You would need to build a solar plant of about 100 x 100 Miles in the Nevada desert to generate the USAs electricity. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (0.743 TerraWatt) installed generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 TerraWatt today..
This scheme in Nevada:
Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
100 x100 miles = 26 000 000 000 m2.
* 44 (watts) = 1.17 TerraWatt supply. Is 100x100 miles too much? How does it compare to coal-strip mining?
It is true that the sun doesnt shine at night - so in reality you would have a mix - wind power, tidal, etc - backed up with ready-to-roll capacity, pumped hyroelectric storage, and new tech like very large SuperCapacitors. Technology is moving all the time..
Cost? Figures vary, but Nevada Solar quote about $0.07/Kwh, wind and others maybe a little less. With oil hitting $80 a barrel this looks good, its hard to compare to Nuclear because of the huge hidden subsidies it recieved, both in terms of research and hidden unknown costs like waste disposal and decomissioning..
As for Three Mile Island, read this link. Years later, when they could actually inspect inside the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess it was in - a huge glob of melted reactor fuel nearly breached the containment vessel - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..
Let us say the figure is 2 KWh daily per m^2. Your 100x100 km piece of desert has 10,000,000,000 m^2, thus it makes 2*10^10 GWh daily.
Another quick check with wikipedia tells me that annually the USA consumes 29000 TWh. The figure is for 2005. 29000 TWh is 29,000,000 GWh. The gap between 29,000,000 and 20*365 is substantial. You will need a bigger solar farm by several magnitudes. And you will never build it, it is a pipe dream.
Way, way out. 29000 TWh (av supply 3.3 TerraWatts) is ALL power - including the calorific value of oil for transport & heating, not just electric. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (.743 Tw) installed ELECTRIC generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 Tw today..
This scheme in Nevada:
Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
45 * 10 000 000 000 = 450 000 000 000 watts for 100x100km, or 450 GigaWatts supply..
I did make a mistake - the original quote was 100x100 MILES not km..
= 26 000 000 000 m2, *45 = 1170 Gigawatts supply..
As for Three Mile Island, read the link. Years later, when they could inspect the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess the reactor was in - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..
Renewables have a big problem - solar and wind are unreliable. It is simply inconceivable that electricity supplies can fail when it is cloudy and/or not windy. If you want to build renewables you need to also build gas-fired plants (usually, other possibilities exist) as a backup. That makes things look very expensive
In the long term, the answer is coming in the form of improved energy storage/regulation technology, like Ultracaps, as well as more traditional methods like pumped hydroelectric storage. For example, there is a hydro storage system in the UK that can kick in about a gigawatt of power within a few seconds - and uses off-peak power to pump the water back up the system later..
By the way, it is a myth that you do not need backups and secondary sources with coal/nuclear/gas - both power-lines and the generators themselves trip out all the time, so a cetain amount of ready-to-roll-backup is needed for a stable system anyway..
Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations?
Yes, with a capital 'Y'. Much, much cheaper, much, much more scalable, and also more environmentally friendly.
Not true. Just for starters, (and at the risk of repeating myself)..
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
Nuclear is really the only option, and it's great that your government is going with what's right rather than what the misinformed majority think about nuclear power.
Hmm.. People dont realise just how close 3 mile island came to being as bad as Chernobyl - by sheer luck the vessel held the molten glob of reactor fuel. For a little exersize, extrapolate a Chernobyl scale incident to the 3 mile island area..
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
there are risks in nuclear energy production
Hmm.. People dont realise just how close 3 mile island came to being as bad as Chernobyl - by sheer luck the vessel held the molten glob of reactor fuel. For a little exersize, extrapolate a Chernobyl scale incident to the 3 mile island area..
Well, not entirely - there is only so much money available to to these things - if one route is chosen, another may be ignored. I dont see why the really large-scale projects for these alternatives have not been built in the US - especially considering the large desert/unpopulated areas available to build them on.. I dont have a dogmatic bias against Nuclear - if it can be done economically and safely, fine - if not, and history so far is against it, why do it?
Given the vast alternative resources available to the US, why do this before building large scale solar and wind plants? Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations? As technology advances, these alternatives have got cheaper and cheaper..
