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1313246.stm

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1180985.stm

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00 E11F63B5D0C738EDDAB0994D8404482

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0 71EF83C5D0C778DDDAF0894DE494D81

      oh, i got more...
      and if you keep responding, you get a lot more.

    173. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      yes, but Amazon wouldn't say that. if they were about to go out of business, i would guess that, given what previous companies have done, they would most likely try to cook the books.

      And then all end up jail. Yeah, right.

      oh, it's rich alright. so's this.

      Nice attempted smear, but my uncle (Rep. Ed. Pease, R-IN) wasn't even in office then.

      hey, would your uncle pass a law that would put your dad's company in peril?

      I'm bi and am in a civil union with a woman, and he was a proud supporter of the federal DOMA, so from my personal experience, heck yes. It's not like he disliked me, it was just views that he held, and he voted his views.

      i was simply trying to say that there are plenty of smart people out there and that we could do a lot better than the internal combustion engine.

      Then demonstrate *what*. Where are the patents - from *anywhere in the world* - of better engines for small vehicles? If it's complacency, why is GM betting their future on hydrogen to get better efficiency? Why were hybrids created? You're ignoring all of this.

      are you a moron ?
      in case you are, here are some more links...


      *BZZZZZZTT!*

      Sorry, you're pointing to *different links* now that actually involved crimes. My complaint was aobut you citing links that had nothing to do with criminal activity. Now you post some and pretend like I was responding to ones that actually involved crimes; "Bait and switch" is a pretty scummy debate tactic.

      Now again, I'll ask you to evidence this global price-fixing cabal of yours filled with tens of thousands of jail-risking people deceiving and bribing the justice departments of dozens of countries worldwide while sabotaging their long term future, or admit that you're an ungrounded conspiracy theorist.

      Perchance, if you think that oil companies want prices to stay this high (and thus destroy their own businesses0, you could back on up, and explain the rush to get new fields and get more out of current fields (such as Shell's 5x'ing of their bitumen fields). I'd love to hear this one. :)

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    174. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      uhhh...
      http://www.senate.gov/~kohl/press/statements/20053 09430.html
      that ain't an idiot like me talking, that's one of your father's former colleagues who said...

      "Such blatantly anti-competitive conduct by the oil cartel violates the most basic principles of fair competition and free markets and should not be tolerated."

      another opinion on price fixing...
      http://slate.msn.com/id/77957/

      i am not a conspiracy theorist. i just think that corporations have too much power nowadays and that they have no conscience that tells them what is right and what is wrong. and that the government is not doing its job of protecting the rights of the citizens, and instead has found a higher paying job of doing what corporations want and lying to the public.
      an example...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7804770/

      it is only logical for corporations to try to fix prices! they are going to do whatever they can to do what they are designed to do...generate more and more profit. getting rid of competition or collaborating with competition will do that for them. that is my reason for thinking there is price/supply fixing. you can say "well, i've seen the inside of government and corporations, and, believe me, there isn't". and, even if you really believe that, i simply will still believe what i believe.

      "And then all end up jail. Yeah, right."

      okay, i think you're missing one of my points all along. my point, that i'm sure you know, is that things don't work like they do in theory. in theory, those fines from the crimes exxon committed would stop them from doing crimes in the future, but those fines won't. those fines are only another part of the cost/benefit analysis that a company does when it decides to do something. and even fines like $500 million are not enough of a disincentive to deter a company as big as exxon. i think the fines that these companies face should absolutely cripple them. that is the only way that corporate power can be checked, because that is the ONLY thing that it understands, money.

      and, if amazon cooked the books, i don't think they would most likely end up in jail...

      they might be found not guilty...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8293846/

      they might not ever go to trial (5 years and waiting...)
      kenneth "kenny boy" lay

      or they might get a "harsh" penalty...
      bernie ebbers

      just look at this page...
      http://www.marketwatch.com/news/features/scandal_s heet.asp?cbsReferrer=www.google.com

      the majority of those on that page are NOT in jail, years after their crimes were committed. i understand that justice is slow and these cases are complicated, but still.
      now, compare the page of corporate scandals' status with this one about mandatory drug dealing sentences...
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snit ch/primer/
      (scroll down to the mandatory sentences table)

      now, who did more damage? the guy coming out of the ghetto, with no father, no education, a lifetime of dissapointment and discrimination, who has drugs in his pocket because that is what everyone else does and that's the only way he sees to make money or the corporate criminal destroyed the financial savings and jobs of thousands of people because he was greedy?

      now do you see why i think there some type of fishy business going on? i mean look at the penalties. they fined samuel waskal $4 million dollars and sent him to jail for 7 years. but he got $73 million in compensation in ONE year! plus he'll most likely get out early. so, when he gets out he'll have millions of dollars in the bank

    175. Re:Good by Rei · · Score: 1

      by the oil cartel

      They're talking about OPEC, not the US oil industry or the oil industry for most of the rest of the world. Please pay attention to what you link and quote. As mentioned previously, by the way, OPEC is tapped out. They're building new facilities as fast as possible, but this takes years. Other "rising" producing nations, such as Russia, Canada, and several in Africa, are working to use this as a chance to take market share from them.

      I am not a conspiracy theorist

      Yet you're proposing a conspiracy (look up the term) that would put the "faked moon landing" theory to shame in terms of scope, the number of people being bribed and "silenced", the number of participants, etc.

      it's only logical for corporations to try and fix prices!

      No, it's not. If that were the case, everything would cost a fortune. It doesn't. You can buy a gallon of gasoline for less than you can buy a gallon of milk, and that gasoline is pulled up from miles underground, sometimes from deep in an ocean, shipped halfway around the world, run through billions of dollars of complex refining equipment, and shipped back halfway around the world for sale, with markup each step of the way.

      Refiners literally make *pennies* on the gallon. I'm not kidding - refiners can only exist because they process ridiculous amounts of crude each day. About a quarter to a third of the price that you see at the pump is taxes; gasoline is produced for far *cheaper* than milk. Yet, I don't see you whining about some secret price-fixing milk cabal.

      I suggest you start by reading the How Stuff Works article on gas prices.

      they might not be found guilty

      From your own article:

      Scrushy was the first of the high-profile chief executives to escape conviction since a wave of corporate scandals and indictments followed Enron Corp.'s collapse almost four years ago

      and

      Scrushy still faces civil charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission which some experts say are more likely to be successful for the government.

      Aren't you supposed to cite articles to *support* your views?

      Look at this page

      Again, it's a page full of convictions! Why are you deliberately undercutting your position that they get let off easy? Or can you simply not read?

      By the way, I did get some amusement out of your wording in "if amazon cooked the books" ;)

      now, who did more damage

      The corrupt executives, of course!

      now do you see why i think there some type of fishy business going on?

      Absolutely not. You have yet to display any sort of logic on:

      * Why he companies would destroy their own futures for short-term profits (as their shareholders know very well that they'd be eating their seed corn, and wouldn't have any of it)

      * Why the companies would be doing huge production-increase construction if they're trying to keep the prices this high

      * How a worldwide conspiracy of tens or hundreds of thousands of jail-risking people monitored by dozens of justice departments is remaining some sort of secret cabal

      * Not only that, but how it happens with several dozen huge players worldwide who are in direct competition with each other for market share and shareholder dollars (completely different than the offtopic cases you keep linking to, which are basically embezzling and swindling of shareholders). If Exxon-mobil makes another dollar of sales, Shell or its other competitors lose a dollar.

      * Why, despite everything needed to produce gasoline, it is so bloody cheap compared to other products, and why refiners get such a small cut (these are, after all, the people you're accusing of price fixing).

      In short, you're trying to create a preposterous-scale international conspirac

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    176. Re:Good by chicago_bulls · · Score: 1

      okay, this is my last post.

      i can't convice you that oil companies are collaborating because it is only in their best interest and there is nothing to stop them. oh well. guess i'll just give up....

      all hail the oil industry, a model of efficiency proficiency, and incorruptability that will never be topped in the history of the world...

      pysche.

      http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ 596718/fromItemId/2332

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/jan-june00/ oil_2-17.html

      http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.382 2.RFS:

      http://economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story _id=1602123

      http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AI D=/20050804/EDIT/508040321/1003

      oh, and those links work.
      unlike this one...
      http://articles.roshd.ir/articles_folder/mohandesi Science/mechanic/HowstuffWorksHowGasPricesWork.htm

      and they're legit, whats roshd.ir? (i can't read arabic.)

      and, this final link...

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2908133.stm

      you wanted evidence?

      well, i don't think you'll be convinced. so i can't change your mind, you can't change mind. and we both wasted time typing meaningless shit on some nerd website. good debate, but not a big fuckin' deal.

  2. 4500 acres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many acres does a fission plant take?

    1. Re:4500 acres? by uberdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Counting or not counting the uranium mines, heavy water refineries, and spent fuel storage facilities?

    2. Re:4500 acres? by RandUser · · Score: 1

      A heck of a lot less than this solar farm, I would imagine.

    3. Re:4500 acres? by RandUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Touche. Which is why I think we should be focusing research and energy on nuclear fuel reuse [waaaay unexploited in the US] and disposal techniques.

    4. Re:4500 acres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many acres does a fission plant take?

      Before or after a catastrophic accident/attack?

    5. Re:4500 acres? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Dunno, but the one at Chernobyl is taking up about 725,000 acres now.

      A fuctioning pebble bed reactor would take less, of course, but mine and the other poster aboves points still stand, that you have to take all needed inputs (and unexpected outputs) into account.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    6. Re:4500 acres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      4500 acres is about 7 square miles.

      Putting it another way, it is a site 2.6 miles long
      and 2.6 miles wide (4.25 km x 4.25 km).

      My guess is that a fission plant would require at least that much
      turf, when you factor in security and support infrastructure.

    7. Re:4500 acres? by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 1

      I've been thinking about the latter--why not just re-use some of the now-abandoned missile silos? Inspect, seal any leaks, and they should be good for radioactive storage... seeing as how they were supposed to be fully shielded in that regard, anyway.

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    8. Re:4500 acres? by srleffler · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with radioactive waste storage is not the shielding, it's how to prevent groundwater over hundreds or thousands of years from getting into the storage facility and dissolving/carrying off radioactive material into the water table. This is the big concern holding back the real planned waste storage facility, which is in a deep, dry hole in the middle of nowhere. They need to prove first that whatever they put there will stay put for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

    9. Re:4500 acres? by dotmax · · Score: 1

      what the fuck is a heavy water refinery? .max

    10. Re:4500 acres? by HeroreV · · Score: 1
      From Wikipedia:
      Reprocessing of spent commercial-reactor nuclear fuel is not permitted in the United States due to nonproliferation considerations.
      No wonder it's "waaaay unexploited".
    11. Re:4500 acres? by WOV · · Score: 1

      Emplacing periodic dishes on a concrete monopile and burying cable between them has a different environmental impact than covering the entirety of, irradiating, submerging underwater, or intensively mining the same area.

      Your neighbor could alternately cover 10 square feet of his yard with a TV satellite dish, or cover 10 square feet of his yeard with a pile of Plutonium - 39. Then we could examine the effect of each on the local environment. True, neither would b e zero, but some land uses are several orders of magnitude more benign than others.

    12. Re:4500 acres? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen has three common isotopes: protium, deuterium, and tritium. They all have one proton, and zero, one, and two neutrons respectively. Water molecules (H2O) can have any of these isotopes as the hydrogen atoms. When water is made with deuterium and tritium atoms, it is called heavy water. Heavy water is used to regulate fission reactions in nuclear power plants. A heavy water refinery extracts the trace quantities of heavy water molecules from ordinary water.

    13. Re:4500 acres? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Eh, it's not like any other country in the world cares about that particular treaty, why should we?

      (Yes, I'm being facetious).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    14. Re:4500 acres? by joib · · Score: 1


      Hydrogen has three common isotopes: protium, deuterium, and tritium. They all have one proton, and zero, one, and two neutrons respectively. Water molecules (H2O) can have any of these isotopes as the hydrogen atoms. When water is made with deuterium and tritium atoms, it is called heavy water. Heavy water is used to regulate fission reactions in nuclear power plants. A heavy water refinery extracts the trace quantities of heavy water molecules from ordinary water.


      Actually, the vast majority of commercial nuclear reactors are so-called "light water reactors" because they use, uh, "normal" water. The exception that comes to mind is the Canadian CANDU reactors. CANDU was originally designed to use unenriched uranium, and thus they needed the lower neutron adsorption cross section of heavy water.

      So in a way it's a tradeoff. Either you need an enrichment facility, or you need a heavy water plant. Not both.

    15. Re:4500 acres? by dotmax · · Score: 1

      umm... i know. In another life i was a reactor operator. The correct answer is: not relevant to commercial american power generating pwrs .max

    16. Re:4500 acres? by RandUser · · Score: 1

      If the neighbor had the Plutonium in a secure, radiation-shielded structure I would pick it every time. No NIMBY here, thank you very much. Nuclear power plants are extrememly safe, especially considering the considerable health impacts of coal plants and the like.

    17. Re:4500 acres? by WOV · · Score: 1

      My point here is that to point to a substance and process that *requires* continuous secuirty and a radiation-shielded structure - and which has a demonstrated capability of destroying all life, for a susbtantial radius around it, should your security guard eever take a break or your concerete contractor not meet spec - as having the same environmental impact as a *steel and glass dish* that *sits on the ground* is ludicrous.

      This is not an anti-nuke argument, by the way; giant environmental impacts aside, your average nuclear plant has *much less* giant environmental impacts than even a modest natural gas or coal plant - there's no free lunch in energy, and Co2 is a real issue, so I guess we gotta build nukes. But arguing that a 40 acre nuke plant and a 40 acre solar plant have the same environmental impact is facetious.

  3. Not surprising by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not surprised stirlings are finally profitable.

    But those giant dishes look expensive and complicated.

    Doesn't anybody have a way to make large parabolic reflectors cheaply? Or isn't there a way to do away with the tracking devices?

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Not surprising by magarity · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anybody have a way to make large parabolic reflectors cheaply?
       
      We could cover some old 8-foot satellite TV dishes with aluminum foil.

    2. Re:Not surprising by inode_buddha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen people take the old 6-foot TV dishes and mirrorize them, either with silver paint or glueing a zillion tiny glass mirors onto them. Mother Earth News did a project like that back in the 1970's IIRC. The heat near the focal point was in the thousands of degrees F and powered a small energy-efficient home.

      --
      C|N>K
    3. Re:Not surprising by Vombatus · · Score: 1
      Make it tin-foil.

      We don't want anyone monitoring our actions now, do we?

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    4. Re:Not surprising by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

      That could be very dangerous. You'd probably want to maintain a significant distance and not look directly at it. Think of welding tourches.

      Not to mention the birds or animals that happen to stray too close the the focal point.

    5. Re:Not surprising by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I've seen a prototype panel using 1 foot square Fresnel lenses (flat lenses) to focus the light onto photophotaic cells. The cells are of course much smaller than they would be, maybe an inch quare, and you spend your cash on lots of lenses (made of plastic, cheap) instead of lots of PV cells (made of silicone, not cheap)

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    6. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a DIY way to make a resin/fberglass parabolic dish:
      http://phoenixnavigation.com/ptbc/articles/ptbc39. htm
      Once you have a mold it would be considerably cheaper to create more.

    7. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you cannot do away with the tracker, as the dish has to remain pointed at the sun to get the focal point in the right place.

      There is also no cheap easy way to make a parabolic dish that lasts in the elements. Plus you have to be able to keep it clean.

    8. Re:Not surprising by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Doesn't anybody have a way to make large parabolic reflectors cheaply? Or isn't there a way to do away with the tracking devices?


      On a smaller scale this design does away with the per-mirror tracking devices by using a single pair of motors to control the entire array. I don't know if the idea would scale up well, or not.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Not surprising by sandwiches · · Score: 1

      It's about the same danger as a bird or another person coming to close to the focal point of current microwave antenna.

    10. Re:Not surprising by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      The difference is though, you dont feel a microwave beam untill you're in it and it has something to interact with. A focal point for a mirror array would just be radiant and would get hotter as you got closer.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    11. Re:Not surprising by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      But those giant dishes look expensive and complicated.

      Probably not as expensive as getting ripped off by out of state energy companies (read Enron).

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    12. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PV cells are not made of silicone...

      breasts are.

    13. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, now we can make use of the thousands of old data CD's I've saved over the years...

      Paste to an old Sat Dish...Voila! Solar power baby.

      Now I just gotta figure out how to turn my old lawn mower into a sterling. ...and if that don't work, turn the dish upside down ...makes for a nice Co-co-cabana margarita bar cover! Drinks up!

      *Stole that idea from some clever Mexicans near Rocky Point.

    14. Re:Not surprising by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I've built a 6' diameter parabolic dish out of plywood and aluminum flashing for less than US$200. Granted the focus wasn't all that great, but I did get temperatures in excess of 800F out of it. - on a New York February afternoon!

      =Smidge=

    15. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stirling Solar has claimed in the past they can make these 37-foot-across solar dishes for $25,000 apiece once economies of scale kick in, which they will if they have to produce 20,000 of them. So they can produce 500mw (peak) for $500 million. According to Google, 500mw coal plant runs $800 million. After that the coal plant needs coal, and can run 24 hours a day, while the solar dishes need no fuel, but run an effective 10 hours a day.

      They've got a contract now to build those 20,000 units, so we'll see if they can hit their price target. If they can, it looks to me like solar energy has become competitive with coal.

  4. Say "no" to Solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    While the solar panel industry would like you to believe Solar Power to be "eco friendly", unlike most "alternative energy" technologies, Solar energy is not a renewable resource. We have a limited amount of sunlight and increased use of commercial solar power would mean less to be used elsewhere, potentially creating an ecological disaster if this happened on a large enough scale. The solar industry likes to throw around statistics about how the entire U.S. could entirely move over to solar power if we created such-and-such amount of solar panels, but what they don't mention is if we did this we would completely exhaust our supply of solar energy by 2150.

    Use of solar power should be avoided at all costs. Help promote renewable energy sources instead.

    http://nosolar.net/

    1. Re:Say "no" to Solar by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      While this guy is obviously joking, I've always had the dumb assumption that something like this might actually affect something.

      Could the lack of energy being pumped into the ground (via sunlight, of course) affect weather patterns in the area? I mean, if the ground isn't as warm as it should be, would that mean cold fronts/warm fronts act differently? How about the mostiure the ground collects (dew, etc). What happens when the this is no longer evaporated?

      Absurd? Probably.

    2. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Vombatus · · Score: 5, Funny
      We have a limited amount of sunlight

      But, if you save some of that daylight http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/20/195 7200&tid=103&tid=185&tid=218, you would have more to use.

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    3. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'll look, you'll find solar power is usually either used in areas (deserts, for example) where there isn't any weather to screw up in the first place, or placed on top of existing structures (buildings etc) which would be blocking the ground anyway.

      Anyway, sunlight isn't all absorbed by the earth anyway. The environmental impact of solar power is basically not very different from taking the same area as your solar field contains and painting the ground white.

      Wind power is a slightly different story, since kinetic energy actually does deplete when you use it...

    4. Re:Say "no" to Solar by rips123 · · Score: 1
      Given the laws of energy conservation, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the net heat produced remains essentially the same?

      If we pumped all the power into making surplus supplies of fuels like hydrogen, we might take some net heat away from the environment but we're only going to burn them anyway and release the heat back.

      It's a closed system. Its a great idea!

    5. Re:Say "no" to Solar by djMedrzec · · Score: 1

      What do you think happens to that energy after being collected by those panels?

      It gets used in engines, heaters, for lighting, locomotion, sound making etc. The end result of those activities is... heat :). So nothing 'disappears'. It just gets released in another way.

    6. Re:Say "no" to Solar by onepoint · · Score: 1

      Well, I lived in a small town that had it's own weird micro climate. Due to the way the valley that lead to the town is shaped, clouds would stall prior to moving over our town. so one part of our town was always getting rain during a storm and another was just getting the drops as it pasted over ( real weird but I would be able to watch the thunder storms for 1 to 2 hours before the clouds would force themselves over and do a quick drench in my area )

      So I would not be surprised if a storm that was coming in the general direction of the solar field would change due to lack of thermal wind pressure

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    7. Re:Say "no" to Solar by amliebsch · · Score: 1
      It's a closed system. Its a great idea!

      It's not!

      In fact, a large portion of all sunlight that reaches the surface of the Earth (almost a third) is reflected back into space. By absorbing that energy and using for other purposes, you increase the net heat of the Earth.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    8. Re:Say "no" to Solar by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      i always used to have the same theory about wind power, wouldnt all the windmills absorb and slow down the wind thus changing weather patterns? but then i remembered about mountains!

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    9. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the rate we've been cutting down trees, which help slow the wind down, we need something to compensate. ;-) Also, wind is generated by the sun. So in a sense, wind power is another form of solar power. Like the other poster mentioned, energy from the sun doesn't disappear, it is just transformed.

    10. Re:Say "no" to Solar by PaterMaximus · · Score: 1

      Is this a press release from the same White House "science"advisors who are pushing "intelligent design" over Darwinism?

    11. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, am more worried about all the spotted owls/caribou/muskrat/field mouse populations that will be uprooted by the sprawling 4500 acre habitat-polution this array will cause.

      Think of the environmental impact! We MUST return to the hunter-gatherer socio-economic civilisation of our ancestors if we are to save our dear mother earth.

    12. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, you're still pumping energy from one place (solar incidence) to another (power usage). There may be a small amount of increased retained flux due to a reduced emissivity (collectors retain more solar energy than the ground the shade).

      Both effects are probably smaller than using fossil fuels exclusively, though, but I'm only guessing.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    13. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I say eliminating the human overpopulation problem would be the first step to re-balancing, but nobody seems ready to reduce the population by a couple orders of magnitude.

      (Okay, maybe dubya and osama, but they're both pretty selective, and I'm not too sure either would be very good at selecting the survival population, all things considered)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    14. Re:Say "no" to Solar by pfafrich · · Score: 1
      Solar energy is not a renewable resource

      Well I supose the sun will die a heat death some time. However much of our energy does basically come from solar. Biomass, solar energy captured by plants. Coal/Gas solar energy captured by plants millions of years ago. Wind energy basicially created by convection created by solar energy.

      If you wanted to be pedantic, you could say that even nuculer energy has basically come from the fissionable material produced by our sun.

      These discussions always seem to come down to an either or type sitiation. In reality I think we should look at all solutions, rather than a single magic bullet which will solve all our energy needs. Thats a bit like one OS for all machines.

      --
      There are four sorts of people in the world: fools, lunatics, idiots and morons. - Umberto Eco, Foucaut's pendulum.
    15. Re:Say "no" to Solar by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Lol. And don't forget the trees - that's what clued me in :)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    16. Re:Say "no" to Solar by JasontheMason · · Score: 1
      "we would completely exhaust our supply of solar energy by 2150."

      I wouldn't worry about that, global warming will probably kill us first.

      --
      "Ad infinitem et ultra!" - Buzz Lightyear
  5. Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.

    1. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.

      I worked on projects for large methane->power facilities in California (and across the US), which turned landfill belchings into fuel for large engines. One of these facilities, in a dinky little building, put out about 6MW all day long. Not quite 500MW, but it was pretty impressive given that it was methane that would otherwise have been flared off uselessly.

      For context, typical new nuclear power plants produce around 600-1200MW.

    2. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by silverburn · · Score: 1
      Also, you need to remember that the yanks munch their way through far more energy per head of capita than any other country in the world, so this figure will vary.

      Can't remember exactly, but I think they worked out that the energy consumption of North America could power most of the 3rd world with some left.

      And their water consumption is the same; even puts us Europeans to shame, and we're not exactly economical.

      I mean, what the hell are the yanks doing with all that power and water? jeez...

    3. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by mrRay720 · · Score: 1

      If anyone is wondering, 500 megawatts can power about 500,000 homes.

      Or half a dozen Pentium 4s. Go Intel.

    4. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making food and product's to take care of the rest of the world.

    5. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I mean, what the hell are the yanks doing with all that power and water?

      Showering. Someday France (and a select few additional European countries) will catch on.

    6. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      When I was at my company's NYC HQ in June, the air conditioning in the highrise could not be regulated per office or anything, and cooled so fiercely that people brought radiant heaters and installed them under their desks

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    7. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      Brushing our teeth with rechargable toothbruches, obviously. ;)

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    8. Re:Conversion Table: Megawatts to Homes by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Business idea for Siberia!

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  6. Environmental loop... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    4500 acres of solar collectors? This must throw hardcore environmentalists into a infinite loop.

    1. Re:Environmental loop... by Ferretski · · Score: 1

      It's a good point, for alternative energy sources such as solar to be effective, there needs to be a lot of them.

      And 4500 acres of solar plant has some serious environmental impact.

      The same goes for hyrdo, just look at the effects of the Snowy River.

    2. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, 4500 acres of healthy, dry, desert sand being denied its natural light

      in otherwords, nah, they won't be all that worried.

    3. Re:Environmental loop... by Manchot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you think about it, 4500 acres is really only a 2.65 by 2.65 mile square. That's not really that much environmental impact, especially if the thing is in the middle of the desert.

    4. Re:Environmental loop... by JanneM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4500 acres of solar collectors? This must throw hardcore environmentalists into a infinite loop.

      This makes sense to have in dry, hot areas (where you have lots of dependable, strong sun). Much better than using the same land to grow wheat, corn or rice - a monoculture is no better than this, and the use of scarce water is much less with the solar array than with crops.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Environmental loop... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 1

      Um, why? This is absolutely fabulous. There are no toxic materials in this setup (well, depending on what they use for the mirrors), compared to solar panels, it has a great energy density (and this is the first generation, too. It can only go up.) If the place is profitable, more will sprout up like crazy... throw in a few government subsidies, and we have green power, folks. This is the real thing.

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    6. Re:Environmental loop... by AoT · · Score: 1

      Yes, because this is so much worse than the massive amount of land taken up by oil pipelines.

      Besides, 4500 acres is only 7 square miles. I am sure they can find some place in Sothern California that is already an environmental shithole to put this in.

    7. Re:Environmental loop... by srleffler · · Score: 1
      Actually, I think desert ecosystems are among the most fragile of all ecosystems on the planet. One should not assume that just because it's desert nobody is going to care about paving it over for solar collectors.

      I do wonder, though, about the hypocrisy of environmentalists who would rather pave vast tracts of wilderness than put up one nuclear plant and a suitable long-term storage facility for the waste.

    8. Re:Environmental loop... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      We should just cover the whole moon with this stuff such that the focal point would be here on Earth. Then we would have solar power all the time and no environmentalists would go mad.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
    9. Re:Environmental loop... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      My question: If you did this, what would it do to global warming? Not only are you still receiving the same energy from the sun directly, but now you are adding a lot of energy that was directed at the moon. Not sure how it would work out, but sending gigawatts from the moon would have to have SOME effect.

