The camping application usually looks for a high power to weight ratio and so is often based on thin film. The energy payback time might not be as long as you think. DARPA is sponsoring the production of 40% efficient silicon based concentrators for field applications and these will certainly have a lower payback time. But all of this is a niche application.
With regard to off-grid not being green, I think you are not looking at the whole picture. It takes greens a great deal of political effort to get the grid ammenable to net metering which does all kinds of good thing for the grid and for the environment, but utilities pushback quite hard. In many cases, excess generation over a year is not compensated, and there are ridiculously low limits on overall enrollment in some net metering programs. In 9 states, there is no net metering legislation. As the cost of solar power comes down, it is quite likely that going off grid will become more common. Now you point out that some solar generation capacity will not actually be used in this case, but this is what we should expect from cheap renewables in any case so those who go off grid will just be ahead of the curve on the ratio of generating capacity to use that we'll be arriving at in about 20 years base on 45% annual growth in renewables. You are thinking in terms of scarcity but renewable energy is fundementally abundant. It would be nice if the grid survived because it could reduce costs for storage over the long run particularly through HVDC transmission on the continent scale, but with renewable energy it does not really need to exist. The grid needs to be looking at justifications like how it might provide international stability through power sharing or how it might support very energy intensive projects by gathering together many inputs rather than its current central distribution model. It is not that renewable energy is going to be too cheap to meter, it will be cheaper but not free, but rather that the meter may become more trouble than it is worth owing to the scarcity mindset of the utlities that control it.
In summary, people who choose to reduce their environmental impact off grid are doing what they intend and while your arguments about "wasted" solar power have a sort term appeal, they are merely transition related and the huge tide of renewble energy conversion we can expect makes them pretty marginal. A person deciding to go off grid today will likely see may neighbors doing the same long before the equipment used is worn out or even comes out of warrantee. A radical change in the way utilities veiw their role might stem this, but based on experience so far, this seems unlikely.
Thanks, I was wondering about that distinction. Seems like First Solar is already doing some of this though their efficiency is coming in around 9%: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19095/?a=f.
Using the panel for 20 years gives you electricity at $0.10/kWh, but with accelerated depreciation you get to set the future cost of electricity against today's tax bill. That makes this kind of solar power very attractive to retailers.
FirstSolar uses CdTe http://www.firstsolar.com/environment_cdte.php and the durability of the panels remains an issue, but one they are addressing. Their aim is to demonstrate 20 year performance above 80% of the initial efficiency. The trick is to do this in less time than 20 years and they are getting help from NREL to pull this off. Their cost of production is $1.19/Watt and headed down. -- Rent solar power for your home and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
I'm not too sure about solar thermal. One thing that should make this plant a bit more expensive is that it has thermal energy storage using phase changing molten salts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One. This means that they can wait until the wholesale price of electricity is high to start supplying power and thus maximize profits. Before too long, solar PV is going to shift the time when electricity is most costly towards evening so they are likely anticipating this. Solar PV is breaking the $1/Watt level this year with Nanosolar's offering. Placed on rooftops, this technology beats even old coal on price. It may be that the land lease or purchase for solar thermal is part of an irreducible cost that limits how low the price per kWh can go. But, so far as I can tell, most new generation is going to be either wind or solar in the next few years which should bring moderation of electric rate increases since they will be cheaper than nonrenewables. Wind accounted for 20% of new generation in 2006 and is growing at 40% per year while solar PV will undercut wind on average price in the next 7 or so years and has a similar growth rate already. Nanosolar's offering already beats wind.
In fact no. The plutonium is fabricated into MOX, but the uranium is stored because it is poisoned with U-236. Most of the reprocessing is just a precursor to long term storage and very little yields new fuel. The MOX is not subsequently reprocessed at all. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epfr.html. Considering that the French program devotes the output of three reactors to uranium enrichment, the energy return on energy invested is pretty low (less than 7) so that reenriching the spent uranium does not make a lot of sense even if it did not contaminate their enrichment facility. They might get a boost from going with centrifuge enrichment but that idea is currrently snarled up.