And the full cost of Nuclear Waste disposal is still not known, nor is it included in the quoted "price" of the electricity..
It's not instead of. It's in addition to. "Pave Arizona with solar cells" vs "Build new nuclear plants" is a false dichotomy. All of these things are better than oil, especially given the foreign dependencies that entails. So we do several of them in parallel, while we figure out what the best answer is. My hunch is that we will continue to generate electricity from many sources for a long, long time to come. Just as the best approach to renewable energy is not solar, or wind, or hydro, or biofuels, but probably a mix of all of these, the best answer to reducing fossil fuel usage probably includes a mix of alternatives.
Given the vast alternative resources available to the US, why do this before building large scale solar and wind plants? Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations? As technology advances, these alternatives have got cheaper and cheaper..
And the full cost of Nuclear Waste disposal is still not known, nor is it included in the quoted "price" of the electricity..
Spoilsport - I really wanted to wipe that Donna Summer tape - Although I am not sure I trust a site that talks of "Electric Stovers"..
Maybe the nominal *rate of change* in Magnetic field is low, but how big is the static field, outside the cabin? I still reckon you will need a few more systems in real-life operation before we find all the drawbacks..
Must not care about frittering valuable resources away on pointless flag-waving exercises to keep the pork-hungry defence industry and adolescent males (of all ages) happy that the world of Star Trek is only a matter of working out the engineering.Or as the Register just put it:
Nobel-winning boffin slams ISS, manned spaceflight
'Infantile fixation on putting people into space'
There is something in that - certainly the Shuttle & ISS have been very poor value for money. It would have been way better to just keep Apollo going (maybe on a slower budget). Skylab was already going and there were full-on lunar bases ready-to-go based on Apollo hardware - and if rolled out slowly, for far less money/year than the Shuttle/ISS boondongle..
There is real science that could be done still by a manned lunar/mars base - but yes, sending a $1 billion-a-throw Shuttle up so we can run school-science-fair experiments on a $100 billion ISS doesnt really cut it. At this time, just setting up X-prize type funds seems the cheapest way to push development..
Its simple really - If you dont like it, fork it - see if you can do any better. I can fully understand Sun wanting to call the shots on the #1 version - not too different from Linus. Note that they still make a closed source version of "Star Office" - maybe that gives them a need to keep control of the coding process. Good for them, I say..
Seriously though, *all* music? What happens to public domain works, or works released under GPL-type licences? How long before the same principle is applied to software? What it the US take the same approach for material the "infringes" software patents?
The rights of *all* works should be protected - including those works release for free under public licenses.
Despite the propoganda they are not pure angels and Intel is not pure evil either.
Maybe so, but thats not the point. I just dont want to see the mainstream PC processor market to become a one-horse race. If AMD had not been there, Intel would probably still be making P4s clocked at 1ghz today.. Having said that, I dont think AMD can take Intel head on - they are right to (or need to) find other niches..
Sadly, its going to be a long long time before it happens for real. Zubrins "Mars Direct" plan http://www.cbqc.net/mars/docs/md_reno.txt is the best one using current tech - but it has so many possible ways it can fail that it will not be picked up by todays ultra risk-adverse space admins. The biggest mistake NASA ever made was to ditch the Saturn 5 and 1b systems that took Apollo to the moon - the Skylabs sent up with the later Apollos already did most of the usedful research being being replicated by the overpriced ISS, and they had designs in the pipeline for long term moon-bases, all using Sat5 boosters. Ironically, ditching Apollo never saved the money Nixon thought it would, and yet set manned exploration back 50 years (2019 is about "return to moon" time). Zubrins "Direct to Mars" plan uses two Sat 5 sized launchers for a 3 year round trip Mars mission.
Because of the logistical problems of a manned mars round trip, someone actually preposed we should find volenteers for a one way trip!! Seriously, just find devoted (and perhaps older) individuals who would risk going to stay - maybe with the promise of a return vessel being sent a few years down the line (A.K.A. 2001).
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, additional info to my original post..
You would need to build a solar plant of about 100 x 100 Miles in the Nevada desert to generate the USAs electricity. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (0.743 TerraWatt) installed generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 TerraWatt today.. This scheme in Nevada:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Nevada-Solar-One.htm
Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
100 x100 miles = 26 000 000 000 m2.