      Anyone with a more educated opinion?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    10. Re:Environmental loop... by Juggle · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised. Deserts are a hot spot for environmentalists and they've already blocked several large scale solar projects in the southwest preciesely because they'd keep the sun from reaching the desert floor. Not to mention the "Blight" factor of detracing from the natural beauty of the desert.

      Espically given the location suggested for this I doubt it will ever be completed due to environmental protests and lawsuits.

      --
      --- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
    11. Re:Environmental loop... by syphax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, here are some notes on this:

      1. It's not like you are covering 4500 acres (that's 7 sq. miles) with solid concrete. The actual footprint of these dishes is fairly small; the main impact will be the amount of sunlight hitting the ground. judging from the area, this may not be such bad thing. Shade for the desert tortoises and the like.

      2. It's reasonably scalable. Using SGS's numbers, and being conservative, let's say these things can crank out 400 kWh/m2 per annum. At 2004 US electrical consumption of roughly 1.2 trillion kWh (source: EIA), you're talking about needing ~30 billion sq. m. of collectors, which is about 12,000 square miles, to supply 100% of current electrical needs. You could fit that in about 5% of Texas- not an insignificant amount of land, but doable (you don't have to have all the collectors in one place, and you can probably install them on under-utilized land- say, parking lots- just jack up the collectors a few feet to provide SUV clearance).

      So although I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape, I don't see the land area requirements as a big deal. If these things are truly economically competitive, as the article suggests, watch out.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    12. Re:Environmental loop... by dal20402 · · Score: 1
      the massive amount of land taken up by oil pipelines

      Um, hello? It's not the land that causes us to foam at the mouth about pipelines... it's the nonrenewable, polluting, greenhouse-causing nature of oil.

      You'd be hearing a lot less about ANWR if someone had figured out that the sun was 4 times as bright there and was trying to put a bunch of Stirling engines.

    13. Re:Environmental loop... by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      And 4500 acres of solar plant has some serious environmental impact.

      Like what

    14. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4500 acres is less than the land claim of your average surface coal mine, and it's an absolutely miniscule fraction of the land area flooded behind hydroelectric dams. As others have said, it's seven square miles, or a 2.6 by 2.6 mile square. There are bombing ranges in california that are bigger than some of the east-coast states... I think we can spare some land, especially given that the environmental impact of some mirrors is essentially zero.

    15. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, seeing one faction of environmentalists pitted against another. Personally, I'd rather "blight" the desert than having to move to antartica to keep from burning up.

      I actually like the way the solar collectors look, partially because of what they are. They look much better than a power plant belching out a constant snake of caustic fumes anyway.

      Furthermore, why not put these things on the rooftops of every city block in urban areas? Big cities are a blight anyway. :)

    16. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, about your point #1: You're changing an area that has evolved to tolerate immense amounts of direct sunlight and heat so that it is shaded for a significant portion of the day, and you're saying that it will be good in some way? The point is that despite the benefits of using a clean energy source, there still is an environmental effect, you're changing an entire ecosystem, most likely resulting in the local elimination of many species. The same thing happens with other alternative energy sources, such as biodiesel. Biodiesel would require more land to be converted to farmland, which essentially trades an area with a large biodiversity into one with no biodiversity. There is always a tradeoff with energy.

      And about your point #2: You're not going to provide 100% of the electricity with solar any time soon. We currently have no way of storing the vast amounts of energy we would need at, say, night. Solar also is susceptible to atmospheric conditions. The solar collectors would need to be spaced out over much more land than just Texas in order to combat some large local weather condition from browning out the country.

      Finally, it would be a bad idea from a military perspective. You're placing all of your energy production in one area. If some military force were to bomb the hell out of the collectors or the major lines leading out of texas, what does the rest of the country do for power?

      These questions aren't nearly as simple as people seem to think...

    17. Re:Environmental loop... by Beeswarm · · Score: 1

      Well, greenhouse gases are probably more important than the amount of sunlight. Further, most forms of energy production release stored energy (fossil fuel, geothermal, and nuclear). So I don't think that getting all those gigajoules from the moon instead of getting them from underground would be a big concern.

    18. Re:Environmental loop... by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      You're kidding me when you say that you think a tiny amount of additional shade in a desert hurts the fragile desert ecosystem. That's unsubstantiated bullshit.

      Opposition to nuclear power mostly has to do with safety issues. Nuclear power plants are becoming safer but not safer than non-nuclear power plants. Mismanagement that inevitably occurs in one of these nuclear power plants makes them less safer than in theory. Accidents happen - just browse the recent news archives. Handling radioactive waste safely is expensive as well. Environmentalists are primarily concerned about humans, such as our health and reducing the risks from radiation. You are misguided to think that environmentalists are only concerned about saving the wilderness.

    19. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have trouble finding 7 sq miles in so cal that isnt ;) ok thats not true just the inland empire.

    20. Re:Environmental loop... by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      While it's good to point out that you could fit it into such a small section of land, you wouldn't want to. If there happened to be a storm the whole US would be out of luck until the sun moved away.

      That being said, what would stop you from spreading them out across the entire midwest? Develop three times the infrastructure needed and we'd have power in excess to power cars (yeah, hydrogen baby). Here's to hoping that this takes off like.. wild fire?

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    21. Re:Environmental loop... by AoT · · Score: 1

      Yo, I am on your side.

      And the biggest problem with pipelines is the land. Mainly the fact that they cut through the middle of important migration paths is what bothers me about anwr. The original point was that we could put up solar dishes in place of all the oil pipelines and have space leftover, thus the space used for solar energy would be better than the space used for oil.

    22. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great energy density? 9 acres per megawatt is awful. It's about as good as burning forests (excuse me, "dry woody biomass"), and roughly competitive with flooding entire river valleys for hydroelectric dams -- not exactly known for their lack of environmental impact. This density is nowhere near the energy per acre of a coal, oil, or nuke plant.

    23. Re:Environmental loop... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      which is about 12,000 square miles, to supply 100% of current electrical needs

      Ummm... Night time when the sun is down? Clowdy/Rainy days? Winter with snow on the dishes? Hailstorms/Tornadows/Hurricanes? Way too many natural disasters and techincal problems to have these things be our only source of power.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    24. Re:Environmental loop... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      You'd be surprised. Deserts are a hot spot for environmentalists and they've already blocked several large scale solar projects in the southwest preciesely because they'd keep the sun from reaching the desert floor. Not to mention the "Blight" factor of detracing from the natural beauty of the desert.

      Can you please provice a link? If this is true, I would like to reference it at a later date.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    25. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that's true. The amount of oil under debate is miniscule. At least, the numbers I've been hearing batted about say that the ANWR would provide for about a month of U.S. consumption.

      If it were just about keeping the oil from going airborne, the ANWR wouldn't be worth so much attention. It's more about our willingness to develop one of the last true wilderness areas in order to feed our oil addiction.

    26. Re:Environmental loop... by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      If that happens, Cali can continue to enjoy its brownouts and blackouts.

      --
      C|N>K
    27. Re:Environmental loop... by Atryn · · Score: 1
      If the place is profitable, more will sprout up like crazy...
      Really? How many more?

      According to this document from the University of Iowa, in 2000 nuclear energy use was 98.1 gigawatts and accounted for 1/5 of the total national energy supply. So the national energy consumption should be just under 500 gigawatts or 500,000 megawatts.

      Since this plant produces 500 megawats, we would need at least 1000 of these plants to supply the nation's energy. At 7 square miles per plant, that is 7000 square miles, or an area just smaller than the State of Massachusetts.

      Of course I could also describe it as just under 5% of the land mass of California. Or I could point out that the U.S. is currently home to over 500,000 producing oil wells, 306,000 miles of natural gas pipelines (same link) and 160,000 miles of oil transmission pipelines.

      Taking all of that into account, it doesn't sound like a bad tradeoff for energy independence with an unlimited source...
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    28. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The greenhouse effect works because it traps radiated heat in the atmosphere (sunlight bounced off of the earth). Diverting that energy will certainly make it unavailable for global warming (at least until it is radiated off the heat sink of your PC).

      The amount of energy were talking about capturing is insignificant in the total scheme of things, as one poster pointed out 5% of the surface area of Texas; the impact on global warming due to reduction in radiated heat will be insignificant.

      It would be interesting if someone knowlegeable of the physics of the greenhouse effect could comment on what a reduction in greenhouse emissions due to the replacement of coal and oil fired power plants would be (and electric cars).

    29. Re:Environmental loop... by modecx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right. I studied desert ecosystems before I changed my direction in college. They are quite sensitive, and over millions of years many of the little critters in those areas have become quite dependant on very certian conditions, and very precise timing of monsoons and changes of the season--which greenhouse warming is bound to affect drastically anyway.

      I say put these collectors as individual units in people's yards--if they agree--and give them a percentage off their electricity bills as lease for the land. They get the power to run their AC for free, and they contribute to the power grid, win/win.. It's basically the same deal with cell towers. We have one on one of our properties, and we get $2,000 a month for it. Best tenants we've ever had, I must say!

      Of course, they'd have to be almost completely maintance free so you don't need a horde of technicians running all over fixing them. In this way, the environmental impact will be mitigated, as there are already people in the area with houses and paving and all of that... But that's good also because distributed power grids are much more reliable (and probably more efficient) than grids depending on only a few sources.

      This could be quite popular all over the southwest if it were economically feasible.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    30. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your first point definitly has some merit, though I will note their is alot of desert and not all that many species there. Atleast not of the larger ones, and personally, I just can't bring it up in me to care very much for the microbes and other small stuff.

      Your second point seems relevant, but a bit more knowledge shows that it actually isn't very relevant either, to quote from what others have already posted. These kind of facilities oftently have enough heat stored in them to keep running over the night, secondly in consideration of weather and other failure scenarios, it is not particularly difficult to split out hydrogen from water and store this for later reuse as a fuel if shortfalls occur.

      Your last point is a bit off from the facts as well. Currently most power production is handled by a limited number of powerplants, hitting a portions of those would already create considerable energy shortfalls. Expecially there, there is relatively little reserve in the US right now. Considering these collectors cover alot more ground, I'd personally think they are actually less vulnerable.

    31. Re:Environmental loop... by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny
      We should just cover the whole moon with this stuff such that the focal point would be here on Earth.


      Dude, that's not an energy source, that's a death ray! Tired of listening to Kim Jong Il threaten nuclear armageddon? ZZZAPPP!!!

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    32. Re:Environmental loop... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Ummm... Night time when the sun is down?

      Demand is much lower after the sun sets. Hydro and others should be able to handle nighttime needs. The ammount of power they are able to supply when the sun IS shining more than makes up for their limitations.

      Clowdy/Rainy days?

      In the desert, extremely few. That's WHY it's called the desert.

      Winter with snow on the dishes? Hailstorms/Tornadows/Hurricanes?

      Once again, you will very rarely find any of that in the desert. The day-to-day winds are hurricane-force, but that's well-known, so I'm sure these are built to withstand, say, 80MPH winds.

      Way too many natural disasters and techincal problems to have these things be our only source of power.

      They won't ever be the ONLY source of power, but if they made up the MAJORITY of our power, that would be an incredibly good thing.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    33. Re:Environmental loop... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Shade for the desert tortoises and the like.

      I happen to live very near the area where this is going to be built, and I can tell you, it's extremely hard to find a tortoise. I believe the highways and interstate freeways served to kill-off most of them. You still come across a few, but very rarely.

      The animals you can actually find here primarily (aproximately in-order of their comonality):

      birds (pidegons, sparrows, doves, quail, blackbirds, ravens, hawks), jackrabbits, lizards, coyotes, ground squirrels, skunks, ducks, snakes, bats, then perhaps tortoises, beavers, etc.

      So although I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape, I don't see the land area requirements as a big deal.

      Unless they decide to build maybe 5 more in the same area, I suspect few people will care. There is a lot of empty land here, and this seems a much less obtrusive use of it (in regards to wildlife) than homes, roads, factories, etc.

      I am concerned that they just might decide to do exactly that. But no objections to the first one.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    34. Re:Environmental loop... by plover · · Score: 1
      Actually, there are several environmental problems with drilling in ANWR. The effects of an elevated pipeline would be perhaps the smallest. Yes, the caribou have shown to have been frightened by the Alaskan pipeline, but that may be something the animals hunger may drive them to accept. At best it's still an unknown, and people can argue both sides of the animal behavior issue.

      There are real demonstrable problems, though. The first is the geologists need more detailed imagery of the subterranian geology. The way to obtain this is to drive a train of equipment (several large trucks with soft tires) around the area in a grid pattern, stopping occasionally to detonate an explosive charge beneath one of the trucks and measure the echoes from the others. The first time the ANWR was explored, they drove a one mile grid. They now want to drive it again in a 1000 foot grid. The tire damage to the tundra caused those 20+ years ago is still almost as visible as it was when it first occurred. They now need to drive over 25 times as much tundra. And this is just for exploration -- no drilling yet.

      There's a different problem, too, and understanding it requires a bit of knowledge. To bring the heavy drilling and construction equipment in requires a road that can support very large trucks. What they did in the arctic petroleum reserve was to make a temporary road from ice. The winter before construction they sprayed water from tanker trucks to construct a road solid enough to support their gear; they spent the rest of that first winter trucking in all the equipment, pipe, and storage tanks they needed to build the drilling rigs. When spring arrived the ice road melted, leaving not too much damage behind. And now the road is gone: everything consumed at the sites must be ferried in and out by helicopters, while the oil is pumped out the pipeline. Ice roads are not a bad approach, and are proven effective.

      The problem is that liquid water required to make the road is "perishable" in the arctic. It can be trucked only a short time before risk of freezing solid in the tanker truck requires it be emptied. This gives the tanker trucks an effective range of about 20 miles from fresh water. The first arctic fields (to the west of ANWR) had adequate local water supplies. But the ANWR is a desert climate and has very few lakes deep enough to have liquid water beneath their ice. As a matter of fact, the lakes that are within 20 miles don't even have enough liquid water needed to produce the road required. This means that they will basically need to drain the local lakes dry to produce the road. Draining a lake means virtually every fish in it will die. Draining all the lakes means all the fish in the region will die. Fish are a vital component of the food chain in ANWR, and are the primary food of the native carnivores. And with the climate being close to desert, there is little chance of the lakes refilling themselves the next summer -- even if they are restocked, there won't be enough liquid water beneath the ice the next winter.

      --
      John
    35. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess maintance is the reason that they're trying to stick them all in the one place. But a great deal of power is lost transmitting it from some big central power station and the end result of where it is to be used. So for areas where the climate is conducive to power generation it would be better to have them spread on top of existing buildings and feeding into the grid rather than out in the middle of no where.

    36. Re:Environmental loop... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Since this plant produces 500 megawats, we would need at least 1000 of these plants to supply the nation's energy.

      That's a bit insane. The US already has numerous hydro-electric dams (in CA, hydro already makes up 30% of grid power), and there is no reason to tear them down, and replace them with solar power.

      Or I could point out that the U.S. is currently home to over 500,000 producing oil wells, 306,000 miles of natural gas pipelines (same link) and 160,000 miles of oil transmission pipelines.

      Those pipelines aren't entirely above ground, however. You could talk about how much space sewers take up too, but since it's underground, nobody cares much.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    37. Re:Environmental loop... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Why is it that only banal tired old jokes get modded-up on /. while actually funny ones like this seem to get completely ignored.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    38. Re:Environmental loop... by evilviper · · Score: 1
      they've already blocked several large scale solar projects in the southwest preciesely because they'd keep the sun from reaching the desert floor.

      I live in the southwest, and have never heard of any such thing.

      A search on Google finds nothing even remotely close (they're all pro-solar).

      You really need to provide a source for your hard-to-believe claims.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    39. Re:Environmental loop... by bmeteor · · Score: 1

      At 7 square miles per plant, that is 7000 square miles,

      actually, from the Sandia Website, it's 10,000 square miles. a farm 100 miles by 100 miles in the southwestern US could provide as much energy as is needed to power the entire country.

        seems like they figured the cloudy days in that number .

    40. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transmission losses are not too bad nowadays, at least in comparison to the lack of efficiency of any of the thermal power plants (coal, fission, whatever). Transmission losses to the end user are typically in the low single digit percentage range, while the efficiency of power plants is only around 40%.

    41. Re:Environmental loop... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Cloudy days? What are they planning to do? Plug it into a big lead-acid battery?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    42. Re:Environmental loop... by syphax · · Score: 1


      Interesting stuff; thanks for the info.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    43. Re:Environmental loop... by syphax · · Score: 1


      #1: Fair enough. I'll still take the land use impact over emissions of CO2, SOx, NOx, mercury, etc.

      #2: It was a scaling exercise. I did not propose supplying 100% of our electricity, nor did I recommend 1 huge array. I was merely demonstrating that it's feasible, from a land-use perspective, to get a lot of juice from these things.

      Me, I'd install these all of the U.S. in greyfield areas (parling lots, etc.).

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
    44. Re:Environmental loop... by NardofDoom · · Score: 1

      Solar getting competitive along with wind power, which is now about the same prices as coal over 20 years, means we could provide 100% of our energy through renewable means. Of course, we'd have to upgrade our electrical grid, but it's still great news.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    45. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can also stack them in several layers thus reducing the footprint. I'm still trying to figure out why the prototype in my parents' basement is not working too well..

    46. Re:Environmental loop... by mattsucks · · Score: 1
      You could fit that in about 5% of Texas- not an insignificant amount of land, but doable
      I hear there's a big ranch out near Crawford ... owner's rarely ever home anyway ... he's a friendly sort, big environmentalist; surely he'd help out....
    47. Re:Environmental loop... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroe lectricity

      Or just don't use your normal hydro dams during the day, but add extra plant and then pump like crazy at night when your solar is out of commision?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    48. Re:Environmental loop... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      So you have enough hydro to generate all your night-time needs and enough solar to handle all your day time needs + a bit more than all your night time needs (to run the hydro backwards).

      Sounds a pretty big system.

      I'd go with the nukes if I were you.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    49. Re:Environmental loop... by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Honestly I think a bit of all works very well.
      Nukes to provide the baseline + some spare for peaks and inclement weather.
      Solar to use up some of the desert space we have no need for.
      Hydro as something easilly "off and on-able"
      Add in some bio fuel, some OTE, Thermal solar panels on people's roofs (for hot water), some hydrogen etc for cars and we might have a future.
      I think each solution has it's advantages and the trick will be exploiting them all.
      Nukes (fission or fusion) are not a magic bullet, but I believe they are a vital part of an entire energy solution.
      At the end of the day it is all about what the cheapest solution is, whoever can deliver the right goods for the right price will win. Face it if Nuke was 1/10th the price of fossil fuel we wouldn't be where we are now. It failed to live up to the promises people made about it before so until it can prove itself in the public eye in terms of costs as well as safty then I think we'll see more of it.
      But yes count my in for some Nuclear in my back yard _if_ the price is right with current saftey records.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    50. Re:Environmental loop... by CommandoB · · Score: 1

      Depends where they build it. If they built it in New Mexico, that'd be fine by me. It'd look in many ways small next to the Very Large Array.

      --
      Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
    51. Re:Environmental loop... by tsotha · · Score: 1
      So although I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape, I don't see the land area requirements as a big deal. If these things are truly economically competitive, as the article suggests, watch out.

      I don't see how they can be competitive. There used to be a solar tower in southern California (called "Solar II") that used mirrors to focus light on a collector filled with sodium salts. They ran it for a couple of years, but found they'd have to charge every family served something like $270,000/yr for the power.

      The big cost driver was keeping all those mirrors clean (I've always had this picture of 500 grad students with truckfulls of old tee-shirts and Windex). The mirrors collect dust, soot, birdshit, etc, which reduces their reflectivity. In Solar II all the mirrors were focused on one spot, so at least they only had one "reactor".

      In this scheme they're gonna have 20,000 of these dishes. Each one has it's own Sterling engine. I'm not sure how they're gonna keep 20,000 dishes clean and 20,000 Stirling engines running cheaply enough to make the power economical. Not saying it's impossible, just a little skeptical.

    52. Re:Environmental loop... by floormasn56 · · Score: 1

      It happens when you try to put in power lines from where you make the power to where you use it.

    53. Re:Environmental loop... by eheldreth · · Score: 1

      While talking about focused beams of sunlight which reach temps in excess of 1000 degrees, covering a large portion of the mid western US it is not wise to use the words "Wild Fire".

      --
      The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
    54. Re:Environmental loop... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1
      We currently have no way of storing the vast amounts of energy we would need at, say, night.

      For biodiesel, silos and other grain warehouses. For energy already in electric form, pump water up a hill.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    55. Re:Environmental loop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm. come to think of it. those spaces between transmission line towers are pretty much useless. can we design a low profile version of this to be put underneath those lines between the towers. and maybe develop a way of feeding the power generated to those transmission lines.

    56. Re:Environmental loop... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      How to reduce energy consumption:

      Reduction of use
      We could already vastly increase efficiency by just wasting less. E.g., you'd (not specifically *you*) be amazed how little energy a house can need, using both high- and low-tech measures, and it's feasible even in alpine Austria. http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/communitiessummit/ show_case_study.php/00035.html, and google for "zero energy" and "sustainable building".

      Economically it could be argued that investing (by, e.g., giving direct financial support, cheap credits, or tax cuts for energy conservations measures) in a lot of small- and middle-sized companies that provide, e.g., energy conservation technology for home builders, creates a better economy and more useful technology than investing it all in a bunch of huge nuclear reactors and supporting police force and government intrusion required by that.

      Distribution of generation
      Small independent high-tech generators that feed into and suck from a connected net. Laws, technical means, and accounting structures at the big carriers that make it easy to hook up to the system, and get the correct amount of money for any power you feed into the net.

      In addition to and partly in place of the centralized plants (you might want to keep some for backup anyway), add small water turbines, biomass energy, heat pumps, sun energy (both direct heat for water and room heating by energy storage in stone etc., and conversion to electricity), wind energy, block heat and power plants (which, btw., can run at 85% efficiency) etc., all according to local applicability, etc., and you get a robust mix of environment-friendly sources.
      Plus, of course, people would not be slaves to the power companies. Depending on where you stand, it might seem that such a structure would simply create a more pleasant fabric of society, with clearly more independent people.

      Why it doesn't happen
      People would not be slaves to the power companies

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    57. Re:Environmental loop... by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      The average daily solar irradiance in the sunniest desert areas is only 6kWh (gross). Given 2.56E6 m/mi^2 that is 1.53E11 kWh/day = 5.61E13 kWh/yr = 2E20 J/yr (gross) for a 10,000 mi^2 collector. Total US energy consumprion from all sources is around 1E17Btu (it was 94 quads in 1998) = about 1E20J /yr. So the 10,000 square mile array would be enough to displace all other forms of energy if it were perfectly thermodynamically efficient. If heat were shipped rather than electricity for those purposes that used heat directly, the 50% thermodynamic limit wouldn't apply to that part of the energy distribution. Still, a somewhat larger array than 10,000 miles would likely be needed to account for real-world inefficiencies, but certainly less than 40,000 mi^2 = 200 mi. on a side.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    58. Re:Environmental loop... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Wild guesses:

      There are no big bird swarms in the desert. It's not like pigeons in Venice (Italy, that is). Plus self-cleaning glass coatings ("lotus effect").

      Sterling engines that are nearly maintenance-free:
      "Once the engine gets going, however, it can, in theory, run reliably for a long time. To find out just how long, ask the folks at Stirling Technology Co. in Kennewick, Wash.

      The company has a number of projects in hand to generate electricity on Earth and in space. One is a generator being prepared for NASA. It combines high efficiency and longevity, properties critical for a deep-space probe. A test unit with a 10 W output last August passed an operating landmark, more than 87,600 hours of continuous service, or 10 years' running with no maintenance or decline in performance."

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    59. Re:Environmental loop... by modecx · · Score: 1

      Heh, yeah no doubt. That last bit is very insightful, especially.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    60. Re:Environmental loop... by tsotha · · Score: 1
      There are no big bird swarms in the desert. It's not like pigeons in Venice (Italy, that is). Plus self-cleaning glass coatings ("lotus effect").

      Well, the smog is pretty bad there, and there's lots of dust. Self cleaning glass would do the trick, though. Pretty cool if it doesn't cost too much.

      A test unit with a 10 W output last August passed an operating landmark, more than 87,600 hours of continuous service, or 10 years' running with no maintenance or decline in performance."

      Holy crap! I need one of these for my car. In all seriousness, though, is that a reasonable figure for a commercial system? Anyhow, it's pretty impressive.

    61. Re:Environmental loop... by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Well this particular one for NASA runs on plutonium and has an output of 10 W. It's for a deep space probe. I guess you can't get it, nor do you want it :)

      Stirling engines in general seem to be quite maintenance-free however. No explosions involved, etc., so I'd not be surprised if such a setup would be maintainable. Stirlings have had great promise forever, but have been plagued by particular engineers problems. Maybe those have been solved through some advances in materials or some such. Wikipedia and the site linked to in the /. story have good info on Stirlings

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    62. Re:Environmental loop... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The US already has numerous hydro-electric dams (in CA, hydro already makes up 30% of grid power), and there is no reason to tear them down, and replace them with solar power.

      Your hallucinatory(?) vision is impressive. I tried squinting both eyes, and I still couldn't see where he said anything about tearing down the dams.

      You could talk about how much space sewers take up too, but since it's underground, nobody cares much.

      Until they hit it with the Ditch Witch :-)

      --
      What?
    63. Re:Environmental loop... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the "Blight" factor of detracing from the natural beauty of the desert.

      If they're talking about the Sonoran Desert, I could see their point. The others further north and west could use a little "sprucing up".

      --
      What?
    64. Re:Environmental loop... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Cursing the darkness instead of lighting a candle I see. So, where's your funny joke? Even a link to one will suffice.

      --
      What?
  7. space power on earth! by J05H · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sterling engines are pretty cool. They have one huge advantage over silicon solar power: much much less pollution in production. Photovoltaics are basically large chips, they use the same nasty chemicals and lots of electricity. Sterling engines are just machines, and very scalable apparently.

    Funny that one solar-dynamic powerplant will double the solar power being utilized.

    One of the Sterling engine makers has a deep-space powercell that combines a sterling converter and a big hunk of plutonium oxide. Man, I wish I could get one for the basement...

    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
    1. Re:space power on earth! by alienw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, I got news for you: melting steel or aluminum also uses nasty chemicals and electricity. Hell, just about any industrial process uses them. The real problem with photovoltaics is their high cost.

    2. Re:space power on earth! by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Part of the high cost of photovoltiacs is that it takes as much energy to make one as it will ever produce in its useful life.