It is kind of deceptive to compare a new solar plant (built today) with an old coal plant. The correct comparision is with new coal capacity which may come in closer to $0.04/kWh. With carbon capture and sequestration, $0.08/kWh might be expected. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070504151722.htm. Further, at present, solar competes with gas rather than coal because gas is used to meet peak demand. Gas costs less for construction than either coal or solar but it has volitile are rising fuel costs owing to declining production in North America. Over the long term, $0.15/kWh probably compares favorably with gas. Several recent studies have also noticed that coal energy (though not volume) production is declining in the US owing to substitution of lower grades of coal: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered-ghost.html. This video on the coal resource is even more startling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUcxYdMmj4. If, within the lifetime of the new solar power plant, coal becomes scarce as gas is already doing, then the cost of power from the solar plant will be quite competitive. It is not that we lack coal but rather that we have begun to exhaust the coal that is cheap to mine. This is why salvage operations like the one that led to the disaster in Utah are becoming more common. Higher coal prices make these marginal operations more economical. -- Rent solar power for your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
You know, I think you've got this pretty close to right. Now, Kerry was running to run the war better, not to end the war so it does not make much
difference if he won or lost on that issue, but asking him why, when he had asked people to vote for him, he didn't stand up for those who did is a fair question. You do need to graft on some spine to these guys every now and then to get them to do anything and questions like the ones posed are one way to do that. Here is another beating where people were trying to lend some intestinal fortitude to democrats facing General Petreaus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o. This happened on the 11th. Notice that the first quick move was a shove from behind by the Capitol Police. After that they pounce, but like bullies everywhere they picked the fight.
So far as I heard, only Senator Webb said much against the General, and that was just to correct him about which unit (his son's) had done a particular bit of work. The proper response to the President's veto of the last funding round was to not fund at all. They caved. Now, we have the police beating on anyone who lets them know about their failure.
'S OK. Democrats get carried away with abuse of power. We tend to notice it more since it is directed towards us. Republicans tend to just as corrupt these days, but it used to be that with them it was not so personal. Now that we've got some of them convicted for their abuses, I expect we'll get more heat from them too. They play as a team.
Actually no, the Ohio convictions resulted from the way a recount paid for by the Green and Libertarian Parties was screwed up. Basically Ohio ripped them off. The evidence from Florida was what Palast found.
If carbon-14 is measured in smoke stacks it is coming from the air intake for the most part. You can get some carbon-14 in some coal though the most recent date it will give is 40,000 years, about 7 half-lives. So that is one part in 128 of the usual abundance in air. So, assuming oxygen is completely consumed in combustion, you'd have about double the contribution of carbon-14 from coal compared to carbon-14 from the air coming out the stack. Most coal has undetectable amounts of carbon-14 though, so usually all of the carbon-14 will be from the air. The origin of carbon-14 in coal may be owing to uranium and thorium in the surounding rock. The largest signal for carbon-14 is above-ground nuclear tests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14.
Not quite "leave him alone" but "That's alright." When I looked at it again, an office first came forward when he mentioned vote suppression in Florida. Perhaps the officer was concerned owing to personal involvement?
What the kid was asking about was why Kerry caved on the election. He was citing evidence uncovered by Greg Palast that Florida was stolen in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast. That was the book he was waving. People in Ohio have been convicted for election fraud: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379. Asking Kerry why he caved might be awkward for Kerry but it is an important question.
I'm not sure about my party because we don't have enough power to have been tested. We are usually on the receiving end of this kind of stuff: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm together with the libertarians. Generally our folks are arrested for attempting to assert free speech
rights. Since the Green Party has non-violence among its Ten Key Values: http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml and many of our activists are women our party is probably better at avoiding police brutality than some, but it is mainly democrats that attempt to deny us our civil rights.
Seems to me that this is something the democrats like to do. They'll whine about this kind of thing for political points but then as soon as they have control of a situation, they'll use the threat of force and application of excessive force to deny civil liberties. This is not too surpising given their voting record on unconstitutional legislation to destroy civil liberties. This firehose article covers another brutality incindent outside a democrat controled hearing at the Capitol: http://politics.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=283127.
I subscribed so I could read Dowd. There is no one as catty who pulls if off as well. To me, Jeb Bush had little to do with the election of 2000. Dowd and the brown suit stuff she wrote were the most important factor. Friedman's warmongering has been very influnential while Krugman's free trade agenda has likely done more to cause environmental damage worldwide than just about any other single thing. The position of these writers provided by the newspaper with all the news that fits is quite important and worth a read. Who do you think would pay to keep them unread?
That was kind of the point about discarding tritium. It is not so hard to separate, and you don't have to wait long to get a stock of Helium-3.
I am much less sanguine about the risk of large accident than you. If anything, systems are getting more complex, especially as the industry tries to squeeze more out of existing and aging plants. Under most circumstances, I would admire the ingenuity, but in this case, I can only see the increased
risk.