* 44 (watts) = 1.17 TerraWatt supply. Is 100x100 miles too much? How does it compare to coal-strip mining?
It is true that the sun doesnt shine at night - so in reality you would have a mix - wind power, tidal, etc - backed up with ready-to-roll capacity, pumped hyroelectric storage, and new tech like very large SuperCapacitors. Technology is moving all the time..
Cost? Figures vary, but Nevada Solar quote about $0.07/Kwh, wind and others maybe a little less. With oil hitting $80 a barrel this looks good, its hard to compare to Nuclear because of the huge hidden subsidies it recieved, both in terms of research and hidden unknown costs like waste disposal and decomissioning..
More links on power schemes..
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm
As for Three Mile Island, read this link. Years later, when they could actually inspect inside the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess it was in - a huge glob of melted reactor fuel nearly breached the containment vessel - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..
http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm
Way, way out. 29000 TWh (av supply 3.3 TerraWatts) is ALL power - including the calorific value of oil for transport & heating, not just electric. USA had around 743 GigaWatt (.743 Tw) installed ELECTRIC generating capacity in 1998 - I will dig out a newer figure, but lets say about 1 Tw today.. This scheme in Nevada:
http://www.reuk.co.uk/Nevada-Solar-One.htm
Delievers 64 Mw for 350 acres = 45 watts per sqr meter.
45 * 10 000 000 000 = 450 000 000 000 watts for 100x100km, or 450 GigaWatts supply..
I did make a mistake - the original quote was 100x100 MILES not km..
= 26 000 000 000 m2, *45 = 1170 Gigawatts supply..
As for Three Mile Island, read the link. Years later, when they could inspect the reactor, they were horrified to see just what a mess the reactor was in - it was very very close to a Chernobyl type meltdown..
http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm
In the long term, the answer is coming in the form of improved energy storage/regulation technology, like Ultracaps, as well as more traditional methods like pumped hydroelectric storage. For example, there is a hydro storage system in the UK that can kick in about a gigawatt of power within a few seconds - and uses off-peak power to pump the water back up the system later..
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~matti/ise2grp/energystorage_report/node6.html
By the way, it is a myth that you do not need backups and secondary sources with coal/nuclear/gas - both power-lines and the generators themselves trip out all the time, so a cetain amount of ready-to-roll-backup is needed for a stable system anyway..
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
Hmm.. People dont realise just how close 3 mile island came to being as bad as Chernobyl - by sheer luck the vessel held the molten glob of reactor fuel. For a little exersize, extrapolate a Chernobyl scale incident to the 3 mile island area..
http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm
But, dammit, nuclear energy has no alternative for the moment.
Not true..
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/worlds_largest_4.php
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/21/BUG9VJHBLB1.DTL
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1321857,00.html
http://www.pvresources.com/en/top50pv.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6031995.stm
All of Americas power needs could be supplied by (for example) covering 100x100 km of the Nevada Desert with PV cells. Why not just bite the bullet and do it?
there are risks in nuclear energy production
Hmm.. People dont realise just how close 3 mile island came to being as bad as Chernobyl - by sheer luck the vessel held the molten glob of reactor fuel. For a little exersize, extrapolate a Chernobyl scale incident to the 3 mile island area..
http://americanhistory.si.edu/tmi/tmi03.htm
It's not instead of. It's in addition to. "Pave Arizona with solar cells" vs "Build new nuclear plants" is a false dichotomy. All of these things are better than oil, especially given the foreign dependencies that entails. So we do several of them in parallel, while we figure out what the best answer is. My hunch is that we will continue to generate electricity from many sources for a long, long time to come. Just as the best approach to renewable energy is not solar, or wind, or hydro, or biofuels, but probably a mix of all of these, the best answer to reducing fossil fuel usage probably includes a mix of alternatives.
Given the vast alternative resources available to the US, why do this before building large scale solar and wind plants? Is it really going to be cheaper than (say) paving large areas of desert with ever-cheaper solar cells? Or building the really large wind-farm projects in the many available on/off shore locations? As technology advances, these alternatives have got cheaper and cheaper..