    3. Re:space power on earth! by alienw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you pulling this out of your ass? Photovoltaics cost a lot because they are labor-intensive to produce and require specialized equipment. If you actually bothered to research the numbers, you would find out that solar panels generate that amount in only 3 years or so (out of 30 or more).

    4. Re:space power on earth! by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Several sources of Aluminum are demonstrated and proven 'environmentally friendly' technologies (as much as technologies ever are). Take for example Alcoa's TN. plant, one of the largest single sources of refined Aluminum in the entire world (Historically, there have been entire decades when this was THE largest single source). Electric power for this facility comes entirely from four hydroelectric powerplants - Chilhowee, Calderwood, Cheoah and Santeetlah. Several other Aluminum operations, including Alcoa's own plants in Texas, have had more negative environmental impacts, and a few plants in the former Soviet Union have an abysmal record, but it's worth noting these are all much smaller operations.
            The North American Aluminum industry currently uses about one-third recycled material in its products, with the goal of exceeding 50% by 2020 AD.
            This goal may prove impossible to reach however, as the percentage of all aluminum ever produced that is bound up in long term/permanent objects such as buildings and industrial machinery is steadily increasing.
            Aluminum is produced from Bauxite ore. The most significant environmental byproduct is caustic soda, which has been implicated in the amounts produced in contamination of rural water supplies, with (in humans) increased levels of Hypertension, 2 to 5 times that observed before mining came to the area (Given other lifestyle changes common at the time, this may not actually be primarily, let alone wholely, the result of increased sodium uptake from the local water supply).
              In addition, the operations produce large amounts of typical red clay mud, which, while not particularly significant chemically, is produced in large quantities, roughly one ton of mud per ton of seperated ore. Runoff of this in rainy weather has a significant negative impact on streams and rivers, but is hard to isolate from other human adjustable sources of red clay runoff, such as non-contour plowing.

      There is no way to rationally analyze "photovoltaic" process impact - common compounds that form a major portion of different cell designs include amorphous silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium selenide. Toxicity for these three compounds alone ranges from almost trivial to very high on the hazard list, and trying to discuss them as a group would be like discussing the risks of wild animal attacks, considering only box turtles, poodles gone dingo, and Bengal tigers, and taking an unweighted average for attacks without considering actual lethality. Figure in the differing risks of the mining byproduces for these three types as well, and talking about the risks of the industy as a collective is literally meaningless until we know which technologys will be used in what proportions.
              Cadmium, Tellurium, and Indium are all heavy metals, mining them results in tailings that have Arsenic, Lead and other heav metals in various amounts. and the health risks to nearby communities and industry workers are all at least roughly analogous to those observed in industries such as Lead Acid battery manufacture, but the actual amounts of risk may differ by a couple of orders of magnetude, and it's not known yet how many of them can be mitigated.

      So yes, melting Aluminum uses 'nasty' chemicals and electricity. Making Photovoltaics as a whole can't even be compared, but if we look at the designs that incorporate heavy metals we have some strong reasons to suspect that there's "nasty" and "Nasty!", (and just maybe "NAAASSSSTY!!!!").

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:space power on earth! by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      Lie.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    6. Re:space power on earth! by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      What numbers? Last I saw photovoltics take around 20 years to break even.

      Windmills around 6.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    7. Re:space power on earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Since you obviously didn't find it yourself, I'm going to redirect you to a sibling comment to the one that you replied to. The energy payback figures for solar panels from that article:
      Multicrystaline panels: 3.5 years.
      Thin film: 3.0 years.
      Next-generation multicrystaline: 2.0 years.
      Next-generation thin film: 1.0 years.
      As an incidental thought, if you could make a self-replicating next-generation thin film panel, it could birth one offspring a year. (Or 100 of them could join together to do it in 3 days).
    8. Re:space power on earth! by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The other advantage they have is that they are largely wavelength independant. Unlike solar panels which absorb only a specific amount of energy per photon related to the work function (the rest is wasted, 100% of lower energy photons are wasted as well), heat engines convert the entire spectrum (minus specific bands due to absorption properties). The only real limiting factors in efficiency are scale and temperature: the hotter you can go the more efficient they can be.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    9. Re:space power on earth! by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      Photovoltaics are basically large chips, they use the same nasty chemicals and lots of electricity.

      No, this is misleading at best, and false at worst. You would have great difficulty in finding any solar cells that took the same kind of energy to make as chips, because the reality is that (precisely because of the energy and chemicals involved) it's cheaper to make solar cells from the waste left-overs from the semiconductor industry than it is to refine them from scratch.

      The "nasty chemicals and lots of energy" that went into solar cells, didn't, because most of it went into semiconductor manufacture, and as such would have happened whether the waste products were used for solar cells or simply dumped into landfill.

      So you could equally argue that solar cells reclaim that energy and those chemicals, in addition to to the energy they produce from the sun, since the only alternative is pouring most of that energy and chemicals straight into landfill.

    10. Re:space power on earth! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that you only need to make a PV silicon module once every 30 years or more, I consider it infinitely more efficient than most other methods. Maintenance is also minimal, as you don't want to be spending lots of energy maintaining something either.

    11. Re:space power on earth! by cow-orker · · Score: 1

      ...deep-space powercell...

      The only problem is that this uses Pu-238, which is synthetic and damn rare. One gram is estimated to cost around $10.000, if you can get it at all. This one gram will give you around 0.15W of electrical power.

      On the other hand, the same technology powered by Sr-90 could be feasible. Some nuclear power plant operators might even pay you if you take that stuff from them :)

    12. Re:space power on earth! by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Bauxite mining however does have large impact on local ecosystems and societies. European Aluminium Association::
      "The material is mainly extracted by open-cast mining, which has a variable and highly site-specific effect on the local environment. The primary ecological concerns connected to this operation are related to the clearing of vegetation, affect on local flora and fauna, and soil erosion."

      Those on the receiving end are usually not too happy.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  8. Colorado voter initiative by magarity · · Score: 3, Informative

    The voters here in Colorado were suckered into an initiative requiring the utility companies to get 15% of their power from renewable sources whether it made economic sense or not. Since it looks like this thing actually does then I hope someone from the local utility reads /.

    1. Re:Colorado voter initiative by fimbulvetr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The voters here in Colorado were suckered into an initiative requiring the utility companies to get 15% of their power from renewable sources whether it made economic sense or not.

      The spin you put on this makes it seem bad, however, relatively speaking our idea of efficient alternative energy is less efficient than coal mining and what have you. So, sure, it might not make economical sense compared to non-renewable energy, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing!

      Another reason this whole thing isn't that bad is because it forces companies (Xcel, etc.) to actually work on R&D for making their energy production more efficient - they now have a vested interest in it. If that were not the case, they'd just be burning the candle at both ends with oil/coal and worry about the future when the future came about. Xcel has been putting in a lot of wind generators in SW Minnesota, and they're not done. I love to see those generators every time I travel through there - it means something is actually getting done.

      As for the voters in Colorado getting suckered in, well, I hear you, they're not the smartest...

    2. Re:Colorado voter initiative by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      these initiatives arent uncommon.

      its more about r&d, as the other poster mentions. by building pilot plants, we can figure out how to make use of better energy sources, before the real fuel crunch happens.

      --

      -

    3. Re:Colorado voter initiative by WOV · · Score: 1

      What suckered them in? The $400,000 public campaign by the PIRGS? Or the $15 million utility counter-campaign? Or was it the water shortages exacerbated by fossil fuel plant usage? The skyrocketing and unstable natural gas prices? The growing incidence of lung disease and asthma near major power plants? The infrastructure constraints on natural gas in the far West? The deisre to move *before* massive and successive economic shocks forced the transition? Man, those voters are suckers, all right.

    4. Re:Colorado voter initiative by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The voters here in Colorado were suckered into an initiative requiring the utility companies to get 15% of their power from renewable sources whether it made economic sense or not.
      "What makes economic sense" depends on the rules of the marketplace. Oil is not currently pulling all its own weight, not when you factor in the health impacts of smog, environmental damage and wars.
    5. Re:Colorado voter initiative by truckaxle · · Score: 1

      What does not make short-term economic sense may make long term economic sense. For example from this article

      The cost of wind-generated electricity at prime wind sites has fallen dramatically in the United States over the last 15 years--from 35 per kilowatt-hour in the mid-1980s to 4 per kilowatt-hour in 2001.

      The reasons for the dramatic drop in costs is advances in technology and economies of mass production. In other words these production sources need to be bootstrapped.

      However, the traditional energy producers are well embedded in the political process and receive favorable tax breaks, incentives and lax regulation. These benefits result in a situation where the full costs (acid rain, air pollution, global warming, not to mention skewed and demented foreign policy in order to secure foreign sources) of these sources are not directly borne by the consumers.

    6. Re:Colorado voter initiative by ArmyOfFun · · Score: 1
      whether it made economic sense or not
      That's harder to determine than just looking at cost per kilowatt-hour isn't it? Lets pretend for example that the 15% renewable energy shuts down one coal plant. Now, lets also say that this coal plant caused a bunch of health related problems like asthema and acid rain. And lets say these health related problems contributed to higher insurance costs (to those that have insurance), higher taxes to pay for those that are on medicare, and lower quality of life for anyone suffering from the ill effects of the coal plant.

      It would be intersting to see things like that figured into the magical cost per kilowatt-hour figures.

    7. Re:Colorado voter initiative by ArmyOfFun · · Score: 1

      BTW, asthema is like asthma only more deadly and spelled more incorrectly.

    8. Re:Colorado voter initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you find out in the papers/googling who maybe to contact over this? I get the idea that if everyone made at least a small contribution such as a quick email, word would get around a lot quicker to the right people about the newest and likely most efficient technologies..

      What if the person in charge hadn't heard about this and the next day signed off on a bunch of inefficient solar panels when all it would have taken was an email about new Super Solar Panels Inc. to make them rethink. If they ordered a lot of them, it might even help that new company be more viable and accelerate the takeup elsewhere. Maybe it mightn't work every time, but isn't it worth it when it does especially when it's your own neighbourhood?

  9. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is taking place in California...

    Signed Tuesday, the 20-year power purchase agreement, which is subject to California Public Utilities Commission approval, calls for development of a 500-megawatt (MW) solar project 70 miles northeast of Los Angeles using innovative Stirling dish technology. The agreement includes an option to expand the project to 850 MW. Initially, Stirling would build a one-MW test facility using 40 of the company's 37-foot-diameter dish assemblies. Subsequently, a 20,000-dish array would be constructed near Victorville, Calif., during a four-year period.

  10. Uh... right? by mcc · · Score: 1

    Once again, other countries are moving ahead, acquiring tomorrow's technology.

    Foreign countries like California?

    I mean now that you mention it I guess it is, but...

    1. Re:Uh... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well according to the news, Texas became a foreign country today. The White population has dropped under 50%.

    2. Re:Uh... right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry by the time the story is duped on /.
      the poster will be right.

  11. 4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by yrogerg · · Score: 5, Informative
    but for the record: 4500 acres is only 7 square miles.

    It sounds a lot smaller when you put it that way.

    1. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or put yet another way, .4% of the size of Rhode Island.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=size+of+rhode+Islan d

    2. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Quasar1999 · · Score: 1

      You're talking almost 30 miles to go around the perimeter of this thing. That would take an entire day to walk around. And that's considered small? I'd have to disagree, but I guess it's all relative.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    3. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by yrogerg · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was small. I said it sounds smaller when put in square miles than when put in acres.

    4. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention they'll normally be located in the desert. We need to use our deserts for something, now we can stack em full of steel and get free electricity. The money gained from the electricity can go right back into building more and more powerplants to span across most of the Earth's deserts.

      It could be a HUGE thing. If you want to get in now, send your resume to: humanresources@stirlingenergy.com

      I sent mine in!

    5. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's only what, 36,000 home sites, maybe 100,000 if they are townhomes?

      What is it in crop (trees, hay, corn, anything) yield?

    6. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      36000 houses? Do you live in poles over there?

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    7. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by kramer · · Score: 1

      Your math is off.

      You've computed the circumference of a 70 square miles power plant. Not 7.

      The correct circumference would be somewhere around 9.5 miles.

      Radius = approx 1.5 miles.

      Circumfruence = 2 * 1.5 * 3.14 = 9.42 miles
      Area = 3.14 * 1.5^2 = 7.07 sq miles

    8. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the desert. Nothing significant grows there, and nobody wants to live there. It's the perfect place for this sort of thing.

    9. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by iroll · · Score: 1

      not to anybody who deals in surveying or real estate--7 sections is huge by any standard.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    10. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      but for the record: 4500 acres is only 7 square miles.
      It sounds a lot smaller when you put it that way.


      Also for the record, Manhattan is only 23 square miles. Sounds a lot larger when you put it that way.

    11. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Chmarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cheap, not free. Cheap.

    12. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Mateorabi · · Score: 1

      Manhattan is that small? Wow.

      --
      "You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

    13. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Great! Lets demolish Manhattan and put in 3 more of these things!

    14. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      In effect they would be pumping heat from the desert to more temperate climes, making the desert colder and the temperate area hotter. I'd like to see the econuts comment on that.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    15. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by blair1q · · Score: 1

      7 square mile of Californian real estate that gets nearly total sunshine year-round.

      Plus an enormous storage system for maintaining supply during cloudy periods.

      Plus an enormous distribution system for getting the power from the grid to the, um, grid...

    16. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding?!! 4500 acres is 28226880000 square inches, 87120000 square cubits, or 18210853900000000000000000 square nanometers! Oh, wait, that's only 0.000000000000000000000000203469596 square lightyears. Nevermind.

      Thanks, google calculator.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    17. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      This might do something about desertification by slowing winds, providing shade, and stabilizing soil. If you combine this construction with irrigation and build it high enough to enable specially constructed harvesters to move underneath, you might multiply the benefit.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    18. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Um ... "early total sunshine year-round" ... "cloudy periods"

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  12. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by RandUser · · Score: 1

    You know, maybe if this wasn't in California, USofA your comment might be justified. Bush has screwed up plenty of things, but in this particular case you, dear sir, are trolling. As an aside, I am forced to side with Bush and his pro-nuclear power plant stance. He isn't *all* about big oil. *shrug*

  13. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
    This is just one of many ways that the Bush Presidency is failing us all.

    Yawn ...

  14. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ummmmm. Stirling is located in Arizona, right? I may have graduated public school, but I am pretty sure this is in the U.S. somewhere.... right above Maine.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  15. The Edison URL by TedTschopp · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Edison URL should be www.edisonnews.com. Yes, we require you to put the www on the front of it. And yes, I work for them.

    --
    Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
    1. Re:The Edison URL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this is the holding company, sce is http://www.sce.com/. and yes i work for then too!

  16. PARENT IS TROLL by magarity · · Score: 1

    Modders: parent is yammering about other countries moving ahead and buying this technology from other countries while it's AN ARTICLE ABOUT CALIFORNIA!

  17. Ummmm... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > According to a spokesperson for SCE, this
    > purchase will be in their commercial interest,
    > requiring no subsidy in order to compete

    Sir, in 20 years, the government will be taxing solar electricity generation.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Ummmm... by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Do you know this to be true? How would it work?

      It seems more likely that the government would tax the income generated by
      selling solar electricity.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  18. Stirling engines by JanneM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Stirling engines certainly aren't forgotten or neglected. Swedish submarines use Stirling engines for propulsion, for instance.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:Stirling engines by apa666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The only drawback is they lose some of their stealthyness due to the giant solar reflector beaming sunlight down the periscope.

    2. Re:Stirling engines by aktzin · · Score: 4, Informative
      The nice folks at Kockums (a division of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems in Sweden) set up this web page in English with a cutaway view and diagram:

      http://www.kockums.se/Submarines/aipstirling.html

      --
      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    3. Re:Stirling engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire Swedish navy counts as forgotten and neglected.

      Sure, I'll spot you Gustavus Adolphus up through maybe Charles XII. But what has Sweden done for me lately?

    4. Re:Stirling engines by JanneM · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'll spot you Gustavus Adolphus up through maybe Charles XII. But what has Sweden done for me lately?

      I'd say not going to war for the past few hundred years is a pretty good thing, espceially considering the previous history.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:Stirling engines by JohnsonWax · · Score: 1

      Stirling engines certainly aren't forgotten or neglected. Swedish submarines use Stirling engines for propulsion, for instance.

      Swedish submarines, huh?

      No offense, but that really doesn't add a lot of support for the utility of Stirling engines, you know.

    6. Re:Stirling engines by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      I'd say not going to war for the past few hundred years is a pretty good thing, espceially considering the previous history.

      _And_ they made some pretty good money by cutting deals with whoever happened to be winning in their neck of the continent at the time. (Yes, I'm being a bit critical :-)

    7. Re:Stirling engines by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Swedish submarines use Stirling engines for propulsion, for instance.

      And the world trembles in fear at the very mention of the Swedish submarine fleet.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Stirling engines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Japan has been buying Kockums stirling systems for a while... So have Germany if i recall correct. But then again, who've heard of Japan or Germany anyway...

    9. Re:Stirling engines by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I'd hesitate to call "doing business with Hitler instead of fighting him" a pretty good thing. But then again I'm American and we did the same thing until Germany declared war on us.

      Maybe one of these days Europeans will realize that sometimes war is necessary. If France and Britain had come down on Germany a few years earlier when they started violating the terms of the Armistice, WWII in Europe may have been avoided.

  19. OK, so what's the catch? by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know some knowledgeable Slashdot reader can help me here. What I want to know is, what is the drawback to such a power system? It sounds like it generates quite a bit of power, and looks like a completely clean source. Are these things super expensive to build? Is it really hard to keep these things lined up with the sun to produce optimal power?

    There is the issue of not being able to produce any power at night. But intelligent use of battery stores along with some supplemental traditional powered generators might take care of that, especially since power draw from the grid is (I'm guessing) much less at night.

    So - what's the catch? Why aren't fields of these things going up like crazy?

    1. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Bill+Barth · · Score: 1

      It only works when it's sunny out.

      --
      Yes...I am a rocket scientist.
    2. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      For one, they require a lot of direct sunshine. The desert location these will go in is fine, but you won't see too many 4500 acre lots of them sprining up in Merry old England.

    3. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by aktzin · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    4. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by srleffler · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will now. Up to now, solar collectors have been too expensive (per Watt) to pay off except in places like California that get a lot of sun year-round. The price has to come down a lot and the efficiency has to go up to make them more widely viable. Maybe this is the beginning of that. Photovoltaics have been getting cheaper and more efficient too. Someday we'll all have them on our roofs. Maybe even on our cars.

    5. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by rebelcool · · Score: 1

      Not all places receive a decent amount of sun. Efficiency will be based on number of sunny days per year, as well as having enough wide open space at a profitable land price.

      So yeah, you won't see this in england any time soon for both of those reasons.

      However, for developing desert nations, its not a half bad idea. Simple to build and maintain and makes use of something they have alot of - incessant sun.

      --

      -

    6. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why aren't fields of these things going up like crazy?

      The real reason? Because cities can think of better things to do with their land than use 4500 acres (3/4 football field is about 1 acre. You could put a lot of stadiums on that land) of it on stuff like this, and unlike other cultures that have become used to growing upwards, planning a city to have all of the buildings the same height so that the entire array can sit on top of them just isn't an accepted idea here.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    7. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by WOV · · Score: 1

      A) They tend to use either landfill gas or natgas to hybridize at night if need, be, but you can just run a coal power plant all night to meet the minimal loads then, and hybridize just for bad weather, etc. , use the dishes just to make much more valuable/expensive midday power. B) I think they only recently got the tracking right (they do need to be very accurate,) unlike PV they can only be used effectively in small areas of the country (not *that* small, but certainly only in the Southwest,) and until this latest generation, their engines were very, very finicky - they are basically modified versions of those submarine Stirlings, but they didn't take to the high temperature and kept failing sensors and seals. C) I'm not sure how many people did - and do - believe Bob Liden can scale up the plant to tens or hundreds of megawatts from the tiny company he's got now.

    8. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by TooncesTheCat · · Score: 1

      especially since power draw from the grid is (I'm guessing) much less at night.

      Power draw would be more at night....people tend to use lights when its dark =]

      Also another thing, when it does become dark....what type of and how big are the batteries that are needed to store the energy created during the day for use at night when its not supplying its own power since theirs no sunlight. I want pictures of such said batteries.

    9. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Bushcat · · Score: 1
      Actually, the Brits are way ahead of the US in this, with water collection facilities covering anything up to 2000 square miles, the water being carefully routed using what is known as the "Downhill Effect" to transport the working fluid to various rotary energy conversion devices.

      Interestingly, there's an image of one being used here http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/waterwheels/ waterwheel2.jpg to process the fuel pellets for pebble-bed reactors for example.

    10. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by mandolin · · Score: 1
      Power draw would be more at night....people tend to use lights when its dark =]

      I believe it depends on where you live. In Texas, my A/C and refrigerator suck up a lot more juice during the day than my lights do at night.

    11. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't remember any real stats, but I'm pretty sure the OP is right in most situations and you have it backwards. A/C uses far more power than lights, but will draw less at night since things cool down. People are also quite a bit more active during the day, using power for more things than lights.

    12. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by iroll · · Score: 1

      Why use batteries... how about a huge flywheel, on frictionless magnetic bearings, in a vacuum chamber...

      and sharks... with lasers..

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    13. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by SiliconEntity · · Score: 1

      Power draw would be more at night....people tend to use lights when its dark =]

      Here's a real time graph of California's electricity usage. You can see that the peak is about 4 PM, probably due to air conditioning. A solar system could work out pretty well to provide some extra power at periods of peak demand.

    14. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 1

      I've seen proposals for a big superconducting coil where the electricity just goes around and around until you need it. Also allows a lot of electricity to be dumped at once...useful for anti-missile lasers, is one example....

    15. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The desert location these will go in is fine, but you won't see too many 4500 acre lots of them sprining up in Merry old England.
      Good! I'm tired of Saudi Arabia and Alaska getting all the free money. I live in a desert state and I like the idea of exporting solar-generated hydrogen.
    16. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Nature gives us a great battery with the name "hydrogen". If these are cheap enough to put up, then the power loss in the conversion process from water to hydrogen is a loss worth taking. And if it really scales the way it seems to here, then you could easily scale it up to produce hydrogen for the nights, and running energy for the day.

      Of course, replacing our oil habit over night will be a tough course to take, but it could be done if this technology is as good as it's hyped here. We'll see how this experiment turns out.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    17. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about pumping water into a resevoir and using the pumps as generators at night. Or using the power to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.

      Lots of ways to store energy that's better than batteries.

    18. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sterling engines work from heat. Some(most?) of these solar concentrator generators actually store power overnight as heat directly, without any conversion to other types of power like electricity or hydrogen etc. The heat is usually stored in superheated molten salt mixture, which is likely a lot cheaper than a massive bank of batteries or conversion to hydrogen. It also means that losses from conversion into other forms of energy do not occur, and since the entire concentrator is designed to derive electricity from heat in the first place it is likely relatively simple to boot.

    19. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      So - what's the catch? Why aren't fields of these things going up like crazy?

      Because they weren't profitable. It wasn't until the whole Enron thing, when electricity prices went through the roof in California, that the rates got high enough to make Solar/Wind power viable without massive subsudies. The ever-increasing cost of oil is also keeping rewable-energy power plants profitable.

      But intelligent use of battery stores along with some supplemental traditional powered generators might take care of that,

      Battery stores are a terrible idea. A huge waste of power from the conversion.

      The power drain IS much less at night, so conventional sources like hydro (which makes up 30% of California's electric power) and nuclear are used at night. If there is unusually high draw, the natural gas/coal power plants rev-up.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    20. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Drawbacks? Here's some, although they are neither (IMHO) all that serious, and I like this technology as a whole, and would say these won't stop it in the long run.
      1. Heat - Focused mirrors in large banks are extremely hot at the focal points. When you're talking 500 Mw. output, your talking about lots of points inside that 4700 acre area where temperatures must be enormous (3,000 degrees F or so if the focus is at all tight).
              Basically, anything that involves a huge energy differential has some potential for that energy to go in directions we don't want. The potential may be lower for some technologies than others, and this may well be one of the good ones, but by the very definition of energy (the ability to do work), there is no energy technology that can't do some work we don't want, whether it's a dam breaking and all that water working hard to wash away a town downstream, or mirrors getting focused on the wrong points, and the wrong things getting hot (like employees on site, or the supports and braces for other mirrors).
      2. Not only can you not produce power at night, but cloudy days reduce your efficiency. Power draw on the grid is (usually) only less at night in the summer, when a lot of electricity is going to air conditioning. In winter, power draw is more for heating and people heat most on cold nights. Days are also shorter, plus sunlight is passing at shallower angles through the air and so has less energy per square foot, so even if this system is very, very efficient at the best of times, it becomes just half (or so) of a two part solution. At best, it's likely somewhat more than half, and maybe cuts fuel oil and coal use by a very nice 60-70%, but it simply can't do away with them entirely.
              Now for the bad news - A power company that only needs 30% of the fuel oil it did won't see a full 70% savings - the way their contracts work, they will probably only see about a 50% savings on oil costs, so that financial 'damping' effect slows adoption of technologies like this. They have to prove themselves to conservative investors, and even then they have to offer big improvements and not just small ones, or they take 20 years or more to catch on.
            This is a catch 22. If the technology caught on really fast, then basic macroeconomics holds fuel oil prices wouldn't continue to rise, because demand would decline. But since the technology simply can't catch on all that fast, places that haven't adopted it yet will continue to drive demand higher, the early adopters will get smaller discounts because they are buying only seasonally or in less bulk, and the rate of adoption will be slowed further.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    21. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Nature gives us a great battery with the name "hydrogen".

      Actually, hydrogen isn't that great a "battery" at all. Cracking hydrogen is a pretty lossy process, hydrogen is dificult to store (smallest atom, leaks out ANY hole-- and there are ALWAYS holes), and all the necessary equipment is pretty complicated. The only real advantage to hydrogen is that it burns very cleanly, in theory making it an ideal vehicle fuel. But for storing extra energy from solar to be used later at night, the best way is the way they've always done it. They use the excess generated electricity to pump water uphill into reservoirs, then generate power hydroelectrically when they need it. No hydrogen "battery" will ever be so simple, reliable, and efficient as a turbine driven generator at the base of an earth-fill dam.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    22. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So - what's the catch? Why aren't fields of these things going up like crazy?"

      Other than the practical realities of the cost and engineering(which may have not yet been fully proven) the biggest force preventing this is likey inertia. If it aint broke don't fix it. The coal, hydro and nuclear power generating industries have many decades of proven ability, along with many decades of refinement of those technologies. There is a huge base of investment in infrastructure, people, skills, research, politics etc that these industries have created.