Carbon-14 is low in coal because of its short half-life and atmospheric origin. Uranium and thorium are present in coal, but do not undergo the accelerated fission that occurs in nuclear reactors and so release daughter species at the natural rate rather than concentrating the very hot waste produced by reactors. Owing to the long half-life of uranium, the radioisotopes of iodine or cesium are rarely produced. It would be better to not burn coal, but sulfur, carbon and mercury are much higher reasons to avoid it than trace uranium and thorium.
I notice that per capita electricity demand in California is not rising yet many people want to move there. Perhaps some of the conservation efforts adopted there would make other regions attractive as well and also keep demand growth down. I notice also that 20% of new generation last year was wind power and wind is growing at about 40% a year. Presumably it will meet all new demand in about 6 years and be able to cut into the nuclear base which needs to be retired, Vermont Yankee and Indian Point being overdue I think. Gas is likely to be replaced by solar in about 15 years after which coal will start to decline as a fraction of generation if wind does not get there first. The place of nuclear power in a renewable dominated grid is hard to find since it has a hard time responding to changes in demand or supply. It wants to be always on yet it is fuel based. Storage seems a much better investment than inflexible and expensive power sources such as nuclear. With wind coming in at around $1.60/Watt capacity and solar at $2/Watt capacity (Nanosolar's wholesale price is $1/Watt) they are both cheaper than new nuclear power at about $2.50/Watt and they don't require fuel. Both wind and solar have further to fall in price so I expect they'll continue their rapid growth. It seems to me that even if safety can be improved for new nuclear power, the economics can't be very well.
I agree with you that mining deaths are horrible, the crushing deaths of an mine collapse or the lingering deaths from disease. Better use sand from the beach I think.
Slashdot Mirror
The camping application usually looks for a high power to weight ratio and so is often based on thin film. The energy payback time might not be as long as you think. DARPA is sponsoring the production of 40% efficient silicon based concentrators for field applications and these will certainly have a lower payback time. But all of this is a niche application.
With regard to off-grid not being green, I think you are not looking at the whole picture. It takes greens a great deal of political effort to get the grid ammenable to net metering which does all kinds of good thing for the grid and for the environment, but utilities pushback quite hard. In many cases, excess generation over a year is not compensated, and there are ridiculously low limits on overall enrollment in some net metering programs. In 9 states, there is no net metering legislation. As the cost of solar power comes down, it is quite likely that going off grid will become more common. Now you point out that some solar generation capacity will not actually be used in this case, but this is what we should expect from cheap renewables in any case so those who go off grid will just be ahead of the curve on the ratio of generating capacity to use that we'll be arriving at in about 20 years base on 45% annual growth in renewables. You are thinking in terms of scarcity but renewable energy is fundementally abundant. It would be nice if the grid survived because it could reduce costs for storage over the long run particularly through HVDC transmission on the continent scale, but with renewable energy it does not really need to exist. The grid needs to be looking at justifications like how it might provide international stability through power sharing or how it might support very energy intensive projects by gathering together many inputs rather than its current central distribution model. It is not that renewable energy is going to be too cheap to meter, it will be cheaper but not free, but rather that the meter may become more trouble than it is worth owing to the scarcity mindset of the utlities that control it.
In summary, people who choose to reduce their environmental impact off grid are doing what they intend and while your arguments about "wasted" solar power have a sort term appeal, they are merely transition related and the huge tide of renewble energy conversion we can expect makes them pretty marginal. A person deciding to go off grid today will likely see may neighbors doing the same long before the equipment used is worn out or even comes out of warrantee. A radical change in the way utilities veiw their role might stem this, but based on experience so far, this seems unlikely.
Thanks, I was wondering about that distinction. Seems like First Solar is already doing some of this though their efficiency is coming in around 9%: http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/19095/?a=f.
This interview with Nanosolar CEO Martin Roscheisen (coming on line this year at $1/watt wholesale price) http://earth2tech.com/2007/07/30/10-questions-for-nanosolar-ceo-martin-roscheisen/ says that he feels that vacuum based processes are not going to be competitive. Doubt he's getting 13% efficiency though.
Using the panel for 20 years gives you electricity at $0.10/kWh, but with accelerated depreciation you get to set the future cost of electricity against today's tax bill. That makes this kind of solar power very attractive to retailers.
With TOU rates you need a smaller system to reach zero so the rate structure does make a difference.
FirstSolar uses CdTe http://www.firstsolar.com/environment_cdte.php and the durability of the panels remains an issue, but one they are addressing. Their aim is to demonstrate 20 year performance above 80% of the initial efficiency. The trick is to do this in less time than 20 years and they are getting help from NREL to pull this off. Their cost of production is $1.19/Watt and headed down.