And the full cost of Nuclear Waste disposal is still not known, nor is it included in the quoted "price" of the electricity..
Spoilsport - I really wanted to wipe that Donna Summer tape - Although I am not sure I trust a site that talks of "Electric Stovers"..
Maybe the nominal *rate of change* in Magnetic field is low, but how big is the static field, outside the cabin? I still reckon you will need a few more systems in real-life operation before we find all the drawbacks..
Just dont carry any hard/floppy disks, or Cassette/VHS/IBM370 tapes or other mag media on this train.
Your Donna Summer 8-Track will not survive..
Easy - Bush - I hear he is backing this "Intelligent design" thingy - as a Pirate, I like the sound of that..
And he's not even running - Avast and Shiver me Timbers! The joke just gets thinner and thinner..
I here he is backing this "Intelligent design" thingy - as a scientist, I like the sound of that..
Must not care about frittering valuable resources away on pointless flag-waving exercises to keep the pork-hungry defence industry and adolescent males (of all ages) happy that the world of Star Trek is only a matter of working out the engineering.Or as the Register just put it: Nobel-winning boffin slams ISS, manned spaceflight 'Infantile fixation on putting people into space'
There is something in that - certainly the Shuttle & ISS have been very poor value for money. It would have been way better to just keep Apollo going (maybe on a slower budget). Skylab was already going and there were full-on lunar bases ready-to-go based on Apollo hardware - and if rolled out slowly, for far less money/year than the Shuttle/ISS boondongle..
There is real science that could be done still by a manned lunar/mars base - but yes, sending a $1 billion-a-throw Shuttle up so we can run school-science-fair experiments on a $100 billion ISS doesnt really cut it. At this time, just setting up X-prize type funds seems the cheapest way to push development..
Its simple really - If you dont like it, fork it - see if you can do any better. I can fully understand Sun wanting to call the shots on the #1 version - not too different from Linus. Note that they still make a closed source version of "Star Office" - maybe that gives them a need to keep control of the coding process. Good for them, I say..
(sigh).. Must be able to convert feet to meters..
Seriously though, *all* music? What happens to public domain works, or works released under GPL-type licences? How long before the same principle is applied to software? What it the US take the same approach for material the "infringes" software patents?
The rights of *all* works should be protected - including those works release for free under public licenses.
It sounds like the new Slashdot meme!
This evolutionary path is yet to be walked down.
You know what, this is one area where I prefer intelligent design!
(I know, I know, I have sacrificed my principles for a cheap joke..)
Despite the propoganda they are not pure angels and Intel is not pure evil either.
Maybe so, but thats not the point. I just dont want to see the mainstream PC processor market to become a one-horse race. If AMD had not been there, Intel would probably still be making P4s clocked at 1ghz today.. Having said that, I dont think AMD can take Intel head on - they are right to (or need to) find other niches..
Sadly, its going to be a long long time before it happens for real. Zubrins "Mars Direct" plan http://www.cbqc.net/mars/docs/md_reno.txt is the best one using current tech - but it has so many possible ways it can fail that it will not be picked up by todays ultra risk-adverse space admins. The biggest mistake NASA ever made was to ditch the Saturn 5 and 1b systems that took Apollo to the moon - the Skylabs sent up with the later Apollos already did most of the usedful research being being replicated by the overpriced ISS, and they had designs in the pipeline for long term moon-bases, all using Sat5 boosters. Ironically, ditching Apollo never saved the money Nixon thought it would, and yet set manned exploration back 50 years (2019 is about "return to moon" time). Zubrins "Direct to Mars" plan uses two Sat 5 sized launchers for a 3 year round trip Mars mission.
Because of the logistical problems of a manned mars round trip, someone actually preposed we should find volenteers for a one way trip!! Seriously, just find devoted (and perhaps older) individuals who would risk going to stay - maybe with the promise of a return vessel being sent a few years down the line (A.K.A. 2001).
Any volenteers?
"..the Commodore Vic-20, a 2K masterpiece.."
2K? 2k???!? Its 5K, sir, I will have you know!
http://www.viceteam.org/ (VICE VIC20 emulator..)