      So you have this proven and perfected monolithic technology of the past versus this relatively unproven, potentially financially, industrially and plitically disruptive new technology. The old technolgies are well known, most people involved are used to dealing with them and feel safe doing what they do, making policies regarding them, making parts for them etc. It is generally in the nature of people to be conservative when dealing with risk and especially with risk that don't seem necessary. At this point the necessity probably doesn't seem to be there as proven technologies already exist to take care of the problem. I think if the cost of the new technology were relatively very low and the overall benefits very obvious it would have a better chance, but as is it myguess is that it will likely take decades to take off, if at all.

    23. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      The real reason? Because cities can think of better things to do with their land than use 4500 acres


      On the brighter side (heh), cities do end up with lots and lots of roof space that currently more or less goes to waste. I suspect that sooner or later someone will find a way to make use of all the energy that currently just bounces off the roof and makes your air conditioner work harder. And the bonus is that you don't have to transport the generated electricity anywhere -- you can make use of it on location.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    24. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by BikeRacer · · Score: 1

      These things seem self-contained (each has it's own engine/generator). Instead of thinking of 4,500 contiguous (and square) acres, how about putting these buggers along highways? Plenty of space and no delicate environment to crush. It would be easy to eliminate the danger of motorist blinding by reflected light by simply having the mirrors point to a neutral spot during "low sun" hours. Or did I get this totally wrong, and there needs to be a centralized sterling engine as part of the facility?

    25. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I want pictures of such said batteries.


      Maybe you could just use the excess energy to pump water uphill, and then let it run back downhill through a dam during the night.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    26. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Photovoltaics have been getting cheaper and more efficient too. Someday we'll all have them on our roofs. Maybe even on our cars.

      Sunlight has an approximate maximum of 1.4kW per square meter. Even assuming ideal conditions and perfect conversion with an array the size of a large van roof (2m x 5m = 10m^2), you only get 14kW which is 18.77 horsepower. My VW Vanagon has a hard time climbing hills with 95 horsepower. Sunlight is too dilute to push around anything resembling a normal automobile.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    27. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but an earth-fill damn can never power a car, hydrogen can.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    28. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, but an earth-fill damn can never power a car, hydrogen can.

      RTF post I wrote: "The only real advantage to hydrogen is that it burns very cleanly, in theory making it an ideal vehicle fuel." Also, you may have noticed that we're not talking about hydrogen's suitablility as a vehicle fuel, we're talking about how SCE is going to store solar energy for nighttime use. Get with the program. Read what people are writing so you can actually follow the conversation.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    29. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by nmos · · Score: 1

      What I want to know is, what is the drawback to such a power system?

      One problem is that the sun isn't always shining so you either need to overproduce when you can and store the excess or build a bunch of traditional power plants that sit around depreciating most of the time so you have power on cloudy days. If we are talking about only a small percent of our total production it's probably not a problem since we have lots of gas turbine plants which can start up pretty quickly and are mostly suited to short duration "peaking" production anyway but we won't be replacing Nuclear or probably even coal based power plants with solar any time soon.

    30. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by evilviper · · Score: 2, Informative
      My VW Vanagon has a hard time climbing hills with 95 horsepower.

      Well too bad for you. Meanwhile cars like the original VW Beatle have about 30 horespower (at the wheels), and don't have trouble climbing hills. Your VW might have 95HP PEAK, but at the wheels, especially while climbing, I bet you're getting a fraction of that. Electric cars don't need transmissions, and other horsepower-sapping equipment that ICEs need.

      But that's really irrelevant, anyhow. The parent didn't even suggest that solar panels would be the sole source of fuel for future vehicles. If you've got an electric car, put a solar panel on the roof/hood/trunk, and you get more range. You'll save money from not having to plug-in as often. Horror movies will run out of plots, as people that run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere need only wait in their cars for an hour, (while it recharges itself) before continuing to drive. And people that use their vehicles for short, infrequent trips might never need to plug their vehicles in.

      Note that "short" means distance, not time. Without the need to keep your engine running, you can sit in traffic for hours and use almost no power.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    31. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My VW Vanagon has a hard time climbing hills with 95 horsepower

      Possible reasons for this:

      a) You are stepping on the clutch

      b) You are stepping on the brake

      c) You are in neutral

      d) You are in 5th gear

      e) You are in reverse

      f) You have your handbrake pulled

      g) You have your engine off

      Really, unless you are carrying anvils to the top of the Everest, there is just no way 95HP won't climb a hill.

    32. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Pump water up hill into a reservoir during the day, then use gravity and hydroelectric to recover the energy during the night.

      ISTR there's somewhere in Scotland that already uses this technique.

    33. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by StarsAreAlsoFire · · Score: 1

      Things like this will help with what is called 'peaking power'. No need to spool up a couple of gas turbines in the middle of the day when you build one of these.

      Coal plants are run 24/7 in most cases (base load). Ditto nuke. Mostly this type of tech will remove gas from the mix. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the utilities will be selling or using this power as redundancy rather than 'open market' power. Which is to say, they won't need to hold a contract with another company (or buy another gas turbine) in order to meet their required reliablity rating. Plus they will be able to offer it up as a source of renewable to those who check the little box that says 'I'll pay extra ...' etc.

      Just a thought which flowed from the parent post.

      Cheers,

    34. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by psetzer · · Score: 1

      To add to the discussion, solar panels aren't entirely labor-free. Every so often, someone needs to do something to clean some of the dust and grime off of the mirrors. You don't have to use potable water to wash them off, but a quick once over with hose every month or so really helps with efficiency. In addition to that, tracking motors need fixing, Stirling engines break, and all sorts of little things have to be taken care of.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    35. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      Sunlight has an approximate maximum of 1.4kW per square meter. Even assuming ideal conditions and perfect conversion with an array the size of a large van roof (2m x 5m = 10m^2), you only get 14kW which is 18.77 horsepower. My VW Vanagon has a hard time climbing hills with 95 horsepower. Sunlight is too dilute to push around anything resembling a normal automobile.

      Uh, 14kW solar power does NOT equal 18.77 horsepower.
      For example, if on average you drive an hour or two a day, even in less than ideal conditions you'll have far more power than that availible.

      And in a consumer vehicle, solar would only be only one source of power availible to the driver anyway. If you want to drive for 10 hours after dark, you'd probably fill the tank with hydogen, or gasoline and do it that way.

      (And in practice, electric engines are far gruntier than combustion engines - even when both deliver similar horsepower. That's why supermachines, like the biggest and most powerful trucks in the world are electric. Combustion engines just suck when a lot of grunt is required in addition to the variable loading that you get in a land vehicle. So they run a combustion generator in it's optimal operating range, which transfers the power to an electric engine that can supply the torque without crapping out whenever the loading or speed changes.)

    36. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      I might not have explained that very well - I'll put it another way: 18 horsepower charging energy input for 8 hours in no way suggests a limit of 18 horsepower engine power for one hour's driving.

      Even cars primarily designed to run directly off cells almost always have on-board energy storage, even if not very much, and all consumer cars have on-board storage - solar is basically unworkable for a (useful) car otherwise, so it seems silly to theorise from the assumption that a consumer car would lack energy storage. It's like pointing out a solar car with square wheels would have terrible efficiency, certainly it's true, but it's not at all relevant in the real world where cars are built with round wheels :-)

    37. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      However, the same (not entirely labor-free) can be said of all types of power plants, whether you're talking about solar, wind, tidal, coal, oil, fission, etc. You have to fix stuff occasionally, you have people monitoring power loads and whatever else needs monitoring, you have a janiotorial staff that cleans up everything, etc.

    38. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Perhaps in the Mysterious Future we'll have solar power generation on a global scale which would allow half the Earth to power itself and the dark half through a high temp superconductor grid...Ahhh nerds can dream.

    39. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      While I suppose you could argue that hydro is an indirect form of solar energy, that's... not quite the same thing, is it? :)

      =Smidge=

    40. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Why piss away the energy converting it to hydrogen when it's already in the very useful and efficient form of electricity?

      =Smidge=

    41. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) does this with hydro dams. My power prof. said it was one of the more efficient ways to store excess power.

    42. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... you won't see this in england any time soon ...

      However, for developing desert nations, its not a half bad idea.

      Make your mind up won't you! :-)

    43. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by wildwood · · Score: 1

      Hey, your sig is actually on-topic for this post!

      --
      normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
    44. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could just use the excess energy to pump water uphill, and then let it run back downhill through a dam during the night.

      Something like this? This is the Blenheim-Gilboa Pump Storage Facility, which has been serving New York State since the 60's.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    45. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The question was what to do about places that aren't sunny enough for solar power. Some means must be used to transport the energy over long distances.

    46. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      My quick math suggests that there's 4.5 of these collectors in an acre which
      suggests that they've given each dish about a 100' by 100' plot (that seems like
      a lot of space for something that's less than 40' across). There are plenty
      of buildings that have that kind of space on the roof.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    47. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Well too bad for you. Meanwhile cars like the original VW Beatle have about 30 horespower

      For purposes of my example, the VW Beetle (a Beatle is a guy from Liverpool) has far less than 10 square meters of roof area (less than 3, actually) so it'd actually be worse off.

      Your VW might have 95HP PEAK, but at the wheels, especially while climbing, I bet you're getting a fraction of that.

      Dynoed at 77HP at the wheels, only a 19% loss. That 14kW for 10 square meters assumes the impossible, i.e. perfect conversion, high noon at the equator on the equinox, in a vaccuum , sunlight hitting the photocells at a perfect perpendicular all the time. You can bet your ass the real life numbers will be a hell of a lot more than 19% lower.

      But that's really irrelevant, anyhow. The parent didn't even suggest that solar panels would be the sole source of fuel for future vehicles. If you've got an electric car, put a solar panel on the roof/hood/trunk, and you get more range. You'll save money from not having to plug-in as often.

      Not entirely irrelevant. My illustration shows that even under the best conditions, conditions beyond the possible, sunlight hardly even adds the barest trickle of a charge. Throw into that the loss from conversion, both at the photovoltaics and in the battry bank, and the not insignificant limitation on available sunlight imposed by the atmosphere, weather, trees, parking garage roofs, two story buildings on narrow streets at any time other than high noon, and seasonal variation in the sun's angle, and you're going to get almost nothing for your trouble wiring in a photovoltaic roof.

      Horror movies will run out of plots, as people that run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere need only wait in their cars for an hour, (while it recharges itself) before continuing to drive. And people that use their vehicles for short, infrequent trips might never need to plug their vehicles in.

      Show me the math. Tell me how big a perfect photovoltaic panel you'd need to charge a battery enough in one hour to move a car any significant distance. Tell me the weight of said automobile and how much energy it requires at the wheels for a day's use, and then show me how you're going to get that out of less than 1.4kW per square meter. The math just isn't there, man. Solar is a dilute energy source. You need large fields to collect any useful quantity of it.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    48. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Use wires. Whoop it up to high voltage to lower transmission losses. Keep in mind you lose energy making H2, and more if you want to convert it back to electricity. And H2 is tricky to transport in a pipeline; you aren't going to be able to use natural gas pipelines.

    49. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      If you look at a globe you'll see that half the planet is the Pacific ocean. So unless half your power plants are floating in the Pacific, you're going to need an awful lot of batteries.

    50. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      You might as well lift weights on pulleys. That would be a much more efficient kinetic energy battery than water would be. Then as the weight lowers, it turns the generator at night.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    51. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      Um.... like our power grid you mean? We already centralize production.

      If you're talking about Sweden where it's dark for half the year, sorry but solar just ain't gonna cut it.

    52. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Uh, 14kW solar power does NOT equal 18.77 horsepower.

      Uh, yeah it does. 745.7 kilowatts per horsepower. Converts directly.

      For example, if on average you drive an hour or two a day, even in less than ideal conditions you'll have far more power than that availible.

      This assumes a storage mechanism of some sort, which greatly complicates the issue. Even the most pie-in-the-sky prediction for PV efficiency tops out at 65%, the most optimistic battery prediction at 85%, and the actual solar energy available under good terrestrial conditions tops out at an average .75kw per square meter for 8 hours a day for a non-tracking area. A small electric vehicle might manage 3m^2 roof area. This gives you a grand total of a hair under 10kW hours (9.945). The Toyota Prius manages to average about 36 kW hours per gallon of gasoline, and average 50mpg city driving. Given a small electric vehicle with performance approximating the Prius, that gives you a range of 13.5 miles-- but only if you stay in the sun all day. OK, I'll concede that it's theoretically possible (though on the very ragged edge of probability) to run some future vehicle on sun power alone for short distances. Not at all practical, though, and I still doubt the added expense of a PV roof would ever even pay for itself.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    53. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're getting wrong is that in the sterling engine, the heat difference is what drives efficiency. If you set up 4500 engines, each on 1 acre of land, the efficiency of each engine would be lower because each engine would be cooler, and therefore the total power output would be less than 1 engine with 4500 acres of mirrors pointing at it.

      Also, as another poster pointed out with a wikipedia article, the sterling engine itself is a pretty large beast, and a 1-acre design would probably not be much smaller and cheaper than a 4500 acre design. It certainly wouldn't be 1/4500 the cost.

    54. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      This assumes a storage mechanism of some sort, which greatly complicates the issue

      I think you have it backwards if you're seriously proposing that any consumer car would not have a storage mechanism.

      OK, I'll concede that it's theoretically possible (though on the very ragged edge of probability) to run some future vehicle on sun power alone for short distances

      Irrelevant. The guy was never suggesting a car would be run entirely from solar, he was saying it would be financially worthwhile to put a solar panel into the roof.

      And depending on where you live and your driving habits, he's almost certainly right.

      I still doubt the added expense of a PV roof would ever even pay for itself.

      Looking at how quickly photovoltiacs can pay for themselves right now, I suspect otherwise.

    55. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      I still doubt the added expense of a PV roof would ever even pay for itself.

      Somewhat related, you might be shocked to know that PV roofs already pay for themselves for many motorists, even on today's gas-powered cars and SUVs, because (among other reasons) a cheap-ass $60 roof panel is a hell of a lot cheaper than being stranded with a flat battery. You can walk into almost any car parts store and buy one right off the shelf.

  20. Pseudoscience? by rdwald · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stirling engines seem legitimate enough, but the linked site describing them seems somewhat crack-potish. They promote cold fusion and zero point energy, as well as a number of "alternative energy sources" I've never even heard of. There's also a page trying to disprove the Peak Oil theory, which should be real popular with the Slashdot crowd. Anyway, I sometimes wish that /. nerds had a greater understanding of the pure sciences, rather than just software engineering. Oh well.

    1. Re:Pseudoscience? by Thanatopsis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Zero Point Energy? Why Zero Point Modules are what power the lost city of Atlantis in Stargate Atlantis. They are widely recognized as on the most powerful energy sources in television science fiction.

    2. Re:Pseudoscience? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Stirlings really do work. The biggest problem is getting them to produce decent amounts of power.

      They generally use exotic materials and hermetically sealed, unlubricated crackcases to boost the pressure of the working gas to thousands of PSI (the stirling cycle is completely closed). Usually hydrogen is the gas of choice, but methane and helium are also used.

      But you can build a working model out of old tin cans if you were so inclined. Mechanically, the simplest stirling cycle engine has only two moving parts!

      =Smidge=

    3. Re:Pseudoscience? by srleffler · · Score: 2, Interesting
      To be fair, despite its popularity with the wackos, the idea that oil may not come from decaying biological matter after all does have some scientific merit. It's still (AFAIK) a controversial hypothesis, but not a completely baseless one.

      We used to think that all 'organic' compounds were organic in origin. We were wrong. 'Organic' compounds have been observed in space and on other planets. It's not a huge stretch (especially given other evidence) to wonder if these vast pools of hydrocarbons under the Earth's crust might be from some source other than decaying vegetation. That doesn't mean we have an unlimited supply of course .

    4. Re:Pseudoscience? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points to give to ya.

      Non-biological oil si an intriging theory, and I think there is enough evidence for this theory to move it well out of crackpot-land.

    5. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I've understood from geologists is, is that even if it is true, this source doesn't produce all that much oil per year. Secondly, you find remains of plants in oil, which almost makes you wonder how they got the idea it came from a biological source, not

    6. Re:Pseudoscience? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What I've understood from geologists is, is that even if it is true, this source doesn't produce all that much oil per year.

      Sure, if all you do is try to collect it near the surface like we do now. All you have to do is drill deeper to find more. The Russians are currently pumping oil out of wells 8 miles deep. The stuff we're pumping out at the top is only that little bit that seeps into easily reachable pockets.

      Secondly, you find remains of plants in oil, which almost makes you wonder how they got the idea it came from a biological source, not

      You don't so much find "plants" in oil, you find "organic matter". Biogenic fuel theory says it's from zooplankton and phytoplankton. The reason abiogenic petroleum theory was initially rejected was that in the 19th century it was believed that microbial life could not exist in such extreme conditions, thus the petroleum itself must have come come from decayed organic matter. We've since discovered numerous extremophile forms of microbial life, but the whole "fossil fuel" notion has become so ingrained that the loss of a major part of it's theoretical underpinning has essentially been ignored.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Pseudoscience? by xerxesdaphat · · Score: 1

      hahah I think you meant 'crankcases' not crackcases. Although it would be interesting to hermetically seal an unlubricated crackcase (tinfoil-hat-type for Americans)...

      --
      The Shoes of the Fisherman's Wife Are Some Jive Ass Slippers
    8. Re:Pseudoscience? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      *facepalms*

      Well a spellchecker can only do so much at two in the morning :)

      =Smidge=

    9. Re:Pseudoscience? by paulwomack · · Score: 1

      Stirling engines seem legitimate enough

      Indeed:

      used in Antarctic conditions

      Just because something is liked by kooks doesn't make it kooky.

            BugBear

      --
      Ignorance is curable. Stupid is forever.
    10. Re:Pseudoscience? by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Well the problem is hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy, so what made all that energy decide to concentrate itself like that? There had to have been some driving process that took a very large amount of energy and converted it into a slightly smaller but more concentrated form of oil. Plants fit this bill very nicely, since they take solar energy and convert it into more concentrated, carbon based forms.

      Also, processes like Thermal Depolymerization demonstrate that biological material such as plant and animal matter can be turned into hydrocarbon oil with heat and pressure in a relatively short time.

      Both are very compelling arguments for bio-based oil.

      What other theories are there? (Honest question)
      =Smidge=

    11. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The linked page mentions stirling engines working on jet fuel, wich is of course something else then stiring engines working on solar power.

    12. Re:Pseudoscience? by Don+Negro · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the Carbon-13 signatures on what we're currently pumping are all wrong to be abiotic.

      I'm not saying it can't exist. I'm saying that the oil we burn every day was formed from decaying organic matter under geologic heat and pressure.

      --

      Don Negro
      Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall

    13. Re:Pseudoscience? by zardo · · Score: 1
      Yeah, where do you think that fossil fuel notion came from? I figure it was the tar pits on found on the surface. No real skeptical look has been taken at this, ever. That's a shame.

      I think the reason people are reluctant to take a look now is simply because they think oil is harmful, while if oil were cheap enough (which it will be once alternative energy sources are widely competitive) then there would be no need to burn it, while we develop alternative energy sources we're also developing ways to make oil more eco-friendly.

    14. Re:Pseudoscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only one pure science: mathematics. SE gets pretty close in terms of purity. I wouldn't call physic or chemic sciences very pure sciences. Maybe a lot more interesting, important or elementary, but not pure.

    15. Re:Pseudoscience? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      I've been following the whole "free energy" movement for a while off and on just for kicks. Yes, there are lots of kooks and scammers involved. I hear about the next great technology every few months that nobody is able to replicate. The whole thing often appears like a big waste of time.

      However, fundamental physics has gotten really boring lately. Practical space travel and energy production haven't gone anywhere since the development of liquid fueled rockets and nuclear energy, the basic physics of which were all done before the 1940s. String theory seems so far to be pretty much a dead end and not much more than a bunch of mathematical tricks. Particle accelerators and fusion reactors so far are curious multi-billion dollar projects that have yet to yield results that can be put to use in practical engineering contexts.

      Given the failure of "Big Science" to move physics forward as of late, I'm all for the little guys. The little guys unfortunately are comprised of both kooks and geniuses but they should all have their theories and experiments at least considered. I also think every once and a while people with budgets should try and replicate and/or test the most promising devices.

  21. Solar... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

    In related news, ants in a 4500 acre area have all mysteriously vanished.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Solar... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1

      That is the funniest thing I have read in a long long time. Kudos to you, my friend.

      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
  22. New Energy Laws? by seven+of+five · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now that Bush signed the 'Energy Bill' we have this gigantic solar project, underwritten by a big utility. Coincidence?

    1. Re:New Energy Laws? by lax-goalie · · Score: 1

      >Coincidence? Ummm, yes.

    2. Re:New Energy Laws? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Not a coincidence. But not what you think.

      They were probably waiting to see if there would be subsidies. Now that there aren't, they went ahead.

      In this case, the prospect of subsidies probably delayed the implementation of solar power.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:New Energy Laws? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Coincidence?

      Yes, purely.

      You really think something like this happens overnight? There have been plans for building a new, giant solar power plant in the area for years now. The previous one was going to be a gigantic glass chimney with a turbine at the top, plus a natrual-gas burner to suppliment the solar heat.

      You can only credit Bush if you want to say he had a part in the Enron scheme, which increased the cost of electricity dramatically, spurring the construction of new powerplants across the state, and moving wind/solar plants into the range of profitablity.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  23. 100$ a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    is coming, gas at the pump is 33% higher in price than last year, oh and oil company profits are up 38%!! (figures from abcnews)

    "bring it on" - GW Bush

    yeah you can see why he would say that

  24. Mod parent up by AoT · · Score: 1

    Come on, it is funny.

  25. Hey, we're almost in business... by Manchot · · Score: 2, Funny

    All we need now is 1.42 more of these things!

    1. Re:Hey, we're almost in business... by Iron+Chef+Unix · · Score: 1

      Let's see (1.42+1 acres)*500 Megawatts = ...carry the one...

      1.21 Jigawatts! 1.21 Jigawatts! Great Scott!

      What the hell is a Jigawatt?

      --
      Like puzzle games? Warehouse51 for iOS
    2. Re:Hey, we're almost in business... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... I'll bite...

      1 jigawatt = 1 gigawatt

      Kinda like all of the people who pronounce Gillian Welch's name as Jillian Welch. (Which may include Ms. Welch herself, for all I know...)

  26. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by dada21 · · Score: 0

    Actually, nowhere in our Constitution does it give Bush or any federally elected official the power to do anything with energy.

    The DoE is unconstitutional. The fact that a private organization in California is taking on this role shows that California is wise to leave it to the individual people to decide on.

    I honestly don't see what good it is going to do. I really have to see hard numbers to guesstimate if this is honestly a profitable venture or if there is some taxpayer leakage coming through this. How often have corporations said "and the taxpayers will not pay for it" even though we eventually do in the end?

    By the way, if Bush or anyone else has to subsidize energy production, doesn't it make sense that it isn't even close to being "clean" if no one has taken a profit-initiative to investing in it?

  27. Environmentally Sound by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

    at PESN. With 20 years of in-the-field fine-tuning, Stirling Energy Systems is now ready to go big -- real big. They signed a purchase agreement Tuesday with Southern California Edison (SEC), to install a 20,000 dish array that will cover 4,500 acres and will be capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity -- more than all other U.S. solar projects combined -- making this the largest solar installation in the world.

    Thank goodness there will be no environmental impact!

    I wonder how large a nuclear plant of equivalent output would be.

    1. Re:Environmentally Sound by Burdell · · Score: 1

      TVA is bringing Unit 1 at Browns Ferry back on line and upgrading it in the process to produce 1275 megawatts. The other two units will also be upgraded to the same capacity, so the total plant capacity will be 3825 megawatts or about 7.65 times the capacity of the solar project.

    2. Re:Environmentally Sound by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Any idea how many acres the site takes up? We could do a sort of head to head comparison.

      People seem to forget that developing land also has an environmental impact.

    3. Re:Environmentally Sound by WOV · · Score: 1

      The nuclear plant? Or the nuclear plant, uranium mine, processing facility, security training facility, waste plume, and (nonexistent) national storage repository for nuclear waste? In any case, you're right, smaller. But this is much much smaller than the area submerged by an equivalent hydroelectric dam. No free lunches, but the desert ecosystem can withstand a 7-sq-mi CSP plant better than it can a raditation leak or a massive water assignment to a wet-cooled coal power plant.

    4. Re:Environmentally Sound by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1

      Certainly. What I'm saying is, people act like these things have zero impact. What I'm saying is, we need to look at the whole matter rationally.

    5. Re:Environmentally Sound by -Harlequin- · · Score: 1

      What I'm saying is, people act like these things have zero impact.

      Seems to have potentially better-than-zero impact to me: Stick it on the office roof, and in addition to generating power it 1) saves power by reducing transmission line-loss, 2) saves some more power by casting a shadow on the roof, reducing energy wasted on A/C.

      Not much of an environmental impact, since the entire area is already paved and inhabited by humans. Possibly a few fried flying animals, but in the city basically means it helps fight pests too, another bonus, unless you're the guy pushing the broom.

      I mean - I'm trying to think of an "impact" here, but everything seems to no only be zero, but be better than zero :-)

      Oh wait - I got one - one will be put on an older building, the type with an ornate facade, and then someone will complain that the dish is ugly and kick up a storm. :-)

    6. Re:Environmentally Sound by Burdell · · Score: 1

      Google says Browns Ferry is on 850 acres, so you could compare that as
      500/4500 = 1/9 megawatts per acre for solar vs. (eventually) 3825/850 =
      4.5 megawatts per acre for nuclear (or 40.5 times as much power per
      acre).

      There are different requirements for the two power sources of course.
      The solar array has to be in an area with lots of sunlight year round,
      while the nuclear plant needs to be at a large enough body of water for
      cooling.

      Also, the summary (I didn't RTFA) says the solar array can generate 500
      megawatts. Is that peak during sunlight? If so, the overall average
      (assuming perfect storage) would only be half that; people do like to
      use power at night.

    7. Re:Environmentally Sound by WOV · · Score: 1

      Absolutely; and I'm sure once they go out to occupy seven square miles of desert, the Environmental Impact Statement process will keep many an environmental engineer and herpetologist employed for many a month...

      It's sad but true that using energy inevitably has an environmental impact; the only "free lunch" is efficiency...

