I made a mistake in this post. The cost of solar with capacity factor is really 5.76 dollars/watt, 8.46 times high than unimpeded nuclear. That's without permits or installation costs.
Do I come into your house and make you remove the red items so that my robots won't fail? Do I rip out your yard so I can drive my car through it? No. So stop trying to rip up the world for your damn child.
The problem is that as you said you have to think globally. No one will think "SCORE, let's get ANOTHER refrigerator." What will happen is that plastic toys will get cheaper, people will take more trips, drive more places, and that will make up the difference. Get more perspective and vision.
You are 100% wrong about nuclear power and so is this "rocky mountain institute." The Yuan speaks louder than every think tank in the world. The thing is that 60 million hydrogen cars just got produced last year. They use the world's most effective hydrogen storage system, gasoline. There's no problem with the nuclear power plant using it's excess electricity to produce gasoline, and fuel up those hydrogen cars. The technology of synthetic fuel production from water and CO2 is mature. We just have to tape all the pieces together and get it running. China will drag us kicking and screaming into the atomic age. While you are debating how to save a few joules here and there, the atomic agers will be selling you gasoline.
Efficiency is a trendy thing because everyone can talk about it. A million people think they can save the world through efficiency, while only a few can actually solve the problem through invention of renewable and nuclear energy. The problem is that all the energy efficiency in the world amounts turning down the radio in your car to save fuel mileage - nothing. In addition, efficiency does not reduce energy consumption. Let's say you move closer to work to save gas. What happens? Gas prices fall a bit because of your contribution. What then happens? More economic activity is created to use up the difference - phones and other products will have more plastic, somebody will drive longer, all to offset your contribution. In fact, it is possible that people will use up more energy, because new business will become possible at the lower gas price. The result is that efficiency is not worth anything at reducing energy consumption. It does allow more stuff to happen, which is good, but should not be thought of as a "green" activity.
Ironically, environmentalism and safetism (the idea that you should wear safety glasses while working with salt) are the real costs and obstacles to nuclear power. Ask China how much nuclear power really costs. See here on slashdot. 11 gigawatts for 6 billion dollars - and that's a prototype - 0.54 dollars/watt. Meanwhile, solar panels at the cheapest I could find them are 1.73 dollars/watt peak. In reality, the nuclear powerplant will be "on" %80 of the time, and the solar panel will be on %30 of the time if were lucky. So the result is 0.68 dollars/watt for nuclear and 2.16 dollars/watt of solar. What you can see is that nuclear is 3 times more expensive then solar. In addition, you should be aware that the production of solar panels is an extremely nasty process, consuming indium and other forms of unobtainium.
What we need is to convert coal plants to nuclear. We don't need vision or perspective, only a calculator and lust for the dollar. We'll drag the world into the atomic age, kicking and screaming.
Or adds $4500 worth of solar cells to your roof. But most people do not drive 2 hours a day. Most drive 40 miles/day, and most drive much slower than 65.
Electric vehicles, on average, are about 250-300 watt-hours/mile at 65 mph. So, that means we add 100 miles of range in an hour. Meanwhile, the gas station that filled up our car transferred energy at a rate of about 22 megawatts.
This is why I think the oceans are the future of nuclear power and mining. What we need is a good way to sense minerals on the bottom of the ocean. Then we can dispatch robots.
I don't think it works that way. It gets more massive to observers looking at the ship. Let's say the ship's engines provide a constant 9.8 m/s^2. I think that as the ship reaches the speed of light, to the observers on the ship, they will still be accelerating at the same rate (assuming the engine gives the same thrust). To the rest of us, the ship will be getting more massive, running slower, and acceleration will be much slower. I don't think there's a "speed limit" of a design as a result of how much thrust it can provide. There's only a speed limit because you run out of propellent. If you pretend it's unlimited, you can go as fast as you want, according to observers in the ship. This really is rocket science, and I hope there's an actual rocket scientist around here:).
Being a pessimist is hard. Optimism is everywhere. People are obsessed with "positive thinking", it's just a waste of time. A pessimist is either right or pleasantly surprised.
This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor.
We could reach our nearest neighbor in way less than that. As a ship accelerates, people and robots on the ship would see the rest of the universe speed up, and shrink in the direction of travel of the ship. This makes the trip much shorter for those on the ship.
I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.
Not entirely true. The revolution that produced the USA produced a stable, democratic system of government. Washington, Jefferson, and the rest designed the government to be as stable as possible. The problem is that a government is like a Windows install. The more virus scanners, firewalls, and the like that add to it, the longer before it falls apart. In the USA, it took about 175-200 years for this to happen. In other democracies, we have had times less than 20 years. We can debate about what "security vulnerability" allowed the collapse. The issue here that allowed the collapse appears to be the issue of campaign finance (lobbying) and biased media coverage.
Slashdot Mirror
I made a mistake in this post. The cost of solar with capacity factor is really 5.76 dollars/watt, 8.46 times high than unimpeded nuclear. That's without permits or installation costs.
Do I come into your house and make you remove the red items so that my robots won't fail? Do I rip out your yard so I can drive my car through it? No. So stop trying to rip up the world for your damn child.
The problem is that as you said you have to think globally. No one will think "SCORE, let's get ANOTHER refrigerator." What will happen is that plastic toys will get cheaper, people will take more trips, drive more places, and that will make up the difference. Get more perspective and vision.