--
Rent solar power for your home and save: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
I'm not too sure about solar thermal. One thing that should make this plant a bit more expensive is that it has thermal energy storage using phase changing molten salts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One. This means that they can wait until the wholesale price of electricity is high to start supplying power and thus maximize profits. Before too long, solar PV is going to shift the time when electricity is most costly towards evening so they are likely anticipating this. Solar PV is breaking the $1/Watt level this year with Nanosolar's offering. Placed on rooftops, this technology beats even old coal on price. It may be that the land lease or purchase for solar thermal is part of an irreducible cost that limits how low the price per kWh can go. But, so far as I can tell, most new generation is going to be either wind or solar in the next few years which should bring moderation of electric rate increases since they will be cheaper than nonrenewables. Wind accounted for 20% of new generation in 2006 and is growing at 40% per year while solar PV will undercut wind on average price in the next 7 or so years and has a similar growth rate already. Nanosolar's offering already beats wind.
Oops... That is not what yellowcake is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake. Might want to recheck your other statements too.
In fact no. The plutonium is fabricated into MOX, but the uranium is stored because it is poisoned with U-236. Most of the reprocessing is just a precursor to long term storage and very little yields new fuel. The MOX is not subsequently reprocessed at all. http://www.wise-uranium.org/epfr.html. Considering that the French program devotes the output of three reactors to uranium enrichment, the energy return on energy invested is pretty low (less than 7) so that reenriching the spent uranium does not make a lot of sense even if it did not contaminate their enrichment facility. They might get a boost from going with centrifuge enrichment but that idea is currrently snarled up.
It is kind of deceptive to compare a new solar plant (built today) with an old coal plant. The correct comparision is with new coal capacity which may come in closer to $0.04/kWh. With carbon capture and sequestration, $0.08/kWh might be expected. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070504151722.htm. Further, at present, solar competes with gas rather than coal because gas is used to meet peak demand. Gas costs less for construction than either coal or solar but it has volitile are rising fuel costs owing to declining production in North America. Over the long term, $0.15/kWh probably compares favorably with gas. Several recent studies have also noticed that coal energy (though not volume) production is declining in the US owing to substitution of lower grades of coal: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-cornered-ghost.html. This video on the coal resource is even more startling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTUcxYdMmj4. If, within the lifetime of the new solar power plant, coal becomes scarce as gas is already doing, then the cost of power from the solar plant will be quite competitive. It is not that we lack coal but rather that we have begun to exhaust the coal that is cheap to mine. This is why salvage operations like the one that led to the disaster in Utah are becoming more common. Higher coal prices make these marginal operations more economical.
--
Rent solar power for your home: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users-selling-solar.html
You know, I think you've got this pretty close to right. Now, Kerry was running to run the war better, not to end the war so it does not make much difference if he won or lost on that issue, but asking him why, when he had asked people to vote for him, he didn't stand up for those who did is a fair question. You do need to graft on some spine to these guys every now and then to get them to do anything and questions like the ones posed are one way to do that. Here is another beating where people were trying to lend some intestinal fortitude to democrats facing General Petreaus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiradcejA6o. This happened on the 11th. Notice that the first quick move was a shove from behind by the Capitol Police. After that they pounce, but like bullies everywhere they picked the fight.
So far as I heard, only Senator Webb said much against the General, and that was just to correct him about which unit (his son's) had done a particular bit of work. The proper response to the President's veto of the last funding round was to not fund at all. They caved. Now, we have the police beating on anyone who lets them know about their failure.
But what would they be taught in those classes? People should know civics before they get to college, you need to work at an earlier age.
'S OK. Democrats get carried away with abuse of power. We tend to notice it more since it is directed towards us. Republicans tend to just as corrupt these days, but it used to be that with them it was not so personal. Now that we've got some of them convicted for their abuses, I expect we'll get more heat from them too. They play as a team.
Flamebait? Democrats have a long history of brutal repression of free speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Democratic_National_Convention#Protests_and_police_response. The person who declared the state of emergency at Kent State was a democrat as well: http://speccoll.library.kent.edu/4may70/8.html. Bull Connor was a democrat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_Connor. I'm now inclined to suspect that the police officer who stepped towards the kid early instigated the scene, but don't cut Kerry too much slack. He voted for the patriot act: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313.
Actually no, the Ohio convictions resulted from the way a recount paid for by the Green and Libertarian Parties was screwed up. Basically Ohio ripped them off. The evidence from Florida was what Palast found.