  28. That is a LOT of power by yevgyeni · · Score: 1

    I just did a quick search to see how much 500 megawatts stacks up to other power plants and it's a doosie. According to the California Energy Commission, of the 966 plants in California generating more than .1MW, 500MW puts the new plant in the top 3%. That's ... amazing! Solar power has always had promise, and it's been getting more and more efficient, but to me, it's always seemed to be a niche thing, not really ready to replace giant oil and coal plants - especially when talking about a solar power plant (of course, decentralized power generation with each house running off of solar panels would be ideal, but that's another post). But this...wow...this is plenty of power, and if successful, could really be the start of a feasible way to get off the oil and coal habit...and least I hope so.

    1. Re:That is a LOT of power by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Did you notice how many acres of land it takes up?

    2. Re:That is a LOT of power by thatshortkid · · Score: 1

      not check earlier posts? 4500 acres = ~7 sq. mi. if the area is square, that's 3 mi. per side. the site is in california, which isn't hurting for spare, sunny land.

      --
      The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
    3. Re:That is a LOT of power by aonic · · Score: 1

      could really be the start of a feasible way to get off the oil and coal habit... SoCal Ed's motivation is probably more to get off of the buying-out-of-state-power habit.

    4. Re:That is a LOT of power by destiny_uk · · Score: 1

      Well, the coal fired power station down the road from me (Fiddlers Ferry, Widnes, UK) has 4x units which produce 500MW each.

      That said, it's not very sunny over here.

    5. Re:That is a LOT of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      500MW puts the new plant in the top 3%. That's ... amazing!

      You don't know what you're talking about. The vast number of power plants are quite small, but they don't matter. The vast majority of generated power comes from mammoth facilities... A nuke generates about 800 MW, and if it's efficiently run (which it won't be in California) should have 97% uptime.

      Anyway, the issue is not the 500 MW... to make a bigger plant, you just...well... make the plant bigger. This is called "economy of scale" and it's huge for electricity.

      The real question is the levelized cost per MWh for the life of the plant. This has to include shaping cost (for providing power at night and on cloudy days) and transmission access (which might be as much as $500/kW). If it checks out on these economic metrics, then build as many as you can as big as you can.

  29. 1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by dickens · · Score: 1

    The article said a 1MW pilot used 40 37' reflectors. That sounds ok to me. I wonder how much each one costs to buy and maintain.

    So in the hot climate of the American South, these thing ought to start popping up on rooftops. Building a few tens of thousands of the things for Edison ought to help them smooth out the manufacturing process. How many 25KW units will you need to air condition a 100,000 sq. ft building ?

    Making power only during the day isn't so bad since the air conditioning load in buildings is higher during the day, of course.

    1. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Given an average home uses around a kW of power, one of these things could power 25 homes, roughly. Given a home around 2,500sq ft, you'd need 40 homesworth, which means roughly 2 of these units, which is a considerable amount of space (37 foot reflectors and all). Round up and you can sell energy back to the grid, making it cheaper to run these things. This also is probably a huge over-estimate; an entire house uses 1kWh. Air conditioning definitely takes up a portion of that, but so does incandesent lights (which hopefully in your 100,000sq ft building would be energy effecient florescents), ovens, water heaters, and computers.

      To me, it doesn't sound that inpractical. As long as you can afford to drop the down payment on them (and probably get a huge tax write off for saving the environment), you could power your huge building and have an interesting rooftop to show the neighbors/new employees/whatever else your building might be used for. Too bad these things need such a source of direct sunlight though.. it'd be neat to stick a small chunck of radioactive material, heavily insulated in all but one direction: the direction of the Sterling engine. Super cheap, no-refills needed power. Of course, our government would have a fit...

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    2. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sunlight runs solar devices. So if it's hot and humid the device will not run as well as it would if it were cool and clear.

    3. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      You don't need to generate electricity to run airconditioners to cool a building down. All you need to do is cover the whole city with a giant mirror to reflect the solar heat back up into space.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    4. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by nmos · · Score: 1

      Birds have problems with windmills and windows so I can only imagine the havoc such a big ass mirror would cause.

    5. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by updatelee · · Score: 1

      never mind a mirror, imagine thease 47' parabolic reflectors, Id like to see a bird fly past one of these ... poof burnt bird.

    6. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by nmos · · Score: 1

      Smells like dinner:)

    7. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Instant KFC...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    8. Re:1 37' reflector makes 25KW ? by ctr2sprt · · Score: 1
      How many 25KW units will you need to air condition a 100,000 sq. ft building ?
      Depends on what it's used for. A smallish data center can require a megawatt or more for cooling.
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by geekee · · Score: 1

    " Once again, other countries are moving ahead, acquiring tomorrow's technology. Meanwhile, the US remains more dependent than ever on Big Oil.
    "

    I didn't know California had seceded from the Union. Certainly plenty of people there that would like to.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
  32. Queue Homer by Zzyzygy · · Score: 1

    from the to-melt-even-the-largest-chocolate-bar dept.

    Mmmmmmmmmmmmm, chocolate.

    -Scott

    --
    My other sig is a Glock
  33. Awesome by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    This is the sort of stuff I read Slashdot for. I'm so freaking excited right now. A few days in the past few years I've really sat down and thought about Solar Energy. I thought of ways to make solar powered distillation of pure water by creating heat differentials. I also considered macro heat differential potential of using black tires thrown away into the desert, and harnessing wind. I also thought that if a house has its own batteries, it could last through blackouts, and with solar powers, offset some of the power costs of the house. You could even take battery arrays from your car, and switch them with your house one, so your car gets new power immediately, and the old power pack starts charging. I went through many ideas, but for some reason I never thought Sterling. Now I have a ton to think about. I can't wait to get my hands on some Sterling Engines, and use magnifying glasses and mirrors to harness sunlight. I want to sit down and do the math to figure out what the most optimal configuration you need to have sunlight heat up a material. I want to figure out what the best material to heat up is, and I want to figure out what size and make of sterling engine is best to sit on it. Once you figure out the best way to run a sterling engine, all you need to do is mass produce it and sit it in the desert somewhere for loads of money. To me, this stuff is very exciting, its like an engineering breakthrough.

    1. Re:Awesome by gellenburg · · Score: 1

      It'll be okay, Jim.

      Just swallow the blue pill.

    2. Re:Awesome by deathcloset · · Score: 1

      "If you don't have a consensus that it's nonsense, you don't have a breakthrough." - Burt Rutan

      Keep up the thinking, Jim :)

    3. Re:Awesome by Shakesphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, you spent like 0.27% of tour time thinking about solar energy. That's the kind of commitment to science that will change the world. Bravo!

      --
      "I'm not the street on operas" - CrazyJim1
    4. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, this is the sort of stuff I USED to read Slashdot for. Nowadays I read sciencedaily.com and news.google.com. I spotted this on news.google.com two days ago (I did a search for solar) and submitted an article to Slashdot on it then (referencing only non-subscription pages and spelling SCE correctly). So, Slashdot finally got around to covering it. That's nice.

  34. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However Bush doesn't get credit for California's new solar power plant and he doesn't do much for nuclear power either. *shrug*

  35. Parabolic Dishes by minisimon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yeah, parabolic dishes just don't seem to come naturally. (This particular one is made from mirrors with ?5? different circular curvatures arranged parabolically, if recall correctly) Some groups have made test dishes by applying a vacuum to the backside of a thin stainless steel sheet and heating it, then keeping it under a slight vacuum. This doesn't produce a perfect parabola, but it's better than circular, apparently. Some examples are here: http://www.psa.es/webeng/areas/instalaciones/disco s.html

    1. Re:Parabolic Dishes by bjomo · · Score: 1

      did that guy just use the phrase "...slight vacuum..." ??

    2. Re:Parabolic Dishes by minisimon · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum): "In engineering, a vacuum is any region where the gas pressure is less than atmospheric pressure."

    3. Re:Parabolic Dishes by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      That'd be a catenary = cosh(). Pretty close to a parabola, as you said.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    4. Re:Parabolic Dishes by bjomo · · Score: 1

      As an engineer that works in vibration and structural dynamics of spacecraft, my first response is "that is a horsecrap definition". I suppose I simply hold to the physics definition, since the engineering context of vacuum does not come up in my line of work often.

      I'll have to ask my wife when she gets home. She is an engineer as well and this past year has started working with a product line of suction and oxygen therapy hospital equipment.

  36. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent Up. This is probably closer to the truth than the grandparent.

  37. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  38. SEC != Southern California Edison (SCE) by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    Criminy (crikey), even my slightly dyslexic self knows the difference between SCE and SEC.

    Maybe we need XE - Extreme Editing!

    Sit down with a buddy and check things out!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  39. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

    I didn't know California had seceded from the Union

    No, but they'd like to.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
  40. What about cloudy days? by IceDiver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the description of the system, the plant will only produce power when the sky is clear during daylight hours. Has anyone seen information regarding how much time the solar plant will be online and how much time it will spend offline due to night or cloud?

    Is the only backup to this system the electric grid as a whole, or will the solar plant include some kind of heat sink or other way to store energy which can be drawn on when the sun isn't shining?

    1. Re:What about cloudy days? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I would expect there's no backup. Energy demand peaks when the sun is shining and everyone turns on their air conditioners. Power companies are falling over themselves trying to either lessen peak demand or supply it more cheaply. Solar is a natural fit.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:What about cloudy days? by WOV · · Score: 1

      The other SEGS plants use natural gas to hybridize during poor weather, but they're sited such that that's very infrequently.

      The SES dishes have shown the ability to hybridize with natural gas (or landfill gas,) but I bet it's much cheaper and easier to put a rapidly-dispatchable natural gas plant in onsite to firm capacity.

      Salient point: much easier to predict the wather two days from now, and the overall status of a hundred distributed dishes, than it is to predict the safety status of a 1 GW nuclear power plant...

    3. Re:What about cloudy days? by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

      There are very few cloudy days in southern California... :)

  41. Broils buzzards by Bit_Squeezer · · Score: 1

    And causes rattle snakes to be torpid in the shade. May as well hang it up.

  42. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Sephiriz · · Score: 1

    Unconstitutional? Do you say this because the Constitution doesn't address energy needs? If such is the case (and correct me if I'm wrong), then you should read up on constructionism (broad vs. strict).

    A large part of our government is built up on things not mentioned in the Constitution, but are instead seen as constitutional due to the elastic clause, which kinda says that if nothing is mentioned, then you just assume the power may have been granted anyway.

    But in case you were talking about something else, I just pretty much wasted 2 minutes typing this. Oh well!

  43. Stirling Engine Inventor by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    from a related article:

    A LITTLE-known invention by a Church of Scotland minister almost 200 years ago could help to reduce the world's insatiable and ever-growing appetite for oil.

    Fuck - ya know - leave it to a fucking SCOT to design a kick ass stingy engine. Aye - ye bastids!

    But then, if it isn't Scottish- IT'S CRAP!!!

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Stirling Engine Inventor by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      it was also a scot that invented the steam engine, i forgot his name of course but we all know about stephenson who was just the first guy to stick wheels on one.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    2. Re:Stirling Engine Inventor by Ixalon · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're probably thinking of Mr 'Unit-of-Energy' himself, James Watt. However, he didn't invent the steam engine. The modern idea comes from the late 1600s and industrialised by Thomas Savery and Thomas Newcomen. However Watt did make them around 75% more efficient with a simple change to existing engines, pretty much kicking-off the industrial revolution. Pretty neat stuff!

      But yes, Stirling engines should definitely get more press; I doubt 1 in 50 people here in Scotland know of them and might only guess they hail frae doon the road thanks to their rather Scottish name.

    3. Re:Stirling Engine Inventor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then, if it isn't Scottish- IT'S CRAP!!!

      Typical scottish racism..

  44. Easy bomb target...dependancy by ILKO_deresolution · · Score: 0

    title said it all...a cruise missile could take that bitch out dude. fall right over. ummm but i guess if were at war ... getting invaded its nuclear time right boys? thank god for terrorism...not!

    --
    I tip toe like rats on vouge runnways.
    1. Re:Easy bomb target...dependancy by hey · · Score: 1

      Luckily conventional power plants are immune from bombs....not.

    2. Re:Easy bomb target...dependancy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need for Cruise. Just sprinkle several tons of coal dust (waste by-product from coal mines) or any other kind of dust to cover the mirrors and stop the heat. Then shoot the employees running with mops wiping the glass.

  45. Reality check by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative
    Reality is that they've installed six dishes at Sandia, with a peak output of 150KW. Southern California Edison is talking about installing 40 dishes, with a peak output of 1MW. If those work, maybe the 20,000 dish gigawatt facility might happen.

    There have already been two big solar projects in Southern California Edison territory, called Solar One and Solar Two. Both were so expensive to operate that they couldn't even cover their operating costs, let alone their construction costs.

    1. Re:Reality check by WOV · · Score: 1

      All of those things are true. However.

      In an environemnt where people would tear your legs off for equivocating 802.11b and g , comparing a field of 37' Stirling dish engines built in 2006 to a pair of skyscraper-sized devices filled with pumps of molten salt solution, driving a conventional power plant's steam generating gear, and surrounded by a field of heliostat-tracking mirrors seems like not enough of a distinction...I have my own skepticisms about SES, but Solar One they ain't.

    2. Re:Reality check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A few years in Spain, a new series of solar pilot plants was built that does break even. They learned from California's problems. Advanced engineering on these new plants allowed them to use hot air rather than high temperature hot oil. Silicon carbide collectors allowed beat various engineering problems. Their next step is to scale up to fullsize installations.

    3. Re:Reality check by BigBadRich · · Score: 1

      Can they make a 1.21 gigawatt generator? Imagine the implications for the automotive industries! Now with added time travel!

    4. Re:Reality check by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Solar I and Solar II were engineering prototypes. Y'know to see if it'd work and how well. They weren't production power plants.

      --
      Deleted
    5. Re:Reality check by Big_Breaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually they ARE pretty much the same thing.

      Heliostats are just mirrors with trackers. Each SES unit is.... a mirror with a tracker.

      The only difference is that the SES system has the heat engine attached to each unit while the Solar One "power tower" configuration has only heat engine. Molten salt is used as a storage and transport technology but the real engineering is in the steam turbine, a technology which is extremely mature.

      While sterling engines and steam turbines work differently, they are both heat engines and are subject to the same limitations (moving parts and Carnot efficiency).

    6. Re:Reality check by WOV · · Score: 1

      Theoretically correct, practically not legitimate.

      Comparing a one-off one megawatt custom system that pumps corrosive molten salt up twenty stories to run through a massive complex capillary radiator and back down - to a gas *external* combustion process that occurs in a refrigerator-sized modular unit, and comparing aiming one heliostat to point at the sun and four hundred to point to the same place is not a visionary refusal to get caught up in the details - it's a complete failure to acknowledge the realities of power engineering.

      If they're just both mirror tracker systems with heat engines, then Three Mile Island and my backyard propane generator are both just heat engines subject to the same limitations, and if one didn't work, the other shouldn't either.

    7. Re:Reality check by Animats · · Score: 1
      Stirling Energy has never done anything but engineering prototypes. They sell no products. They've been in business for a decade. They bought the technology after McDonnell dumped it in the 1980s; they didn't develop it. From their web site: "The Stirling Genset product lines are still under development and projected for market introduction in late 2003." They can't even keep their vaporware hype up to date.

      If they actually sold a mirror dish/engine system and had a few real installations (not DoE-funded demos) they might be worth taking seriously.

      There's no problem building a solar powered Stirling cycle engine. It was first done over a century ago. Toy sized ones are available. Getting out enough power to make it profitable, though, is hard.

    8. Re:Reality check by Big_Breaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The tracking is more difficult for the heliostats - I agree there - bank shot versus a straight shot. No combustion takes place in either system. Combustion requires the oxidation of fuel, no?

      Anyway I have my degree in EE and work at a company that has invested billions into power projects so I do know this field. Power towers (solar one), linear concentrators (trough concentrators), and these sterling units are generally grouped together as solar thermal. They all use solar energy to heat a transport fluid which in turn powers some sort of heat engine to run a generator. While the implementations are different, the various methods share a great deal of technology and none of it is especially hi-tech.

      Solar suffers from the fact that insolation has low power density. Concentrating that power has efficiency and cost challenges which point to clever uses of low-tech materials and mechanisms, not hi-tech ones. For instance in Solar One it is the heliostats that cost the money and most of that is in the mechanics of the tracker. A single computer can control any number of trackers and the calculations are quite simple geometry, so the "bank shot" problem need only be solved once for any size system.

      Extracting power from hot fluids has been mature for some time now with only incremental improvements possible due to the Carnot limit. Molten salt as a transport fluid and the elevation of the target are not, in any way, major challenges. Wind turbines are far taller, heavier and more complex. Lots of mainstream heat exchange systems operate at higher temperatures and pressures.

      Solar One exists on a grand scale already and is an important project but shouldn't be treated with undo reverence. It is just one step towards practical solar power and may in fact be a dead-end.

      These Sterling units are self contained and modular. You can add power incrementally, as needed. With power towers you need to size the target and generator according to a certain power level and then deploy all the required heliostats to maximize efficiency. With these you just keep adding modules.

    9. Re:Reality check by WOV · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think we agree more than disagree. I think the power towers *are* a dead end - the working fluid is heinous to handle, the plant itself is much more vulnerable to single points of catastrophic failure, it brins NIMBYs the dishes don't, and it's not that suspectible to manufacturing economies of scale. I think it's a bad application of big power plant thinking to a diffuse and distributed resource.

      Where I will argue with you is that the economic failure (and failure they were) of a hundred=plus kW power tower has any bearing on the prospects of a field of dozens of 25-kW engines operating on entirely different principles throughout...

    10. Re:Reality check by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      Indeed, I think we can entirely agree... The sterling concept should have a full shot. Because it is modular, a smaller array is a very good indication of how a much larger array would perform. This is very unlike a power tower configuration where the total size effects the concentration factor, which effects the heat of the transport fluid which effects everything on down the line.

      The comment on big power plant thinking is well put. Small can be beautiful. With solar you can't avoid the land area requirements so naturally lends itself to low density areas and smaller installations - at least until we can solve the line loss problem.

  46. Screw Mechanical Stuff by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    Solar Cells are more efficient and that is where the focus should be. Discuss. (Or... flamefest as it were) ;P

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:Screw Mechanical Stuff by WOV · · Score: 1

      Thermodynamic efficiency is almost 100% irrelevant in a zero-fuel-cost environment. Sunlight is zero $ per gallon; burn as much as you want to make me my kilowatt-hour, my concern is equipment cost and capacity factor.

      As long as it's at least 10% efficient, the space requirements are reasonable, and it all comes down to cost per Watt; a $12/ Watt 30% efficient solar panel is no bargain compared to a $6 / Watt 10% efficient one.

    2. Re:Screw Mechanical Stuff by Archimboldo · · Score: 1

      Based on a quick Google of online literature, I don't think solar cells are more efficient than stirling engines. Both have current production efficiencies of about 16% and both have theoretical maximum efficiencies of 30%.

  47. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by TooncesTheCat · · Score: 1

    Don't these things require sunlight to operate....I really don't believe California gets sunlight 365 days a year.

  48. Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is why this project must be blocked as many other solar power projects have been in the past. This system is absolutely horrible for the environment.

    According to Greenpeace, every acre of farmland kills 10,000 animals when it is created. This horror will kill just as many or more.

  49. Solar/Sterling on a lake? by grumling · · Score: 1

    I often thought it would be easy to build a sterling engine on a deep mountain lake. Since the tempature would not go very high at the bottom of the lake, it should be possible to pipe cooling fluid to the bottom of the lake. This way it wouldn't need as much of a solar reflector, or a greater amount of energy could be produced, due to the greater difference in tempatures. Just run glycol pumps off the driveshaft, one for hot, one for cold, blow air across a radiator and into the chambers. Any reason it wouldn't work (other than a warming of the bottom of the lake) on Lake Powell or Lake Mead?

    --
    "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    1. Re:Solar/Sterling on a lake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something similar has already been done with differing temperatures in the sea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTEC

      One potential problem of using small heat differences as with lakes and such is that heat engine efficiency drops as the difference in temperature between the hot end and the cold end of a heat engine gets smaller:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_heat_engine#Ef ficiency_of_real_heat_engines

    2. Re:Solar/Sterling on a lake? by ArmyOfFun · · Score: 1

      /. posted a link to a story a little while ago where a guy built a model of something similar, with plans to scale things up massively. But I think his plan would only work with depths you can only get in the ocean (I could be wrong).

    3. Re:Solar/Sterling on a lake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cornell does something like this already with Lake Cayuga (could be one of the other lakes, but pretty sure it's Cayuga).

    4. Re:Solar/Sterling on a lake? by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Any reason it wouldn't work

      The cost of pumping a large volume of water that distance, combined with the small ammount of power you'd get from the minimal tempurature differences.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Solar/Sterling on a lake? by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      It would be more logical and efficient to build them near good geo-thermal areas. The temp differences would be greater still, enabling you to use smaller, more "portable" equipment.

      --
      What?
  50. Stirling Sun Power has been around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See the book "The NExt Great Thing", a pretty good book, was written in 1994 about a company that was working on this back then, and still works on Stirling engines.

    http://www.sunpower.com/enthusiast/tngt.html

    BTW, Stirling engines make great heat pumps (aka, air conditioners) for certain situations.

    1. Re:Stirling Sun Power has been around by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Heh. I have a July 1965 issue of Popular Science that has an article Amazing No-Fuel "Space" Engine You Can Build.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  51. Increase efficiency with fresnel lense by tralfaz2001 · · Score: 1

    Just spit balling but couldn't fresnel lense technology (Giant Fresnel Lense) be used to increase efficieny, or reduce the size of the dish. Then use fly wheel technology to store excess energy for night time use.

    1. Re:Increase efficiency with fresnel lense by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just spit balling but couldn't fresnel lense technology (Giant Fresnel Lense) be used to increase efficieny, or reduce the size of the dish. Then use fly wheel technology to store excess energy for night time use.

      The fresnel lens could reduce the surface area of the mirrors, but not of the over all area. The amount of light energy from 1 acre is the same whether you condense it using a lense or a mirror. In addition, with the extra complexity and cost of the lens, you might as well just stick with a mirror (plus the lenses are probably more fragile).

      As for the fly wheels. Think about how big and how many flywheels you would need in order to store 3gigawatt hours. That is 250Mwatts for 12 hours. Plus inefficiencies in the bearings and conversion of the power would reduce the stored energy.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  52. CNAME by imag0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...Yes, we require you to put the www on the front of it...

    Then you have a brokeass CNAME entry which goes against the RFC's, if I recall.

    Do the internet a favor and just say no to worthless CNAME crap. A browser will get to the right place without that dumbass "www" tacked to the front of a domain name.

    1. Re:CNAME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your rant isn't reasonable.
      The poster should have gotten the URL right.

    2. Re:CNAME by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Then you have a brokeass CNAME entry which goes against the RFC's, if I recall.

      You don't really know much about DNS, do you?

      www.edisonnews.com is a CNAME for d083489.edisonnews.com. There is nothing "broke ass" about it.

      edisonnews.com has no DNS entry whatsoever (excluding SOA, obviously).

      > A browser will get to the right place without that dumbass
      > "www" tacked to the front of a domain name.

      Who says that machine d083489 is the right place?

      Additionally, even if edisonnews.com. CNAME d083489 was inserted in the DNS, the site *still* might not work -- it would only work if www.edisonnews.com was the default site for that web server. Otherwise, he'd had to add another vhost to his httpd.conf-equiv. And given that he's running IIS, that might be a chore. ;)

      Incidentally, what RFC w.r.t CNAMEs are you talking about? The only relevant guidelines which pop to my head are an RFC in the 1300-range or so (been a while) discussing the use of CNAMEs with MX records and such. (MX to CNAME ist verboten, but has nothing to do with web traffic)

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  53. About fucking time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cheap to manufacture. Negligable maintenance. Absolutely no polution streams, unlike so-called clean nuclear fission (solid waste polution) or solar panel (semiconductor manufacturing is quite dirty) based power generation.

    It's about goddamn time someone built a solar powered stirling engine based power plant!

  54. Give & Take by topical_surfactant · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sterling engines don't require the nasty manufacturing processes of photovoltaics. This is great because it takes some rather dangerous chemicals and a lot of electricity to manufacture the typical solar cell. I read somewhere that a solar cell will only pay for its manufacture ($$$ + enviro cost) after 20 years of operation. Can't remember where I saw it...

    Photovoltaic cells have no moving parts. Anything with moving parts _will_ wear out faster than a solid-state solution. I wonder how competitive the industry will be in the future...

    1. Re:Give & Take by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Recent estimates say between 5 and 10 years.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  55. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Yes they do. But they are not designed for a 24/7 dutycycle. But systems like this will work wonders during peak usage periods during the summer.

  56. OPEC is a US based organization by JustAnotherBob · · Score: 1

    Our anti-trust and anti monopoly laws only apply to firms that are based in the United States, OPEC is "The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, it is made up of eleven developing nations, whose economies rely on oil export revenues." Because even if we were to levy fines against OPEC, we would still have to buy their oil to satisfy our countries demand, and when we do buy it from them they will just "pass the cost onto the consumers" ie. back to us.

  57. Not Exactly! by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

    The solar power plant is not exactly being built on the Amazon rainforest. Why you even bother to make such a weak argument is beyond me.

    1. Re:Not Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you have no trouble with the killing of 45 million (4,500 * 10,000) animals? Hilter only killed 6 million. This act of mass destruction makes SEC 7.5 times worse than Hitler. I bet you vote Republican.

      Skinner

    2. Re:Not Exactly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know it's time to lay down the crack pipe and step away when your supposed-to-be political rant becomes nonsensical gibberish that no one can comprehend.

  58. Nuclear power plant footprint by benhocking · · Score: 1

    Neglecting uranium mining, etc., the footprint that a reactor requires can be quite small. We used to have one on the Georgia Tech campus. At the time, the campus itself wasn't even 7 square miles. (They've made a lot of additions recently, but they're probably still not even close to 7 square miles.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Nuclear power plant footprint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, yeah. I know. I went to Virginia Tech and we had one there once in the physics building but since that time I think I've heard that they have decommissioned it. I was told that it used a different kind of uranium than commercial reactors and that if you had enough of it, you could make a bomb. They were afraid that the fuel could fall into the wrong hands. When I was there, there was no security at all. Just a lock on the door. And the physics building itself was open 24 hours a day.

      I've been to the power company's reactor site at Lake Anna in Louisa County, Virginia. The reactor buildings and surrounding buildings maybe only occupy about a couple dozen acres. But the acerage of the entire operation is huge, mostly woodlands with security fences.

  59. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the constitution says anything not mentioned in the constitution is a power of the individual or of the individual states, not the federal government!

  60. Or two Government buildings... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK sarcasm, but still, where does government and medical get off with buildings that have features that many of their constituents can't afford? New, fully carpeted, air conditioned (in the North), lights on all the time despite the green rules. Noticed the judicial and medical taj-mahals that are being built all over? How about new fleet cars...