You are 100% wrong about nuclear power and so is this "rocky mountain institute." The Yuan speaks louder than every think tank in the world. The thing is that 60 million hydrogen cars just got produced last year. They use the world's most effective hydrogen storage system, gasoline. There's no problem with the nuclear power plant using it's excess electricity to produce gasoline, and fuel up those hydrogen cars. The technology of synthetic fuel production from water and CO2 is mature. We just have to tape all the pieces together and get it running. China will drag us kicking and screaming into the atomic age. While you are debating how to save a few joules here and there, the atomic agers will be selling you gasoline.
Efficiency is a trendy thing because everyone can talk about it. A million people think they can save the world through efficiency, while only a few can actually solve the problem through invention of renewable and nuclear energy. The problem is that all the energy efficiency in the world amounts turning down the radio in your car to save fuel mileage - nothing. In addition, efficiency does not reduce energy consumption. Let's say you move closer to work to save gas. What happens? Gas prices fall a bit because of your contribution. What then happens? More economic activity is created to use up the difference - phones and other products will have more plastic, somebody will drive longer, all to offset your contribution. In fact, it is possible that people will use up more energy, because new business will become possible at the lower gas price. The result is that efficiency is not worth anything at reducing energy consumption. It does allow more stuff to happen, which is good, but should not be thought of as a "green" activity.
Ironically, environmentalism and safetism (the idea that you should wear safety glasses while working with salt) are the real costs and obstacles to nuclear power. Ask China how much nuclear power really costs. See here on slashdot. 11 gigawatts for 6 billion dollars - and that's a prototype - 0.54 dollars/watt. Meanwhile, solar panels at the cheapest I could find them are 1.73 dollars/watt peak. In reality, the nuclear powerplant will be "on" %80 of the time, and the solar panel will be on %30 of the time if were lucky. So the result is 0.68 dollars/watt for nuclear and 2.16 dollars/watt of solar. What you can see is that nuclear is 3 times more expensive then solar. In addition, you should be aware that the production of solar panels is an extremely nasty process, consuming indium and other forms of unobtainium.
What we need is to convert coal plants to nuclear. We don't need vision or perspective, only a calculator and lust for the dollar. We'll drag the world into the atomic age, kicking and screaming.
This is why we will have to build nuclear powerplants on the oceans. Then we will make gasoline from the seawater and CO2 and ship it.
A self unfulfilling prophecy?
No more yanking health insurance when you get sic [sic].
Get it?
The passphrase is: HoldWhatYouAreDoingToUsIsWrongWhyDoYouDoThisThing
Then the AP explains is purpose and pwns you anyway.
The funny thing is that zinc oxide is being used in thermochemical engines to produce hydrogen.
No. He's saying that most just aren't practical.
I already accounted for that. Its about a factor of 0.3.
But it did not get dug up. It got bashed into while other stuff got dug up.
Or adds $4500 worth of solar cells to your roof. But most people do not drive 2 hours a day. Most drive 40 miles/day, and most drive much slower than 65.
Electric vehicles, on average, are about 250-300 watt-hours/mile at 65 mph. So, that means we add 100 miles of range in an hour. Meanwhile, the gas station that filled up our car transferred energy at a rate of about 22 megawatts.
When the environmentalists can't afford their SUVs anymore, we will be allowed.
Uranium. Thorium. Sunlight. Fusion.
How about nature have to clean it up, because nature put it there in the first place?
This is why I think the oceans are the future of nuclear power and mining. What we need is a good way to sense minerals on the bottom of the ocean. Then we can dispatch robots.
I don't think it works that way. It gets more massive to observers looking at the ship. Let's say the ship's engines provide a constant 9.8 m/s^2. I think that as the ship reaches the speed of light, to the observers on the ship, they will still be accelerating at the same rate (assuming the engine gives the same thrust). To the rest of us, the ship will be getting more massive, running slower, and acceleration will be much slower. I don't think there's a "speed limit" of a design as a result of how much thrust it can provide. There's only a speed limit because you run out of propellent. If you pretend it's unlimited, you can go as fast as you want, according to observers in the ship. This really is rocket science, and I hope there's an actual rocket scientist around here :).
Being a pessimist is hard. Optimism is everywhere. People are obsessed with "positive thinking", it's just a waste of time. A pessimist is either right or pleasantly surprised.
This is an expensive proposition. In light of our current understanding of physics, we would have to build a very expensive embryo-ship that could travel for (hundreds of?) thousands of years just to reach the next door neighbor.
We could reach our nearest neighbor in way less than that. As a ship accelerates, people and robots on the ship would see the rest of the universe speed up, and shrink in the direction of travel of the ship. This makes the trip much shorter for those on the ship.
I cannot even imagine how much fuel you will need to drag this baby out of the Sun's gravity well.
Uranium is the fuel of the future.
That was the point. If there's even one species that "wastes" its energies on travel, they would have taken over the galaxy.
So basically, he lied to people to get their support (not like the others don't do this).
I know. I just tried to pick the least bad, IMO, and put that as a disclaimer.
Not entirely true. The revolution that produced the USA produced a stable, democratic system of government. Washington, Jefferson, and the rest designed the government to be as stable as possible. The problem is that a government is like a Windows install. The more virus scanners, firewalls, and the like that add to it, the longer before it falls apart. In the USA, it took about 175-200 years for this to happen. In other democracies, we have had times less than 20 years. We can debate about what "security vulnerability" allowed the collapse. The issue here that allowed the collapse appears to be the issue of campaign finance (lobbying) and biased media coverage.