If carbon-14 is measured in smoke stacks it is coming from the air intake for the most part. You can get some carbon-14 in some coal though the most recent date it will give is 40,000 years, about 7 half-lives. So that is one part in 128 of the usual abundance in air. So, assuming oxygen is completely consumed in combustion, you'd have about double the contribution of carbon-14 from coal compared to carbon-14 from the air coming out the stack. Most coal has undetectable amounts of carbon-14 though, so usually all of the carbon-14 will be from the air. The origin of carbon-14 in coal may be owing to uranium and thorium in the surounding rock. The largest signal for carbon-14 is above-ground nuclear tests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14.
Not quite "leave him alone" but "That's alright." When I looked at it again, an office first came forward when he mentioned vote suppression in Florida. Perhaps the officer was concerned owing to personal involvement?
All I was able to hear was the lame crack about the kid not being available to swear him in. What did he say?
What the kid was asking about was why Kerry caved on the election. He was citing evidence uncovered by Greg Palast that Florida was stolen in 2004: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast. That was the book he was waving. People in Ohio have been convicted for election fraud: http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2379. Asking Kerry why he caved might be awkward for Kerry but it is an important question.
Did you notice the police were breathing down his neck while he was speaking? Take a look at the videos again. Not too surpising he was nervous.
I didn't hear Kerry protest the arrest. He's long since left the real stuff of his reputation bleaching behind him.
I'm not sure about my party because we don't have enough power to have been tested. We are usually on the receiving end of this kind of stuff: http://www.progress.org/2004/debates08.htm together with the libertarians. Generally our folks are arrested for attempting to assert free speech rights. Since the Green Party has non-violence among its Ten Key Values: http://gp.org/tenkey.shtml and many of our activists are women our party is probably better at avoiding police brutality than some, but it is mainly democrats that attempt to deny us our civil rights.
Seems to me that this is something the democrats like to do. They'll whine about this kind of thing for political points but then as soon as they have control of a situation, they'll use the threat of force and application of excessive force to deny civil liberties. This is not too surpising given their voting record on unconstitutional legislation to destroy civil liberties. This firehose article covers another brutality incindent outside a democrat controled hearing at the Capitol: http://politics.slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=283127.
I subscribed so I could read Dowd. There is no one as catty who pulls if off as well. To me, Jeb Bush had little to do with the election of 2000. Dowd and the brown suit stuff she wrote were the most important factor. Friedman's warmongering has been very influnential while Krugman's free trade agenda has likely done more to cause environmental damage worldwide than just about any other single thing. The position of these writers provided by the newspaper with all the news that fits is quite important and worth a read. Who do you think would pay to keep them unread?
That was kind of the point about discarding tritium. It is not so hard to separate, and you don't have to wait long to get a stock of Helium-3.
I am much less sanguine about the risk of large accident than you. If anything, systems are getting more complex, especially as the industry tries to squeeze more out of existing and aging plants. Under most circumstances, I would admire the ingenuity, but in this case, I can only see the increased risk.
Carbon-14 is low in coal because of its short half-life and atmospheric origin. Uranium and thorium are present in coal, but do not undergo the accelerated fission that occurs in nuclear reactors and so release daughter species at the natural rate rather than concentrating the very hot waste produced by reactors. Owing to the long half-life of uranium, the radioisotopes of iodine or cesium are rarely produced. It would be better to not burn coal, but sulfur, carbon and mercury are much higher reasons to avoid it than trace uranium and thorium.
I notice that per capita electricity demand in California is not rising yet many people want to move there. Perhaps some of the conservation efforts adopted there would make other regions attractive as well and also keep demand growth down. I notice also that 20% of new generation last year was wind power and wind is growing at about 40% a year. Presumably it will meet all new demand in about 6 years and be able to cut into the nuclear base which needs to be retired, Vermont Yankee and Indian Point being overdue I think. Gas is likely to be replaced by solar in about 15 years after which coal will start to decline as a fraction of generation if wind does not get there first. The place of nuclear power in a renewable dominated grid is hard to find since it has a hard time responding to changes in demand or supply. It wants to be always on yet it is fuel based. Storage seems a much better investment than inflexible and expensive power sources such as nuclear. With wind coming in at around $1.60/Watt capacity and solar at $2/Watt capacity (Nanosolar's wholesale price is $1/Watt) they are both cheaper than new nuclear power at about $2.50/Watt and they don't require fuel. Both wind and solar have further to fall in price so I expect they'll continue their rapid growth. It seems to me that even if safety can be improved for new nuclear power, the economics can't be very well.
I agree with you that mining deaths are horrible, the crushing deaths of an mine collapse or the lingering deaths from disease. Better use sand from the beach I think.