  61. Okay, I'll bite... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

    Solar cells are not more efficient.

    Incident sunlight is ideally around 1000 Watts/Square Meter. This is almost 100 Watts/Square Foot. The best solar cells have efficiencies of 20%. That means 20 Watts/Square Foot for solar cells.

    These dishes are 37 Feet wide, 1075 Square Feet total. The article cites 25,000 Watts per unit. That's 23 Watts/Square Foot.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  62. That's 18.2 square kilometers by msevior · · Score: 1

    Dammit you Americans always use the stupidist units.

    There is about 1 KW of radiant energy that falls on a square meter of ground on a bright sunny day.

    So given that this thing covers 18.2x10^6 square meters there is 18.2 GW of sunlight intercepted by this area.

    Given that this thing produces 0.5 GW of power it's around 2.7 % efficient at turning land area into electricty.

    I need some links to determine the total efficiency of the system but it appears that these things are placed a reasonable distance apart.
    I imagine that since they're placed above ground and track the sun, (so their shadows move on the ground, that the environmental impact may not be too big.

    This system will no doubt be a useful addition to the electricty GRID but the GRID still needs base-load generators to cover night and cloudy days.

  63. Battery-powered housing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    [CrazyJim1 wrote:] I also thought that if a house has its own batteries, it could last through blackouts, and with solar powers, offset some of the power costs of the house.


    You might be interested in Real Goods, which has been around since the early seventies (?) instructing people how to build private solar arrays for powering homes. They use solar arrays to feed batteries which then power the house. People can live "off-the-grid".

    Their http://www.solarliving.org/design.cfm>Solar Living Center in Hopland, California, is an experimental working design. It's quite interesting (but it's a LONG drive from, say San Francisco). The walls are insulated with bales of rice hay or something, and I went there in the summer many years ago and it was quite cool (temperature wise). In fact, they are "on-the-grid" because they generate enough electricity that they sell the excess to the power company! The exterior is a nice sea shell design, which brings to mind that convention center in Australia (can't remember the name off the top of my head).

    It's very "Northern California" hippy-esh, with awnings made of hemp, and communal Solar Day celebrations, which to me run a little bit on the wacky side. But I think their heart's in the right place.

    1. Re:Battery-powered housing by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Its interesting that you say about them selling electricity back to the power company during the day. I was considering that or a dynamic system where part of the battery would be used during the night, and recharged during the day. If you stop to think about the algorithm for how much of the battery should be used during the night, it would be quite complex. It could be as easy as: Use 50% of the battery... To as complex as something that uplinks to the weather forecast, and downloads the data for the area to calculate the projected recharge that will happen in the next day...

    2. Re:Battery-powered housing by GypC · · Score: 1
      brings to mind that convention center in Australia (can't remember the name off the top of my head)

      They turned the Sydney Opera House into convention center?! The bastards!

  64. Photos and Movie here... by Timbotronic · · Score: 1
    Edison has some good images here

    There's also a Flash movie of the reflectors tracking the sun here (Their link's busted)

    --

    One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

  65. Stay tuned for next week! by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1
    China: My solar array is bigger than YOUR solar array!

    Bush: Don't mess with Texas!

  66. Gas now at $3.09/gallon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in my community (Palo Alto, CA). The Shell stations in the area changed their prices today, and the Shell on Lytton is the price leader at $3.09/gal for the hi-test stuff. Moving north on El Camino, the price drops to $3.00/gal at the Shell on 2nd ave & El Camino. What ya bet we see $3.50/gal by end of 2005?

  67. You expect me to believe... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    ...that the Swedes have a navy?
    A military navy? Come on, stop making crap up.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  68. Cooling? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The pictures have huge dishes to collect heat, but what about the other end? How do they keep the cool part of the cycle cool?

    I was expecting to see the engine behind the dish (receiving light via a secondary mirror) and big radiator fins attached to the engine in the shadow of the dish.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    1. Re:Cooling? by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 0

      Just a guess but it probably uses a liquid heat exchanger located somehwere else.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
  69. Just did a couple quick calculations... by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and based on a 37ft dia dish, 20,000 count we're talking 21,504,183 sqft of total collector area. Divide that into 500,000,000W, the projected peak output of the installation, and you end up with around 23W per sqft.

    Now I could swear I've seen a higher efficiency per sqft specified using a related but different technology: steam turbines. I can't find the link right now, but I was hoping to build one of these things one day myself to take some real world measurements. The projections I read admittedly may have been inaccurate which is why I want to build my own to find out, but the project site was claiming the potential to pull approaximately 3KW of usable power out of a steam turbine from a 6 ft diameter parabolic dish.

    There are a few completed collector dishes out there in this size and they are making between 600-1100 deg fahrenheit at the focus where a heat exchanger is placed to boil water into steam pressure which drives a turbine. The only thing that leaves me questioning the accuracy of the projections is that the turbine is a somewhat unconventional one, called a "Tesla Turbine".

    Nonetheless, if the figures are remotely accurate, you'll find that a 6ft dish putting out 3KW is worth over 100W per sqft. I believe this possibility alone makes it well worth examining the potential for higher thermal conversion efficiency than the sterling engine model because it could potentially reduce the size of this installation to 25%... or quadruple the output!

    Regardless, both approaches are quite fascinating because they're so simple - it's mind numbing that nothing like this is yet operational. It's so technologically unsophisticated that it could be built and installed nearly anywhere. Even the sun tracking circuit can be done on the cheap for about $25US in bits & pieces.

    1. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      Regardless of the efficiency differences, you have to remember that Stirling engines are much less prone to failure than steam engines. That's the whole reason they were created - to find a safer steam engine. No high pressures, no valves, no seals in high-temperature areas.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    2. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by whovian · · Score: 1

      ... and based on a 37ft dia dish, 20,000 count we're talking 21,504,183 sqft of total collector area. Divide that into 500,000,000W, the projected peak output of the installation, and you end up with around 23W per sqft.

      Typical solar panels give about 70 mW/sq.in, which equates to about 10 W/sq.ft.

      It goes to show how much energy can be lost in absorption processes compared to reflective.

      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    3. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      a 6ft dish putting out 3KW is worth over 100W per sqft.

      100W per sq. ft. is the maximum amount of energy that strikes the Earth at the equator, with no clouds. Other locations will be less.

      On top of that, a steam turbine (and any heat engine) is limited by the Carnot efficiency, which, theoretically, can reach 50%. A steam turbine can't theoretically be any more efficient than a stirling engine.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      Not a steam engine, a steam turbine. A steam engine contains reciporocating parts like the stirling engine does. A steam turbine is a high-RPM rotational shaft like you might find on a hydro turbine.

    5. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      Now that figure is what I was looking for. If 100W/sqft is the peak energy potential at the equator then there's no way this other thing grabs 116W/sqft anywhere on the planet. So the projected numbers I mentioned are wrong - thank you!

    6. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      On top of that, a steam turbine (and any heat engine) is limited by the Carnot efficiency, which, theoretically, can reach 50%

      Incorrect, the theoretical limit is 100%.
      Th->inf and/or Tc->0

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
    7. Re:Just did a couple quick calculations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you are correct. Mea culpa.

  70. A couple of good reasons... by Goonie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't find the reference, but part of the problem is that the US nuclear regulatory regime is designed around the assumption of monolithic, large light-water reactors. The idea of a modular system where you can add another reactor module quickly doesn't fit in with the approval process, removing one of the biggest advantages.

    Secondly, US companies aren't developing PBMR designs; South African and Chinese ones are. Funnily enough, the subsidies for nuclear R&D and deployment currently floating around Washington are aimed at the American nuclear power industry, not its foriegn competitors.

    Mind you, if Westinghouse's cost estimates on its new AP-1000 power plant design turn out to be it's going to be pretty competitively priced anyway. Pebble beds aren't the be-all and end-all. One concern is whether there'll be enough helium available to run them...

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  71. Cheap Parabolic Dishes (in a relativesense) by Redge · · Score: 5, Informative

    A company in Australia is developing this type of technology for self-contained power generation in remote locations (and 3rd world countries/natural disaster areas). They are using a parabolic dish made from mirror polished bands of stainless steel. Stainless steel (while expensive) stands up to bad weather much better than glass mirrors - and by making the dish with bands (with gaps in between them) you reduce the effect that wind had on the dish.

    They are making a dish that isn't affected by wind (except for wind that flattens buildings) doesn't get damaged by hail (unless it's bigger than a cricket ball) and is only 5% less efficient than the same size mirror dish. They don't have a website worth mentioning - but they are developing all this in conjunction with the CSIRO - so you may find something here (CSIRO) http://www.csiro.gov.au/ about it all. Look for Sterling engine power generation. The CSIRO did publish something recently in a subscription only publication about this.

    In case you were wondering how I know - my brother works for the small electronics firm that came up with the parabolic dish idea. They have also come up with a sun tracking mechanism that costs $15 to manufacture.

    Pity a 5KW generation system costs $25000 all up - but they expect it to last for 25 years or more.

    All dollar figures here are Australian Pesos.

    Oh yeah - they get around the "How do you generate electricity at night without sunlight light" issue, by using the dish to heat up 300KG (or so) of salt and graphite - which then acts as a heat battery. Apparently they can run the Stirling engine for 3 days or so after the Salt Cell gets to about 900 degrees centigrade.

    1. Re:Cheap Parabolic Dishes (in a relativesense) by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      Pity a 5KW generation system costs $25000 all up - but they expect it to last for 25 years or more.

      so that works out to .0000228 cents per KW/hr or pretty darn cheap... of course there's maintenance costs too...

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    2. Re:Cheap Parabolic Dishes (in a relativesense) by zardo · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that, it seems like edison would still need extra petrol generator capacity in case there were not enough sun for a few days (either that or a gigantic battery). I think there would be less demand for energy when there is not much sunlight, the temperature is cooler and people switch over to their furnace.

  72. Solar energy by M$+Agent+2 · · Score: 1

    Some one commented on using a fly wheel to store energy for night time use when the sun sets or I presume for a cloudy day. I would think they use some sort of heated block of something under the water or what ever it is to store heat energy for night and cloudy days. I would like to see more of these types of power plants in the future but whats more pressing is the use of Geothermal energy its not just a power plant but potentialy saving lives... I speak of course of the huge valcano under Yosemite national park. I can imagine that one could put in several power plants there and use all the destructive energy for good. Also releaving nature of some of its visitors but hey im sure if it blows up and half the state dies that might also cut down a little on tourism...

  73. Mass transit by darkonc · · Score: 1

    You don't need to have your transit systems nation wide. Canada has much less population density than the US, but still manages to put together a decent public transit system in most of it's larger cities (at least, compared to what I've seen in the US). It takes some work to put up the investment, but it's going to be worth it in the long run. For most commuting needs, Single cars are a waste of energy and time.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    1. Re:Mass transit by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      still manages to put together a decent public transit system in most of it's larger cities

      lol. certainly not in Vancouver.

      Of course, we don't believe in building roads either.

    2. Re:Mass transit by ianmh · · Score: 1

      Not in Toronto either. Which city in Canada has a good Transit? I'll move there. lol. :)

      --
      www.ianhoar.com My blog about geeking out.
    3. Re:Mass transit by darkonc · · Score: 1

      As I said -- compared to what I've seen in the US (west coast, mostly). Compared to Europe, Canada has a loooonnnnngggg way to go.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    4. Re:Mass transit by HeyLaughingBoy · · Score: 1
      For most commuting needs, Single cars are a waste of energy and time.

      I don't have any data to back this up, but anecdotally I don't think so. Commuting into the large cities gets a lot of press (and the mass transit!), but there is a huge amount of commuting happening from rural to suburban areas and between suburban areas that everyone ignores because roads are wider due to more open space and there are fewer bottlenecks. But due to the longer distances and larger combinations, these commutes are poorly served by mass transit. As more and more businesses move to the suburbs to avoid urban congestion, the problem is getting worse. There are commute routes around here that I could drive in 30 minutes, but take almost 3 hours by bus, most of it waiting at the bus stop for a bus that runs once every 2 hours!
  74. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the constitution says anything not mentioned in the constitution is a power of the individual or of the individual states, not the federal government!

    Ah.. but, in its preamble, the Constitution explicitly declares that one of the its primary purposes is to 'promote the general Welfare'.

    It is therefore implied (if you believe in Constructionism) that the federal government is meant to have whatever powers are needed to work toward this goal.

    And developing and exploiting renewable sources of energy are clearly a good way to promote the well-being of people in general! QED.

  75. Pebble PLUS Thorium by pablo_max · · Score: 0

    I would much rather see a thorium reactor.
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68045, 00.html

  76. Here is an interesting alternative. by WindBourne · · Score: 1
    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  77. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by chibiskuld · · Score: 1

    The problem with the DOE, is that it's not a regulations/law making organization. Of course politicians were aware they couldn't make laws pertaining to energy, however they are allowed to create 'awareness' organizations that make 'suggesstions' to states about energy issues. The other is they are there to fund new forms of energy to be created, which is allowed under the constitution other wise we wouldn't have programs like NASA. However, it does seem like all of their funding seems to be going to oil companies for their "R&D" for new energies.. which is more than likely just a loophole for bush to pocket more of our taxpayer dollars.

    --
    ~ChibiSkuld~
  78. what about that caddy makes you look cool ? by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    For some reason i picture him as wearing a leather jacket and jeans hanging around with high school kids at a place called arnolds drive in and saying Aaaayyyyyy and sit on it.
    Cause thats what cool is. At least thats what happy days tv show thought was cool.
    One mans "cool" is another mans "tool"

  79. Not a good idea. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    This silos were not designed to last thousands of years. Instead, the best overall site in America was determined to be West Texas (lack of water, lack of earthquakes, etc). Sadly, this admin picked the wrong site and the wrong approach. Any more, I think that burning this up, is probably the best way. Then it is not anybodies back yard.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Not a good idea. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Missile silos were, and are, NOT low maintenance affairs. They leak, they sweat, crack, etc.

      burning this up, is probably the best way.

      If by 'burning up' you mean by reprocessing and reusing in a reactor for even more power, I agree. Otherwise, you do realize that incineration of radioactive material doesn't make it non radioactive? That only works with chemical waste.

      I was reading, many nuclear plant's pools are finally reaching capacity. So they're moving the older rods into new containers. Thing is, those rods start out so radioactive that they're producing something like 13 hairdryers worth of heat. This heat was one of the major concerns for long term storage. But now that they've held the waste in the active pool for so long, it's down to a fraction of the heat, such that the above-ground container doesn't need any active cooling. In another 20 years it won't even be noticably warm.

      At which point they said it would be cool enough to easily reprocess it for more fuel, or dispose of.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  80. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by tehdaemon · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Ah.. but, in its preamble, the Constitution explicitly declares that one of the its primary purposes is to 'promote the general Welfare'.

    The Preamble -

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Let me cut out the unnecessary stuff here -
    We the People of the United States, in Order to . . . promote the general Welfare, . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution . . .

    The preamble explains why 'We the People' adopted the Constitution. It has nothing to do with any powers delegated to any branch of government beyond hinting that the power is derived from the people.

    While I agree that your interpretation has been used, it is so laughably off from the plain text of the preamble that it should never be given a first thought, let alone a second one.

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  81. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    "... Bush and his pro-nuclear power plant stance. He isn't *all* about big oil."

    Right. Not just big "oil", but big "energy". Especially since it was big energy companies like Enron that were Bush's largest campaign contributors. Most of the neo-Con(artists) in general, and the Dubya regime in particular, are so enamoured of nuclear power and so quick to dismiss its greatest downside -- highly radioactive waste that has the potential to poison the environment for more than 50,000 years. No doubt it is their "rape-and-pillage" attitude, tempered with the belief that the 2nd Coming of Christ will ameliorate this problem.

    Long term, the use of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, and wave power are far better energy choices. Carbon-based ethanol and biodiesel are good shorter term replacements for coal and nuclear power. The Dubya regime's infatuation with hydrogren power is reliant upon petroleum or coal (stripping hydrogen from hydrocarbons), or nuclear plants (electrolysis of water) -- none of which is good for the environment.

    High level nuclear waste cannot continue to be stored onsite at the nuclear power plants, as is done today. The very long term (50 - 100 thousand years) physical security of containment casks, nor of the stability of the geological (salt mine) formations in Nevada proposed for storage cannot be known, or guaranteed.

    Perhaps each any every proponent of fission nuclear power, including government officials and energy company shareholders, should be required to a blood oath to task their families subsequent generations to be "keepers of the casks" for the next 50 thousand years.

    The Mohawk Indians (NE USA native people) had a saying that no tribal decision should ever be made without the consideration of the next 7 generations. It is a saying I wish our corporate and government leaders would adopt wholeheartedly.

  82. Unfortunately that is max output. Take into by dameatrius · · Score: 1

    account you get 10 hours / day you can halve that number plus, will it be producing 500 every hour of those 10 hours? No.

  83. What about the birds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since some enviromentalists found a way to complain about wind power. Will they be able to complain about birds being shot out of the sky or going blind? Seems possible.

    1. Re:What about the birds? by Col.+Bloodnok · · Score: 1

      Will they be able to complain about birds being shot out of the sky or going blind?

      That'll teach the little bastards not to crap on the mirrors!

  84. It's 500 MW != a nuclear power plant's 500MW by dameatrius · · Score: 2, Informative

    A nuclear power plant will produce on average 80-85% capacity with 90%+ uptime. Uptime for solar will be at most 50% as you only have sunlight for 10-12 hours. Then, will it be producing 100% capacity for those 10-12 hours? No.

  85. #2 wont matter as much as most heat is gas by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Thre are not all that many people in the US with electric radiant heating - I'd say most would be using gas heaters, so there would not be a big draw of electricity at night in the winter for heating like there is during the day in the summer for cooling.

    Still you raise a lot of other interesting points.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  86. Stick with the old design by zardo · · Score: 1

    Yeah I say we just use the cheapest designs. 30 years ago they had guys sitting at a station monitoring the reactor, Homer Simpson style. From what I've read, both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island could have been prevented with better sensors. Three mile island didn't coolant leak and nobody knew about it or something? Sounds like the reactor designs are perfectly fine, it's just a matter of using the latest technology to make it cheaper and safer at the same time, like Elon Musk is doing with his SpaceX company.

    1. Re:Stick with the old design by zardo · · Score: 1

      Besides that, I read a lot about Chernobyl and there were a lot of people in the surrounding area that weren't evacuated soon enough, many birth defects in the coming years, leukemia and all that, but the real sick part was how the soviets forced young men to go in there and clean it up, most of them died early. These days robots would be more effective, they would probably just encase the whole thing in concrete like they did with those islands in the south pacific where they tested the H-bombs.

    2. Re:Stick with the old design by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      3 mile island and chernobyl were two completely different kinds of reactors and two completely different kinds of accidents.

      3 mile island: Standard US reactor 30 something things went wrong simultaniously and the station crew was cutting some corners in order to get the reactor online by the end of the month. The reactor physically metlted down and was contained by the concrete and steel encasement that surrounds all US nuclear reactors in case of meltdown. US reactors (as I understand it) are incapable of going supercritical (aka boom). Amount of radiation exposure in the area that year was about 3 times higher than normal, but still way below safety levels.

      Chernobyl: New fangled design that had the capability of having a runaway critical process if the water in the reactor started to boil (in US reactors, the reactors produce less energy with less water, this one was the reverse). The water started to boil and started a runaway process. The reactor exploded and litterally blew the roof off the building. Amount of radiation release was many times normal.

      That said, there is nothing wrong with US reactors and safety procedures, so long as they are followed.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Stick with the old design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problems with 3-mile island, as with most industrial accidents cannot be put down to a single cause.

      That said, in terms of technical design, a crucial mistake was made when an indicator in the control room was connected to the control signal going to a valve. The valve was faulty and stuck open, but the operators thought that it was closed because that is what the indicator said. If a signal had been fed back from a sensor on the valve to the control room, the true state of the valve could have been known.

      Because they had faulty information, the operators came to an incorrect conclusion about what was wrong and subsequently, their actions actually made the situation worse. Later in the incident, the available information should have told them that they had made an incorrect judgement, but they were stuck in the mindset of their original decision. This wasn't entirely their own fault; better training, and a greater understanding of the design of the reactor might have helped them to work out what was happening.

      As I suggested above, these kinds of accidents usually have more than one root, and can't be swept aside with a statement like "If ... then it wouldn't have happened".

      NB. I'm sure the parent poster is aware but didn't quite make clear, the explosion at Chernobyl was not a 'nuclear' explosion, but simply a case of the pressure of the steam being greater than the vessel was designed to withstand - just like putting a sealed can of beans on a fire (And running like hell! :-).

      A fascinating book to read about industrial accidents is "Learning from Accidents" by Trevor Kletz.

    4. Re:Stick with the old design by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Of course my favorite accident was the one in the nevada desert, sorry dont remember the name. Where the control robs where pulls up to high, and flew up and impaled a guy to the ceiling. This quickly lead to control rod stops in all future reactors.

    5. Re:Stick with the old design by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Did some quick searching and found this:

      The only fatalities in the history of U.S. nuclear reactor operations occurred on January 3, 1961 at the U.S. Army's Idaho Falls SL-1 Reactor. The crew was starting this small experimental reactor (to be used as a portable steam heat facility for arctic operations) when a young officer climbed to the top of the reactor, leaned over and pulled on a reactor control rod as he had often done before to keep it from binding. But this time it came up too fast, making the reactor prompt critical. An explosion occurred in which the top of the reactor blew off and the reactor control rod blasted skyward impaling the officer to the ceiling. Two other men were also killed. There was a long delay before the bodies could be recovered because of the high radiation level in the building. Lead was placed in the coffins of the three men during the funeral to offer protection until the bodies could be buried under 8 feet of soil. (From the book "The Angry Genie, One Man's Walk through the Nuclear Age" by Karl Z. Morgan Published University of Oklahoma Press 1999.)

      Emphasis mine.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    6. Re:Stick with the old design by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Yea I knew it was an experimental reactor. Idaho though? Hu.. thought it was nevada. Thanks.

    7. Re:Stick with the old design by zardo · · Score: 1

      This is what I meant, the information was not available to the engineers. You could say the engineers should have understood the reactor design better, but I think a better solution would be a reactors that knows itself better, put more sensors over there, if any of the sensors fail, as is the case with the space shuttle, the thing has to be turned off and the sensors fixed, that way these accidents don't slip by unnoticed.

  87. "supply it more cheaply. Solar is a natural fit."? by dameatrius · · Score: 1

    You do know that solar is one of the most expensive generation methods, right?

  88. still sounds large. by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    sqrt(7.03)=2.65 miles x 2.65 miles

    That's still quite large. As a comparison a farm is typically in the neighborhood of 500 acres or so, some are in the 1000+ acre size. (see http://www.unl.edu/nac/conservation/atlas/Map_Html /Demographics/National/Average_Farm_Size_2003/Aver age_Farm_Size_2003.htm)

    --
    AccountKiller
  89. MOD PARENT UP by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

    This technique is already used to store excess electrical energy in Scotland among other places.

  90. ...ready to go big -- real big... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

    Opt-in Real Big?

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  91. Other solar options by socrates09 · · Score: 1

    A few years back there was a proposal to build a solar plant in outback australia. It worked like a giant inverted funnel, with a large gently sloping transparant outer section feeding into a steep chimney like neck in the center. Greenhouse effects heat the air underneath, pushing it faster and faster towards the chimney where turbines converted the air flow to electricity. I think it covered a few square kilometers at least, so the air flow build up over that area concentrated in the one place would produce some pretty powerful wind flows. Apparantly it would be able to produce enough power to run a number of major cities. The thing with this is that the technology is so simple. Very few moving parts and (in it's simplest form) nothing more advanced than turbines producing electricity... given the knowledge of turbines and electricity something like this could have been built thousands of years ago! I don't know what happened to the proposal or if it's still under consideration... I might do some reasearch to find out. A point that also applies to other forms of solar power... any method that ends up generating rotational motion to produce power could theoretically work 24/7, regardless of day/night cycle. If you use the generated energy to rotate a very heavy flywheel, in theory this could gain enough rotational inertia during the day to keep turning and generating power all night. This would eliminate the need for expensive, inefficient batteries or conventional power stations. Thinking big seems to lead to effective, green power solutions that need a minimum of complex technology to work. So think big :)

  92. HIgh high do they mount the steam generators? by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · · Score: 1

    Would there be room to build houses in the shade?

    1. Re:HIgh high do they mount the steam generators? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      What steam generators? The stirling engine is completely self contained and
      uses hydrogen as the working gas. No steam. Anywhere.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  93. No coincidence, wrong state & governer. by Nymz · · Score: 1

    Bush was the governer of Texas, not California where this solor project is happening. While he was governer he signed off on energy deregulation that included a RPS (renewable portfolio standard) that helped turn Texas into the #1 creator of wind power in the U.S.

    California's deregulation plan, on the other hand, was lacking a RPS, but made up for it by explicity regulating the price of energy. We in Cali call this type of regulation, California-style deregulation.

    Trivia: Our wind farms here in Cali are #1 in another catergory though. That of killing birds, due to poor location selections. We have been assured though that more birds die by flying into car windshields, than they do by flying into windfarms. Thank goodness for statistics that put these things in proper perspective.

  94. PESN again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PESN again? Is Slashdot getting paid to post a free ad for them?

  95. The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by Draveed · · Score: 4, Informative
    The reactors at Chernobyl are not the same design of any reactors built in the US. So there's no point in bringing it up unless you just want to scare people.

    And the fears over Three Mile Island are just plain ignorance. It was a minor incident that didn't hurt anyone. Don't believe me? Too bad. The Pennsylvania court system does. After years of litigation, the courts ruled there isn't enough evidence anyone was harmed by the accident to support even going to trial.

    My favorite quote is, "The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain."
    Here's a link to the ruling - Click Me

    --
    Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    1. Re:The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, the people who evacuated the area received more radiation exposure from simply being outside than the people who just stayed in their homes near the site.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    2. Re:The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      okay then, nuclear power==good. Will you stop harassing the Iranians now?

    3. Re:The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fears over Three Mile Island may be ignorance and yes it that didn't hurt anybody however it was not a minor incident and the consequences could have been disasterous. The core of the reactor was seriously damaged after being briefly exposed and the confinanment building was seriously contaminiated. "The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately $973 million." It was a relatively minor malfunction that caused the accident!! Have a gander at this link. http://www.uic.com.au/nip48.htm

    4. Re:The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows you get more radiation when outside. That's why we geeks are so smart!

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    5. Re:The standard anti-nuclear answer. How smart! by instarx · · Score: 1

      The reactors at Chernobyl are not the same design of any reactors built in the US. So there's no point in bringing it up unless you just want to scare people.

      Wrong. There are two government-owned research reactors in Washington state that are of the Chernobyl type.

      And the fears over Three Mile Island are just plain ignorance. It was a minor incident that didn't hurt anyone.

      TMI was far from a minor incident. The NRC itself claassifies the TMI incident as a "major event" involving an uncontrolled partial meltdown of the reactor core. I can't imagine what kind of weird logic you use to call this a minor incident.

      There are also legitimate concerns about the type of reactor, the inept and incompetent management during the incident, illegal activities of the TMI owners (falsification of radiation release reports prior to and during the incident), the poor design, the non-existent emergency response plan, the downright lies told by TMI and the governor and about the possibility of a leak, and the possibility that it may happen again with more dire consequences.

      I was a part of the nuclear air-cleaning industry at that time and I know for a fact that it was only by the slimmest of margins that a failure of the activated-carbon air scubbing system was avoided that would have led to a major atmospheric release of radioactive material. You want to know the really scary part? The release was prevented only because the control valve for the air cleaning system was installed wrong to begin with - the control-room panel indicator read closed when the valve to the auxilliary carbon-scrubber unit was really open (it had been open for years and they did not know it). When the main carbon bank was in danger of catching fire because of the heat of the radio-activity trapped there, the operators tried to open the auxilliary unit to bypass it. But because it was wired wrong the valve really tried to CLOSE! Luckily, and this is the really scary part, because the valve had been installed 45 degrees in the wrong direction it would not fully close. This alone allowed enough air to bypass the main unit preventing the fire. This comedy of errors alone does not give me much confidence in the nuclear power industry.

      However, even a failure of the air cleaning system would have been miniscule compared to the breach of the containment vessel, which was also averted only because of a mistake. Incredibly, penetration of the containment vessel was slowed by construction errors that had left voids in the concrete containment vessel wall. Had the wall been constructed as designed it would have been penetrated by the molten core.

      Only a fool points a gun at his head, pulls the trigger, and then when it misfires says "Oh, that's clearly safe, let's do it again."

  96. clockwork alignment? by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    so a stirling engine converts heat into torque. if you tried to mechanically power something directly it wouldnt go too fast but you could stick a clockwork mech on the end and then release the stored energy as and when you like... e.g. for rotating the dish!

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  97. It can power 500,000 homes at noon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When fewest people are at home, so the power is least useful. This system can power about 0 homes in the evening when most people are at home.

    So it *CAN* power all these homes, in theory, but it CAN'T in practice.

    1. Re:It can power 500,000 homes at noon by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/marketToday.a sp Seems to disagree with your assumption. Also remember all the hydro dams most contries have. Small Rant: At the moment most run at 100% to maximise investment, but I can imagine that during solar peak times you use solar plants and your reservoirs fill up. During solar downtime (e.g. night) then you use the existing hydro plants but in the meantime have fitted them with more generators so they can now provide all the country's power (even if it is only until they have drained their reservoir).

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
  98. $3 a gallon doesn't phase me or many here by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    We did an informal survey at the office. Most of us don't expect any changes to our driving habits until near $5 a gallon.

    Very much like all those people saying that smoking would drop like a rock at $2 a pack, then $3 a pack, and so on.

    People adjust. What will drop off isn't the driving but the luxury expenditures. Maybe one less latte per week, the smaller bouquet of roses for the wive, more beer and less mixed drinks, or buying hamburgers for the weekend cook out.

    My current car is 21 +/- in city. I didn't even blink at its mileage when I bought it simply because it still is a non-issue. If I want to save a few bucks I will ride my motorcycle (40mpg) on occasion.

    We have already in our past had over $3 gas if you adjust for inflation, what made it worse was the rest of the economy was out of control.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:$3 a gallon doesn't phase me or many here by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > If I want to save a few bucks I will ride my motorcycle (40mpg) on occasion.

      Your bike only gets 40mpg?!! My Ford Focus gets that and it's a 5 seat car!

      I thought most bikes did more like 100mpg.

    2. Re:$3 a gallon doesn't phase me or many here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, motorcyles get lousy mileage generally, considering their size. My Jetta gets better mileage than most bikes. Scooters and such get great mileage, but anything over 250cc seems to be a pig.

  99. Re:Other solar options: solar towers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think the solar tower that you are looking for is here

    http://www.wentworth.nsw.gov.au/solartower/

    Going forward to http://www.enviromission.com.au/

    They are talking of a 25MW station

    http://www.enviromission.com.au/financial/EVM%20CA 188.pdf

    and site in the USA ie Arizona

    http://www.enviromission.com.au/financial/EVM%20CA 197.pdf

  100. Stirling Kit Plans by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
    For gearheads handy with lathes and such, there were plans for a itty-bitty Stirling engine in the July 1965 Popular Science magazine, p.107. The article shows one mounted in the focus of a 18" dish, and another poked in the back-end of a 8" headlight reflector. (There was a place that sold kits, $25, but maybe Techni-Kits of NYC is no longer around.)

    Libraries possibly have that issue in some sort of micro-fiche format that hasn't suffered bit-rot yet.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  101. Rotational torque? by noidentity · · Score: 1

    "Each collector has a 37-foot-diameter array of mirrors to focus the sun's rays on the Stirling engine, which turns the heat into rotational torque for electricity generation."

    As opposed non-rotational torque?

  102. Animation by mrogers · · Score: 2, Informative
    For those like me who haven't heard of Stirling engines before, there are some nice animations here and here.

    Incidentally, the 37-foot diameter units described in the article generate 25 kW each - I wonder if they'd be suitable for domestic use?

  103. No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1, Troll
    No way the math works out on this. Let's make some very very charitable assumptions:
    • You can build a 37 foot steeerable dish for $10 grand.
    • You can borrow money for this shaky venture at 5% interest.
    • The rest of the equipment: heat collector at the focus, flexible piping, insulation, pipes, evaporators, heat sinks, pumps, working fluid, turbines, gears, cogs, lubricants, generators, buildings, staff, land all adds only $5M per 1,000 dishes, $5K per dish. { Note this requires slavery }
    • The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}.
    • They make a breakthrough and develop an efficient Stiring regenerator, which is simultaneously long and short, conductive and insulating. See : www.tinaja.com/glib/muse116.pdf
    • All that stuff cleans and maintains itself at no cost.
    So one dish generates 2KW for say an average of a third of a day-- about 3000 hrs/year. That's 6 megawatt-hours. At 5 cents a KWh that's $300 a year of income. But it costs you 15K*.05 or $750 per year just to pay the interest.

    So even making wildly impossible assumptions, you can't even pay half the interest cost, much less make any headway on the principal.

    And don't mention subsidies-- that's just throwing money away, each and every year. Nobody notices the subsidy for a small pilot project. But its not politically feasible for anything on a large scale.

    1. Re:No way, San Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At 5 cents a KWh that's $300 a year of income.

      Is your claim that $0.05 per KWh the economically correct price?

      Or, is that the price you pay due to subsidies?

    2. Re:No way, San Jose by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rest of the equipment: heat collector at the focus, flexible piping, insulation, pipes, evaporators, heat sinks, pumps, working fluid, turbines, gears, cogs, lubricants, generators, buildings, staff, land

      What do you need all that stuff for?

      With the exception of land (which you will need a lot of but it's all desert and not suited for much else) and a minimal staff, none of that junk is required.

      The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}.

      This is a little ambiguous. The theoretical Stirling engine can achieve the ideal Carnot efficiency. Real Stirlings can reach 50 percent of this maximum theoretical value.

      With a ambient (sink) temperature of, say, 110F (316K) and a temperature of 1400F (1033K - Actually a conservative estimate) our Carnot efficiency is 69.4%. A real high-end Stirling can reach 50% of that, or nearly 35% thermal. After you generate the electricity you are *still* looking at 25% overall efficiency or better.

      All that stuff cleans and maintains itself at no cost.

      Practically would! If a crew of 3 guys can take a hose truck and rinse the dust off the mirrors of each dish in ~15min, they can do about 30 dishes per day. Each dish would probably only need to be washed once a month, so 30*30 = 900 dishes a month. You'd need 23 crews of 3 men each to maintain 20,000 dishes, or 67 people. A 500MW coal plant would employ about 100. (Guestimated from here) Moreover, the people running a coal plant would have to be skilled to maintain the high pressure steam equipment, which means they would cost more. You would not need special training and licensing to operate a hose truck.

      As for the Stirling gen sets themselves, they are hermetically sealed and virtually maintenance free. You can contract out any service that might be required rather than having your own staff. In fact, I would think SES would offer a nice warranty that includes service, so if one does go down simply replace it with a spare unit (They are small and modular, you know) and send them back for service.

      The tracking systems are also fairly low maintenance and could be contracted out.

      So in light of the above, you may wish to revisit your calculations.

      They make a breakthrough and develop an efficient Stiring regenerator, which is simultaneously long and short, conductive and insulating. See : www.tinaja.com/glib/muse116.pdf

      So you based your argument on three sentences (one copied almost verbatim) from a journal that seems to deal mostly with electronics? Brilliant. You, sir, seem woefully uninformed about how Stirling engines operate. I will grant you that the regenerator is perhaps the biggest hang up when it comes to design, but by no means is it impossible to create. What you are tying to do is make a medium that stores and rejects heat quickly ("highly conductive") with minimal internal volume ("long and thin") and low pressure loss for gas flow ("short and fat") and does not create a thermal short ("highly insulating"). In practice, a stack of fine mesh stainless steel screens works quite well. I have also read storied about people stuffing the passages in the engine with brass wool to great effect.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:No way, San Jose by mrgreen4242 · · Score: 1
      Just to point out that:

      1) You may be a R.S.G. (really smart guy), but

      2) There is always someone smarter than you somewhere.

      3) As you point out, there is a ton of money involved in getting this started, so

      4) Don't you think that they would have hired some people from group (2) to go over the numbers with more detailed information?

      5) They apparantly have decided there is a good chance they will make money on this, which leads me to my conclusion,

      6) You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

    4. Re:No way, San Jose by radl33t · · Score: 1

      Another unfortunate victim of The Slashdot Syndrome... You've supplied just enough information to convince laypeople you are reputable. "The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}." Did you make this up? Clearly, you have no understanding of thermodynamics. TF% of the Stirling cycle approaches Carnot maximum. There exist engines today that run nearly 20x your given practical efficiency. Reputable critics of regeneration technology exist, but you are not among them. Allow me to summarize for those who haven't taken the time to read. The provided citation consists of one sentence in an outdated and unpublished newsletter by an author not even remotely attached to the appropriate field. Nice. Even *his* statement indicates a complete lack of understanding. A brief review of some other posts indicates you believe yourself to be an expert in many areas in addition to thermodynamics and finance. Access to information makes you a more convincing charlatan, not an expert. My purpose is not to purport "fact;" I simply aim to highlight the untrustworthiness of even convincing comments. The Slashdot Syndrome: A brain [and ego] disorder where upon the victim grows so dependent on Google, he can not see past his own fraudulent claims!

    5. Re:No way, San Jose by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      But, doesn't this scale after you build more than one. Afterall the tooling necessary to build a new car model are hideously expensive, however if you make 1 Million of them, the cost per vehicle drops. One guy can work on at least two systems, and already your maintenence labor is down by half.

      As for subsidies, we still are giving oil and coal massive subsidies (oil companies are asking for more to do exploratory drilling) so why not start up a new industry.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    6. Re:No way, San Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, they've built an array of 6 already that produces 150kw peak. That's 25kw per dish, measured, quite a bit more than your dubiously calculated 2kw.

    7. Re:No way, San Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Nobody notices the subsidy for a small pilot project. But its not politically feasible for anything on a large scale."

      Ummmm,

      the American farmer, the oil and gas industry, etc.....
    8. Re:No way, San Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The dish generates 25 kW not 2kW as you said. 25 kW seems to be about correct - calculating from dish area of about 300 square meters, sun energy of more than 1 kW per square meter on earth (actually in south areas you can get perhaps 3kW per square meter), and efficiency of about 10%.

      That bumps up dish income to almost 7000 a year, which means that at 5% interest the dish will pay your estimated price in less than four years.

    9. Re:No way, San Jose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apologize for my miscalculation above. The dish income will be 4000 a year, not 7000. The number of payout year remains about the same ...

      So change last sentence to:

      "That bumps up dish income to more than 4000 a year, which means that at 5% interest the dish will pay your estimated price in about four years."

    10. Re:No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      (4) Don't you think that they would have hired some people from group (2) to go over the numbers with more detailed information?

      Yes, the power company probably has. (5) They apparantly have decided there is a good chance they will make money on this,

      Maybe , but I suspect there's a 98% chance:

      (1) The power company knows exactly how bad this Stirling cycle power plant will perform.

      (2)The California Legislature thinks it can override the Laws of Thermodynamics with their own laws, and require utilities to try various unlikely schemes, perhaps with ridiculous subsidies.

      (3) The power company will go along, and buy options to build gigawatts, build only another small pilot plant, find out it's uneconomical, and ask the Legislature for $33.33 billion more to build up tye whole scheme. Which said solons will balk at. Power company gets off the hook, legislators look thrifty and wise, and all is well in La-La land. which leads me to my conclusion, 6) You don't hhave any idea what you are talking about. Perhaps not, but with over 200 years of dismal Stirling cycle behavior, and very little progress in the last century, I'm probably more on the ball than off it.

    11. Re:No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      When I look at web sites with names like "stirling-engine.com", "freeenergy.org", "greenpeace.org", "area51-power.org" and the like (all sites with an interest in inflating the efficiency), they crow about the Stirling's "high efficiency". That's it, no actual numbers.

      When I look at web sites like "mit.edu", "uohio.edu", and the like, the papers there go on with 15 pages of integrals and come up with efficiencies of 15-20% TOPS for carefully lab-engineered engines using very exotic materials. No idea what the efficiency would be in the real world, probably much lower.

      Guess which set of numbers I think are more likely?

    12. Re:No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      It seems you're making up a lot more stuff than I am: About the author that you disparge: Microcomputer guru and pioneer Don Lancaster is the author of 35 technical books that include two million sellers. He has also published two videos, a CD ROM, a patent, and 1800+ technical articles.

      Long a prolific author in the technical press, Don's current ezine columns include Blatant Opportunist and his GuruGrams. He authored the immensely popular Ask the Guru series in Computer Shopper, the Resource Bin series in Nuts & Volts, and the Hardware Hacker and Tech Musings columns in Electronics Now.

      Although predominately an ezine publisher at present, Don makes ongoing contributions to such magazines as Circuit Cellar and Whole Earth Review.

      Don is considered by some to be one of the fathers of the personal computer. For his outstanding early work in video display development. His T.V.Typewriter and other legendary early products are on permanent exhibition at the Boston Computer Museum.

      Don has been called the patron saint of the Walter Mitties of the world for his unique ability to make complex technology simple and understandable. His TTL Cookbook, CMOS Cookbook, and Active Filter Cookbook are industry classics. His Incredible Secret Money Machine is an alternate underground bible on small scale technical startups. Additional book info is found here.

      Don is the webmaster of his Guru's Lair at www.tinaja.com This well received site has consistently gotten accolades for outstandingly unique tech content. Don has been an Apple developer and seeder, an Adobe developer, a Hewlett Packard developer, and a Western Design Center developer. Don has done consulting work for QMS, Motorola, and many major firms. He is recognized as a leading independent PostScript and Acrobat authority. Don has a BSEE degree from Lafayette College in 1961,and a MSEE from Arizona State University in 1967. He has done postgraduate work at Carnegie Mellon and has additional formal training in fields as diverse as anthropology, photography, business law, technical illustraton, and fire science. He has fifteen years of industrial electronic engineering experience.

      So, who's got the fraudulent claims?

    13. Re:No way, San Jose by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      While I certainly would be a little leery of some sources, at least I have provided some. Would you care to share your sources?

      Unless that newsletter is your source... in which case I suggest you do a little more research. I will not claim to be any kind of expert but at least I have studied Stirling engines to a degree and even constructed a few models. At least the numbers I put forth are not *completely* out of my ass...

      So how about some actual math? Please try to follow along...

      Peak output: 25kW (Not 2kW as in your half-assed example)

      Dish radius: 37 feet. (11.2 meters)

      Solar insulation: 1000 watts/sq. meter (This is a good number since Southern California is considered a "high insolation" area)

      So the area of the dish is 3.14*((11.2)^2)/4 = 98.4704 sq.meters. Let's round this down to 95 since it's not a solid collecting surface.

      That's 95kW input to the engine. We get 25kW out as electrical power.

      (25/95) = 26% efficiency overall.

      I refer you to my previous post where I said "25% overall efficiency". Well what do ya know... we arrived at the same number using two completely different methods.

      May I offer a possible explanation about the 10% efficiency your as-yet-uncited sources claim? Their temperature gradients were nowhere near 700K, they did not operate at the 1000+ PSI pressures using hydrogen gas, and/or they were very small (tabletop) devices. If any or all of these three were the case then I'm not that surprised their efficiencies sucked.

      And you still did not touch upon all the other assertions in your original post that I called bullshit on.
      =Smidge=

    14. Re:No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      Okay, if I must rub your nose in it: "With the exception of land (which you will need a lot of but it's all desert and not suited for much else) and a minimal staff, none of that junk is required." Wrongo Bub: (1) If you don't have plumbing, you need to have a stirling engine and generator at each dish. Which is insane. You apparently don't know about the volume vs. surface area scaling principles, which make small heat engines very inefficient. The smaller you make a heat engine, the more surface area there is relative to working fluid volume. For example, if you halve the height, width, and depth of a heat engine, you have 1/8 the working fluid, but 1/4 the surface area-- twice the heat loss. Same thing with generators vs bearing friction and windage losses. That's why commercial power plants use ONE heat engine and ONE generator, both huge. By using tiny heat engines and generators you're burdening yourself with several heavy penalties. That's why I jsut *assumed* you were going to have plumbing.

      Now about not needing a heat sink: You say there's 90+ kilowatts of heat going into the Stirling engine, and the temperature difference across the engine is quite large. That implies that somehow you have a "heat sink" that can absorb 90*(1-Eff) Kilowatts while not going above a certain temperature. THAT is a non-negligible or avoidable item! We're talking major radiator there. You need a heat sink.

      "Real Stirlings can reach 50 percent [stirlingengine.com] of this maximum theoretical value."

      Hmmm, that's not a very impressive site. Mispellings, bogus physics, trying to tie into the "Segway", unimpressive products, broken links, not impressive at all. OTOH: tA group of Japanese scientists spent three years building one in the lab and could only get 19% efficiency. With an infinite cold-water heat sink. Which makes me doubt the 50% claims you cite. I'll believe it when you can point to a Stiiling engine that can do 50% efficiency, in the real world, with real-world sources and sinks, preferably for a reasonable length of time, say a month or so. then we can talk.

    15. Re:No way, San Jose by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      (1) If you don't have plumbing, you need to have a stirling engine and generator at each dish. Which is insane.

      Which, if you had RTFA (Or anything, for that matter) is exactly what they have. See that box at the tip of each dish? That's the collector, engine, generator and radiator. IIRC from pictures I've seen, the entire box is roughly 3'x3'x6' (though I may be confusing SES's production engine with some other company's design)

      The smaller you make a heat engine, the more surface area there is relative to working fluid volume.

      That is correct. That is also the reason that making a Stirling engine of any useful power output is a hefty achievement. Stirlings are external combustion, so "dead" volume in the engine is a serious killer. Making huge engines requires huge heat exchangers to get the energy through, but also increase dead volume that robs the engine of useful output. Stirlings do not scale; the design methodologies for a large engine are completely different than that of a small one.

      Same thing with generators vs bearing friction and windage losses. That's why commercial power plants use ONE heat engine and ONE generator, both huge.

      Any power plant I have ever seen typically has several gen sets, for a variety of reasons. One being redundancy, another being modular load matching ability, and another being the fact that there is an upper limit to just how big you can make things before it becomes unusable. For new plants it is actually more popular to use many smaller setups than a few large ones because matching the load by enabling/deactivating each unit gives higher plant efficiency, even if each individual generator might be a few % less efficient.

      That's why I jsut(sic) *assumed* you were going to have plumbing.

      Well you assumed wrong. Even the slightest bit of research would have cured you of that. (Incidentally, that's the website of the manufacturer discussed in the article, since I know you didn't read the article!)

      Now about not needing a heat sink

      My apologies. There was so much other bogus shit in there I missed that one. Of course you will need a means to reject unused heat: in this case, an air cooled radiator, mounted behind the engine.

      Hmmm, that's not a very impressive site.

      We've established you don't like my source. We've also established your spelling (and reading comprehension) isn't all that great either... but you have yet to cite any sources of your own other than three sentences in an electronics journal, published by some dipshit who cites as "Off-site resources" such useful and relevant websites as "Dilbert", "The Motley Fool", "Netflix" and my personal favorite "The Onion" (Hey, it's America's finest news source!). What a pro.

      And yet somehow my energy balance calc still shows 26% real sun-to-electricity efficiency, which matches the calculated Carnot from assumed (and fairly reasonable for solar applications) operating temperatures and the 50% of the Carnot efficiency claimed on the site I linked, plus a little loss for the electricity generation.

      So you cite (rather, just mention) some experiment in a Japanese lab where they got 19%. Great. What were the engine metrics? Heat source/sink temp? Working fluid? Internal pressure? Swept volume? Was it an alpha, beta, gamma or free piston configuration? I certainly don't doubt their 19% claim but we must compare apples to apples here.

      =Smidge=

    16. Re:No way, San Jose by radl33t · · Score: 1

      What does any of that have to do with Stirling engines? Solar power? Energy? Absolutely nothing.

      Give me a break. An expert in "Industrial Electric Engineering" does not qualify him as an expert in all things. Furthermore, no where in his bio do I see ANYTHING that indicates he has any training or experience in fluid mechanics or heat transfer.

      Irregardless of your (and his) confusion; the regenerator problem has not hindered Stirling engines from achieving excellent %TE (above all other heat engines.) His claims are also quite out of date in the context of research into this area. The subjects of oscillating compressible fluid mechanics and porous media heat transfer have been burgeoning fields of study for applications directly related to regenerators (see NASA), but also in many other applicable fields.

      Real experts will disarm your attempts at notoriety so long as you rely on google over a real education.

    17. Re:No way, San Jose by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Okay, I gotta eat a little crow: my numbers were a bit off. I was going by OLD numbers. The latest numbers I can find are a lot more charitable. Pls see: http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/pdfs/solar _dish.pdf > But even with these much higher numbers, the math doesnt seem to work out too swell. I get about a -120% return on investment over 20 years, using somewhat reasonable assumptions. That could turn positive if the price of transient electricity doubles, which could happen in a decade or so as a wild guess. So <crow> It just might be the time to start working on making a good economical stirling solar power system<crow>

    18. Re:No way, San Jose by Retric · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about inflation. Your loan is a fixed cost per year but the value of electricity keeps going up at ~3% a year due to inflation. Anyway, with their numbers it's ~30% efferent and 50k a unit. With vary low matence costs.

      Even if this is only close to break-even its energy costs are only going to go up and the cost to build these units are only going to go down and the efficiency of later units will probably increase. Plus they are probably getting significant tax breaks like every other power plant in the country.

  104. Don't use the electricity, use the heat by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Most of the electricity we produce is used to produce heat or cold; central heating or air conditioning.

    These things produce 25kW of electricity but as good as the Stirling engines they are using are, they're only about 30% efficient. The rest of the heat is "waste".

    Well at 30% efficiency, that's 50kW of heat being "wasted". They could increase the efficiency to around 85%, 90% by storing the "waste" heat and using it to power absorber chillers, central heating and hot water tanks.

    Look up "District Heating" and "District Cooling" on Google. Both have been in use for decades in Denmark, Finland and other European countries.

    --
    Deleted
  105. for your information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That claim, though regulary repeated by some people, was only true for the first prototypes.

    After they stopped using alumnium cases and just
    clue them together in synthetic resin that is
    simply false.

  106. no silicon is a good thing by grqb · · Score: 2, Informative

    Any solar technology that doesn't use silicon is definitely a good thing these days. The Photovoltaic industry is the "poor cousin of the microchip industry", and so microchips get all the good silicon while PV gets the leftover crap that Intel et al. don't want. For this reason, and a general shortage of poly-silicon, there is a huge shortage of PV panels all over the world. Germany and Japan gobble up all they can and at a fair price too, leaving hardly anything for the rest of the world.

    It's good to see the Stirling engine being used like this because in my opinion, the PV industry has some serious problems, especially if they have to compete with the Slashdot crowd for silicon!

    1. Re:no silicon is a good thing by grqb · · Score: 1

      Woops, I actually meant to say something in the title like: "The fact that the stirling engine doesn't use silicon is a good thing"

    2. Re:no silicon is a good thing by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      Your storyline doesnt make any sense, economically. I think this is a bit more in line with reality: Photovoltaic panels are scarce because nobody, even with huge government subsidies, can afford to pay what they cost to produce distribute and sell.

      If people were willing to pay enough $, the panels would be flying out of the factories. But using silicon for LCD screens is a whole lot more profitable.

    3. Re:no silicon is a good thing by British · · Score: 2, Funny

      If people were willing to pay enough $, the panels would be flying out of the factories. But using silicon for LCD screens is a whole lot more profitable.

      I blame Mad Mike(West Coast Customs) on "Pimp My Ride". He insists on putting as LCD panels as possible into old, broken down cars.

      I think he once put a downward facing LCD panel in an undercarriage for one customer, so he can watch tv while working on a car.

    4. Re:no silicon is a good thing by grqb · · Score: 1

      There is a silicon shortage. Overcapacity in all other materials but a shortage in silicon, this means that they can't manufacture the PV cells. Prices have gone up by 15% lately and there is still no guarantee that those people paying high prices will get their solar panels. Germany and Japan are paying top $$$ but still can't get enough.

    5. Re:no silicon is a good thing by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1
      There is a silicon shortage.

      Nonsense, there's billions of tons of its oxide sitting all over the place, on every beach. The local landscaping place will deliver it to my door for $28 a ton.

      What there might be is a temporary imbalance between the production of highly-refined silicon and the demand. More demand than supply leads to higher prices. Higher prices encourage the refiners to make more refined silicon, either by adding extra shifts, or building more capacity. That's the way capitalism works.

      Now the users of refined silicon make a judgement every day-- what can I make with this silicon? If a wafer can make 500 Pentium CPU's, worth $50,000, or one photovoltaic cell, which buyers are only willing to pay $100 for, guess which item will get made first?

  107. 500MW is not much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ...for a power plant covering 4500 acres (or approx 7 square miles). In contrast, a typical 500MW standard-fuel (gas, coal, nuke) power plant would typically cover a few acres including parking facilities. :) Solar energy just isn't as efficient as a burn, which is why it needs to be scaled up dramatically and captured through an efficient process (like a Stirling) to work.

    Fortunately, as a previous poster said, there is a *lot* of unused land in the US. Fly over the country sometime and look down - most of the land is completely unspoiled, not even a home or farm in sight. There is plenty of room to absorb this energy and convert it.

    Who knows, maybe stealing a little of the earth's solar energy will slightly abate global warmimg at the same time. :)

    1. Re:500MW is not much... by said_captain_said_wo · · Score: 1

      Comparing the space taken by these structures versus a plant which uses fuel from some other location is not interesting. You might need to consider the large underground space needed to contain a gas field, and them I'm still not sure this comparison tells you anything.

      "Unused land" assumes that space without human-made structures has no use. Plants are making food for animals and oxygen. Food and oxygen are useful. Why not use the current dead space like parking lots, roads, and rooftops for solar?

  108. PBMR coolant by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Informative
    You don't necessarily need helium; HTGR's have used carbon dioxide (British MAGNOX). If we run out of helium, we could use neon (another noble gas). It may require some small redesign because of lower thermal conductivity and viscosity, but it should not be a big deal.

    The atmosphere is about 18 ppm neon. That's one resource that's not going to run out.

    1. Re:PBMR coolant by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Hell with all those crazy helium ballons that people like to use, I bet our atmosphere is more then 18 ppm helium. Except its way up there.. HHEHE

  109. Watch the details by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    Nantucket is an island. Think about it.

    1. Re:Watch the details by derF024 · · Score: 1

      Nantucket is an island. Think about it.

      Exactly. The rest of MA is paying ~$2.20/gal for regular. MA's gas taxes are lower than, say, NY, where they're paying well over $2.50/gal.

  110. Strange by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1
    There's also this account of the accident that ends with:
    This incident included a hydrogen-oxygen explosion and the melting of some uranium fuel, yet the release was contained. It's just that the days when everything goes wrong at the nuclear plant are pretty scary.

    linky

    More information here that would suggest that the water was pumped out into a field specifically for dealing with and monitoring the waste not simply pumped out of a basement to empty the basement.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Strange by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      yet the release was contained.

      Being an industrous information-digger, I quickly found this detailed description of the accident:

      AIR QUALITY EFFECTS
      Air flowing through the calandria tubes provided one of the means of cooling the fuel rods. From the one fuel rod which was air-cooled alone, it was estimated that the fission products from an estimated 30 kg of uranium were released to the cooling air and then discharged through the stack. The wind was from the west at about 4 m/s. Staff at a neighbouring building called the control room to report that their radioactivitvy detectors were off- scale. An electrician who was up a pole adjacent to the reactor stack and who was wearing radiation monitoring film received a dose of 350 millirems. The emergency siren to stay indoors was sounded at 15h17. Extensive monitoring was undertaken downwind all that weekend, and radioactivity was detected up to 400 m on either side of the plume centreline. Traces of activity in buildings were cleaned up the following week.

      http://www.cns-snc.ca/history/nrx.html

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    2. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, 350mrem is peanuts. That's less than the fortnightly dose of a two pack a day smoker.

    3. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, 350mrem is peanuts. That's less than the fortnightly dose of a two pack a day smoker.

      neat, so it was like he smoked 500 cigarettes at once.

  111. 25% Efficiency? by dk90406 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The area of a 37' circle is 99.9 m^2, so the area of a reflector is a little larger.

    The amount of energy in sunligt at noon at the equator is approx. 1 kW/M^2, so the theoretical maximum of energy reflected is somwhere around 100 kW.

    Getting 25 kW out of that seems quite good. If the 25 kW is average and not peek, it seems even more fantastic...

    --- Henrik

  112. HOA regs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our "homeowners' association" won't allow any dish over 1m diameter. Maybe if THEY owned the dish it would be okay, but I'd hate the see the annual assessment.

  113. Moped by QMO · · Score: 1

    I'm sure my moped would do pretty well

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  114. PESN is a news organization by sterlingda · · Score: 1

    Has nothing to do with "advertising." PESN is a non-profit and is reporting on cutting edge energy technologies.

    --
    Tomorrow's news yesterday -- the bleeding, visionary edge.
  115. Why all in the same place? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    There is no reason to install these things in farms unless they are maintenance-intensive. This says a 40-unit array is rated at a megawatt, so the individual units are 25 kW each. You could put them on buildings and over parking lots (find some way to make them do double duty as lights at night, maybe using the mirrors as full cut-off shades).

    I'm trying to get a feel for the size of a parking lot, but I believe spaces are about 8 feet wide and 15 feet long and lanes are usually around 15 feet wide; a representative area would be 180 square feet per space. If you could tile a lot with collectors similar to these at 1/3 coverage, you'd get 1 unit-equivalent for every 3226 square feet or more than one for every 18 parking spaces. If each one can produce at full power for 8 hours a day, that's 200 kWh/unit/day or more than 11 kWh/space/day.

    The median commute is around 22 miles; assuming an electric or plug-in hybrid car that used 350 watt-hours per mile, the median commuter would need 7.7 kWh/day. These solar dishes could recharge the electric cars of the commuters parking beneath them, and have power left over to supply to the office the commuters work in.

    Goodbye, grid distribution losses! Hello, green suburban commuter lifestyle!

    1. Re:Why all in the same place? by MemeRot · · Score: 1

      I think one concern is safety. What is the temperature at the focal point of the parabola?

      And do you really want flash-fried birds falling out of the sky on you?

    2. Re:Why all in the same place? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Build a net/cage around it?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
  116. Are you kidding? by QMO · · Score: 1

    I think we would need two.

    Always have a backup.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
  117. Re:A few hundred years? by vertinox · · Score: 1

    (I read once that known deposits would supply the world at current power consumption for only a few hundred years)

    If we haven't figured out Fusion by 2075, we deserve to be without power. Fission should be a temporary stop gap measure so we can keep the economy going when we hit Peak Oil around 2015-2025.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  118. Re:Awesome -here you go by ScrewTivo · · Score: 1

    I found this yesterday.

    http://www.kineticbooks.com/physics/16835/24027/sp .html

    I just moved to Florida and was wondering if an old sat dish (sun heat), stirling engine and swimming pool (cooling) could produce enough power to take me off the grid during daylight hours. Last month I used about 67khw/day.

  119. Mmmm my Idea taken by LunarStudio · · Score: 1

    I had a similar illustration I created for this device I came up with over 5 years ago. Here's my version I came up with (and it's using a stirling engine fyi...): http://www.lunarstudio.com/images/dynamic/lumagen. html See the striking similarities??? They stole my idea ...damn I wish I had money to have patented it back then... I'd be retired by now.

    1. Re:Mmmm my Idea taken by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      One of their test dishes has been running continuously for over 20 years now.
      Even 5 years ago you would have been late to the game.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  120. Uh... by airship · · Score: 1

    You mean BOTH of them? :)

    --
    Serving your airship needs since 1995.
  121. Oh, that'd be circular. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    And who the crap makes circular power plants? No, a square with area seven square miles is about 2.64 miles on a side, about 10.5 miles to walk around. Still, a two and a half by two and a half mile square seems awful small to get 500 MW out of. I wonder if we can get one of those out here. (I might as well wonder when the local hydro plants will start generating electricity again...)

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  122. Thermodynamics vs Photovoltaics by Skt+Haldi · · Score: 1

    I've done quite a bit of research comparing Solar Stirlings to Photovoltaics. It may be surprising, but under most circumstances, the Stirlings are more efficient. The downside is the huge outlay for the giant dish and engine. Not to mention maintenance costs... you know... moving parts...

    However, from those of you who remember your physics classes, consider the thermodynamic efficiency of an engine set between 3000K on one end and around 450K on the other. If you do the math, you get well more than 30% input efficiency. Naturally, no engine is perfect, however these Solar Stirlings are very nice. The only friction on the "plunger" is with the working gas.

    Compare this to photovoltaics. Under laboratory conditions, the best photovoltaic designs at best only equal thermodynamic efficiency. On the plus side, the outlay is much less, with the caveat that they all wear out in 20-25 years.

    The important point here is that theoretical PV efficiency is 100%. In fact, if you look at nature, you'll find deep-ocean organisms that convert light at efficiencies well above that of current PV technology.

    So for now, thermodynamics. However, assuming PV keeps getting better (quantum dots?), the future will belong to PV.

    1. Re:Thermodynamics vs Photovoltaics by The+Creator · · Score: 1

      The important point here is that theoretical PV efficiency is 100%.

      For that you whould need a very large nuber of layers, one for each possible wavelenght of light. Otherwise, a dislodged electron is either going to overshoot(some energy that can't be utilized) or not go high enough(no energy that can be utilized).
      For the spektrum of the sun i think a single layer is limited to about 45%.

      --

      FRA: STFU GTFO
  123. Scalability. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    I wish folks wouldn't always figure out how many of whatever new tech we're talking about it would take to power the whole country. Future energy will come from a variety of sources, none of which will be able to power everything at once. Saying "to power the whole country, we'd have to cover a twentieth of Texas in these gizmos!" isn't particularly relevant or helpful.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:Scalability. by syphax · · Score: 1


      Sure it is; it gives you a sense of whether large-scale use of this type of solar-thermal would use too muhc land. If the answer was that you'd need 200% of U.S. land area to provide 10% of our electrical demand, that would tell you something.

      Using 100% of U.S. demand as a reference is entirely relevant. Please note that I did not advocate supplying 100% of electrical demand via solar (though the calcs show that you could without using an absurd amount of land).

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
  124. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  125. S.U.V. by phorm · · Score: 1

    Dude, you'll just have to ditch that dinky Toyota and get a bigger S.U.V...

    *ducks*

  126. HVDC for transporting energy by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

    High Voltage Direct Current over superconducting lines.

    Way easier than making hydrogen, transporting hydrogen, and then converting
    back to electricy. More efficient, too. Since it's DC, there's no
    syncronization problems with the recipient grid and ince it's over
    superconductors, the only loss is the energy required to keep the
    superconductors cold enough to superconduct.

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  127. Better? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm missing the point of this... but wouldn't that be better?

    I mean, I'd rather start to feel warm or get a bit sunburned and then say "whoa... a bit toasty here... better step back from the "ultrahot-megafocussing-sundish" than accidentally step in front of the ol' microwave blaster and be rendered infertile with nicely-nuked insides within a few moments...

    Increasingly unconfortable heat is a natural way of saying "don't go here, pain ahead" (plus any larger birds such as ducks/geese that do stray into the heat area would be nicely precooked for dinner)

    1. Re:Better? by Cyno01 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was my point, that small animals would be able to feel the heat and avoid it, unlike a microwave beam which theyd wander into and then pop goes the chipmunk.

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  128. $5/gallon is your own fault by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    I believe that your $5/gallon of gas in Europe is your own fault. I saw that $4 of that is taxes. Much of the US only has about $1 tax per gallon. If we taxed at that rate we too would have $5/gallon gas.

  129. 500 Megawatts eh? by emandres · · Score: 1

    500 Megawatts... that's kind of a lot, as long as you dont need 1.21 Gigawatts to charge up your flux capacitor.

    --
    The only way to tell the difference between a hamster and a gerbil is that the hamster has more white meat.
  130. 4500acres - who cares by orim · · Score: 1

    It's not like we're Luxembourg. Ever driven across the US? There's plenty of land to go around. Use some of those imminent domain rights, set up the panels in Nevada... (it's nothing but surface-of-the-moon-dirt there anyway), and we're done.

    --
    "If you could only see what I've seen with your eyes..." - Roy Batty
  131. Parabolic-sattelite-focussing-loop-weapon? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Actually, just for curiousity's sake, how much would it take to have such a thing in space used as a weapon? How much heat would be absorbed by the environment? Having a bunch of smaller focussing reflectors firing at a primary aiming reflector might make an awfully powerful beam...

  132. Net energy? by tcs · · Score: 1

    Conspicuously absent in TFA (TFPR?) are any mentions of energy cost to construct, energy break-even point, ongoing maintenance requirements, and useful lifespan. These things are made of some delicate looking stuff, mirrors get dirty and can be broken, the Stirling engines have seals that will degrade, and there are squillions of moving parts to wear out. Who's got the answers? Miracle cure or mammoth boondoggle?

    --
    /. peeve #274: The word is neither "walla" nor "whala", it's voila. Phonics is a tool of the devil.
  133. Home solar power? by phorm · · Score: 1

    How much approx would it cost to build a smaller-scale home-based solar energy source that could, say, power some small pumps or a few energy-sources in the house? Anyknow know of instructions for something like this?

  134. Sure 'bout that? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    (5*10^8)/(5*10^5) = 1000 watts per home. As long as everyone uses no more than 10 bright lightbulbs simultaneously, your estimate is reasonable. Throw in a few stoves, air conditioners, and home computers and that number drops very quickly. Anybody know what the average usage per household is in America?

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  135. What about birds....dust? by doctorjay · · Score: 0

    Know when you are driving and birds shit all over your windsheild.. .. or even dust how do they plan on cleaning ALL of those mirrors..Id imagine that they have to in order to maintain efficincy ..Damn i would hate that job...

  136. Cogeneration? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

    Can the waste heat be used to heat water? That would improve the energe
    equation some.

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  137. Sorry, you are off by quite a few years... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1

    OPEC was 2/3s of the world's oil in the 70s. Then they decided to go on a 3 decade decadence run, which caused their production growth to stall. The rest of the world chased profits, and now OPEC is only 1/3 the market.

    In addition, at $60+ a barrel, nobody is sitting on production. Everyone in OPEC but the Saudis tends to pump at full production, the quota system has been a joke for a while. Even the Saudis are at or near their max capacity... Now, if instead of building palaces they built more wells, they might get more oil, but hey. Getting Iraq back to full pumping would help tremendously... if this was a war for oil it was a sloppy war for oil...

    The problems right now: Iraq is underproducing, and everyone is overbuying to build up inventory BECAUSE of the belief that some terrorist hit is going to happen and oil is going to shoot to $100/barrel. As a result, everyone is building up stocks, which causes price to rise.

    Right now, we can't pump enough oil, and refineries are at over 95% capacity. The bottleneck for gas is refineries. Also, since gas demand is inelastic (a 1% increase in price causes LESS than a 1% decrease in consumption), to curb demand by a few percent, the prices SHOOT up. The refinery limitation is a REAL problem, as we want refined oil, not barrels. :)

    There are a lot of warping factors in the oil market, but the Arab Cartel is only a small part of it. Environmental lunacy (the politics of environmentalism has resulted in two entrenched sides fighting for votes, NOT improving the environment -- there are lots of low hanging fruits that could be harvested with a reasonable pollution credit system... but that doesn't help fundraising... also, fundraising to BUY the credits on the open market is a lot less of a bang-for-your-buck then lobbying congress to outlaw the other side).

    The oil problem will resolve itself in a few years... Sustainable $50+ barrels of oil will cause lots of production to come online, and for all its faults, the energy bill should increase refinery capacity...

    The asinine thing is that we needed to increase production for a while, and people stalled the energy bill for 5 years because it had a 5-10 year payoff... well, if dealt with 5 years ago, we'd be in payoff land... on the other hand, the next President will get credit, which I'm sure the Democrats think will be one of their own.

    Alex

  138. Re:"supply it more cheaply. Solar is a natural fit by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

    The company that makes these dishes claims that they can make electricity for
    around 6 cents per kwh. If true, that's competative with the natural gas
    powered generators used for peak power production.

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  139. Okay, dumb question... by Monstard · · Score: 1

    If our use of solar gathering devices increases to the point where some small, but statistically significant, portion of the earth's surface is covered by solar gathering and harnessing, thereby reducing the amount of solar energy reflected and converted to heat, do we actually have a net improvement in the global warming situation?

    I'm genuinely curious. I just have no idea of the math involved, so I'm sure my estimation of the impact is wildly off, but I thought someone here must know, and I was curious.

  140. 7 square miles; 111 kW/acre by davidwr · · Score: 1

    7 square miles is a lot of land, I hope it's in the desert or some other place where land is cheap.

    I wonder how "space-efficient" this is compared to solar cells, at 111 kW/acre.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  141. I don't get it by Cyno · · Score: 1

    I still don't see how this could be more effecient than a solar cell. What kind of fuel does it use? How does it compare with a solar cell?

  142. Re:Other solar options: solar towers by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    I too was intrigued by the solar tower project when I first saw it, but the thing is truly a monstrosity of an eye sore and a MAJOR technological hurdle in terms of contstruction and maintenance - and for the amount of square footage it covers and materials that go into its makeup, these Stirling Engines with collector dishes are a MUCH more attractive alternative that maximizes the land and construction resource utilization.

    I also found an amateur's theoretical "solar tower "degisn that doesn't use a tower to generate the up-draft. It requires a significant amount of additional land area, but doesn't require ANY advanced construction techniques. The concept uses a LARGE area of land covered in black sands that collect and radiate solar energy as heat. Surrounding this space with white sands causes the outside air to be of a lower temperature, so when heated air rises in the center, cooler air is drawn in from the sides. On a massive scale (several square miles in the center section) this creates a powerful up-draft. By placing a shaft right in the center with a buried conduit leading to the perimeter, the up-draft will use the venturi effect to draw air through the conduit. The guy proposed putting a 40-ft diameter wind turbine within the conduit. I think it sounds like a great idea, personally. Now all I need are a few square miles of flat, vacant desert land that I can cover with dissimilar sands to radiate and reflect solar heat and dig a BIG tunnel for my million-dollar turbine to be installed into... but if you think about it, it does make a lot of sense for locations that have a lot of hot, otherwise useless, arid land (Mexico? Northern Africa?) to dispose of.

  143. I know, I know... by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    ... but it always seems to end up with people saying, "You can't supply all of our energy needs unto all eternity with it? Well, then what good is it, you fuckin' hippie?"

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:I know, I know... by syphax · · Score: 1


      Yeah, we do see a lot of that around here.

      In this case, though, the answer is you could (if you store energy by splitting or raising water or whatever). It just has got to get cost-competitive.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
  144. Water, Dish-washers and Dust in the wind by __aahrlq8808 · · Score: 1
    With 20,000 37-ft diameter dishes, each with areas of about 1,075.21 square feet ( × r), that comes to 21,504,200 square feet total for the array.

    My question is, with 21.5m square feet (493.669 acres) of reflective surfaces, what happens when dust collects on the mirrors? Dust is bound to build up and cut significantly into their operating efficiency.

    And with four-story high reflectors, the best solution is most likely hosing them down from the ground, probably several times per year. With L.A. right next door, and rivers like the Colorado not reaching the Pacific even now, where will the water come from to wash down 20,000 37-ft dishes in the middle of the desert?

  145. Tops of buildings? by Cheerio+Boy · · Score: 1

    Why aren't they putting things like this on top of buildings? I'm seriously asking.

    It would reduce the power loss by keeping runs short as well as not taking up space that could be used for something else.

    Anybody? Bueller?

    --

    "Bah!" - Dogbert
  146. Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do some simple calculations: Science magazine had an article about future energy consumption. They estimate that the entire planetary energy production is around 20 terawatts (TW). They estimate that the world will need 50 TW by 2050, to support all the Indians and Chinese buying television sets and refrigerators and whatnot.

    So you can do a simple calculation here: if they can generate 500 MW by using 4500 acres, how much land would it take to generate the extra 30 TW that the world needs?
    $x = 30 TW x 4500 acres / (500 MW x 0.001 MW/GW x 0.001 GW/TW).

    I get 270,000,000 acres. 421,875 square miles. The land mass of the United States is 3,717,812. The land mass of the state of California is 163,707 square miles.

    You would have to have these Stirling engine generators on an area of the US four times the size of the entire state of California to ensure the safe, national generation of power. Not feasible. Maybe could devote most of the desert regions of Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California, but this would still probably not be enough.

    These solar generators are not dense enough to put a strong dent in our energy consumption. 500 MW is a nice chunk of energy, though, and I wish the state power commission a lot of luch finding the other 29.995 TW we need by 2050.

  147. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

    There is no "elastic clause" as such in the Constitution. The closest thing to it is the Commerce Clause, which has been expanded in interpretation far beyond what the Framers had in mind. The Commander-in-Chief authority has also been extended to the point that the exclusive power of Congress to declare war has been rendered effectively meaningless.

    In any case, the courts have held that the preamble is not binding at all. I wish it were - then one could challenge any law or policy which did not effect the purposes laid out in the preamble. Even if the preamble were a binding limitation on government power, its excercise of that power would be limited to the explicit powers granted in the rest of the Constitution as constrained by the rights guaranteed in the Amendments.

    Energy is essential for all commerce, is itself a class of articles of commerce, and is also essential for the common defense, so none of this affects the power of the US Government to create the DOE.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  148. Well... by The+Creator · · Score: 1

    What kind of fuel does it use?

    It uses hydrogen in a fusion process.

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
    1. Re:Well... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      hehe

  149. Talk about inefficient! by smithmc · · Score: 1


    4500 acres to make 500 MW? Using a figure of 1000 W per m^2, the peak solar radiation on 4500 acres should be over eighteen billion watts. Gee, three percent efficiency - woo, hoo.

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  150. Re:but... by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a car powered entirely by flywheels? ...this is close linky

    --
    Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
  151. anone know the cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whats it cost to buy one of these dishes?
    how much electricity could one produce?
    I want one, gimme gimme gimme gimme

  152. AP-1000 reactor URL by mrmeval · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  153. Can't we make gas or diesel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would assume that since they are made out of hydrogen and oxygen that we should be able to take air (or at least the Co2 out of air) and water and combine them into gas/diesel/some petro fuel given enough energy: hence the need for big nukes to run it.
    I am worried about trying to grow biodesel or ethanol because I thought that we had to worry about topsoil usage and fertilizer coming from oil byproducts. Is it possible to just use some kind of bioengineered slime in big pools of water as an oil source and not need to use oil byproducts to "feed" it?

  154. But only the US does it by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Other countries use reformulated rods to cut down on waste. While the USA set a notable example for trying to cut down on proliferation, the rest of the world ignored it in favor of reducing the amount of nuclear waste it had in their nuclear programs.

    --
    This is my sig.
  155. Solar Forge construction process available on Web by Certified+Space+Cade · · Score: 1

    I hand-built a comparable solar reflector back in the 1970's. The construction procedure (based on lofting) is now on the Web (Goggle "Solar Forge Woodware"). With Hubbert's Peak just around the corner, it is time to get out all our old alternate energy projects, dust them off, and get them on the Web. The Solar Forge would make a good student project. It can also be used as a power source in developing countries and as a horrendous light bucket in amateur astronomy.

  156. I've read that one too by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 1

    I've cited two sources that said there was no release you've cited on that says there was.

    Did you find other detailed descriptions of this sort? My information digging hasn't been able to turn one up except by that author.

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:I've read that one too by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      you've cited on that says there was.

      Well, two if you include the WikiPedia article, which appears to have gotten most of the data from this page which I didn't include in my original post since it appears biased against nuclear power in general, as opposed to this page which appears biased in favour of CANDU reactors in particular (that page is where I found the detailed report I cited because it appeared to be both more factual and more balanced than the others.).

      But there are more:
      The reactor building was contaminated, as well as an area of the Chalk River site, and millions of gallons of radioactive water accumulated in the reactor basement.
      when a nuclear reactor at an experimental installation in Chalk River, Canada, suffered a meltdown and some radioactive material escaped into the atmosphere.
      "There was some release of radioactivity"

      Regardless of our little game of Google, I think we can agree on that the release (either through the water only or through air and water) was minimal and all reports I have seen agree that among the servicemen and clean-up crew there has been no rise in fatality or even elevated risks for cancer after the accident.

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  157. Re:Failure of the Bush administration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey everyone, did you know that DAldredge is a major Jew Hater!? Just look at his journal entries! Major Anti-semetism there! Nobody should take this retard seriously.

  158. Re:but... by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a car powered entirely by flywheels?

    Irrelavent to this. The power required to move a car is much less than the power required to turn on the lights in a half a million homes by several orders of magnitude. The amount of power required (in electrical terms) to move a car is only a few kilo-watts at most. For this we are talking mega-watts. Also, they would have to last for several hours straight to last the night.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  159. Stirling engines at home? by mccabem · · Score: 1
    I want sterling engines on:
    • my furnace
    • my water heater
    • my dishwasher
    • my CRT monitors
    • PC and Mac cases
    • networking hardware
    • every incadecent light bulb fixture (think attic mounted for recessed fixtures in the ceiling below)
    • my stereo receiver

    It seems there would have to be a "useful" amount of energy (in the form of heat) uselessly dissipated into my home from all these sources!

    All that "stray heat" is fine in the winter, even if poorly dispersed thru the living space. But it'd be great if any percentage of that heat could actually be used in the summer as electricity to help run the air conditioner that's needed to offset the presence of all these "stray heat" sources.

    So what is the prospect for light weight/ulta compact Stirling Engines for wide (imaginary) deployment like this?

  160. Did you even look at it? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    The focal point is inside the receiver for the engine, silly git.

    If the dish is aimed off-axis enough for the light to fall outside the receiver, you start losing focus (due to foreshortening of perspective). Essentially, it gets astigmatism.

    Last, flash-fried pigeons, starlings and English sparrows would be excellent. They are non-native species and would make great soil amendments. If the system came with a detector for parasitic species like brown spotted cowbirds and fried them too, it would be a great benefit for the songbirds they're driving down.

  161. Sanity check by ArtStone · · Score: 1

    Somewhere on another thread, it was stated that (roughly) 1 gallon of gasoline = 34 Kwh of electricity. US Motor Gasoline consumption is (as of 2004) about 9 Million barrels/day. 1 Barrel = 42 gallons...

    So the total energy consumption in the US used by gasoline powered vehicles is the equivalent of 12,852,000,000 Kwh/day (9 million bbl/day * 42 gal/bbl * 34kwh/bbl) - that's 12 Billion Kwh/day or 4,690 Billion Kwh per year. In 2003, the total electric production of the United States was 3,891 billion Khw / year.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electric .html

    In 2002, Nuclear made up 780 billion Kwh of that total...

    So that means if we wanted to create only nuclear power to replace all gasoline powered vehicles, we need about 7x the current installed capacity of nuclear plants added.

    I feel confident the ball park number above is off by a factor of 2 or 3, but how long would it take to build that kind of additional capacity? How much would demand increase during that period due to population growth?

    (of course, the numbers above don't include diesel)

    Looks like it's time for a JFK-like commitment to major investment and regulatory reform if this is going to happen. People are always whining about how there is so much partisanship in Washington. Perhaps this could be the issue to break the us-them mentality.

    How much is it worth to us to tell the Saudis and Venezuela that we hope they enjoy drinking their oil..?

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0