Water in a typical closed steam system is managed with various chemicals, and not simply pure water. That is because even with pure water, you will always get some interaction with the system elements and oxygen or whatever gases are present. Methods for managing that have been optimized for large steam plants. Who knows what would "get into the water" even in a closed system with this material and whatever others are required.
I wouldn't assume you can produce high pressure steam with any velocity through this foam. It appears very fragile, and would probably get torn apart by even a low flow approach. If true, that makes a direct closed system approach unlikely. If not true, it still would appear to require a huge exposure area to produce any usable output, which presents significant flow management and collection problems.
So, not all slashdotters are as lost on the matter as you may suppose.
Not even close. The waste is funded during the life of the plant. Today's plant designs are for a minimum 60 years of operation, but solar PV life ranges from 15 to 25 years, required all that capital to spent again to replace. Of course, nuclear plants will have lifetime costs as well, but not 3 x cap in present day dollars.
This foam looks pretty fragile to me. I would guess with any flow rate approaching what would be required to run a steam turbine, the foam would be torn apart. I think that is one reason the researchers didn't point this out as a likely use.
If there were a viable system, you would still likely WANT to use mirrors just because they are low cost and make better use of the higher cost heat transfer elements.
Didn't RTMF... What happens when it gets all gunked up with algae?
It seems fouling would be a big problem in an open system. If you had a closed system, sandwiched the material under a glass plate and circulated pure water or some other fluid in a closed system, with a heat transfer means on a bottom plate, then maybe that would make a usable system. But that would also reduce efficiency by some amount.
How about working on latency as well to enable truly responsive HD video conferencing? That, could storage, and external VPN connectivity are the key areas of benefit.
Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.
If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.
Are you making some point about cost? retail price? Market pricing? What? An individual contract in the context of a 50% subsidized source with added production credits means nothing in terms of actual cost.
You mix subsidized prices, market rates and costs in your analysis to the point where it doesn't make sense, not uncommon when trying to make an argument for solar. Stick to cost and you'll see the stark difference. The key thing is that 1Kw of nuclear capacity generates on average about 5 times the electricity in a year than 1Kw of solar PV. And, the cost of backup up is much lower, as you only need 1KW reserve for about 90 Kw of nuclear, while you need almost the full 90Kw of reserve for every 90 Kw of PV. Solar fanboys conveniently ignore that cost, and its a pretty big one.
but even without consideration of that huge additional cost:
The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.
A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.
The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.
Actually, coal plants are the ones that emit radioactive particulates into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants don't, and as the primary other available baseload generator therefore can historically be credited with offsetting more radioactive emissions from coal than any other single energy source.
So, if that kind of thing truly scares you, you should be glad we've had those nuke plants running for so many years. You can "breathe easier"!
Michigan's woes are in a large part due to the auto industry failure. In some respects, if you want to equate minimum wage law with union wage requirements, one could argue that Michigan is a prime example of the negative effects of higher wage requirements, as the industry clearly decided to leave that state behind.
I'm not really on one side or another of this debate, although I do believe some jobs just aren't that valuable. I just hate when folks start making claims where the numbers really aren't mature enough to support it.
Solar is already way cheaper than nuclear, has been for a few years now.
You'll have a hard time backing that claim up with real numbers. Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis. Many confuse price with cost, and on top of that forget that pricing is quite artificial due to production credits.
But they'll never know what the results would look like had they not implemented minimum wage hikes, so its all a game of 'twist the data'. And frankly, its quite early to be claiming anything wrt results. There are much larger drivers of the economy than min wage. Frankly, I doubt we'd see any different results had those states not made changes, and there is probably a much stronger argument for that position at this time.
The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't..
Maybe some used this method, but the decisions were was highly political in most cases. Personally, I don't think it hurts or helps as much as those who sit solidly on either side of the debate believe, and fundamentally there are much larger concerns on driving a stronger economy.
Well, if you look at the conclusions, even the researchers stated "might" increase risk. There is a reason for that. Keep it in context of the entire body of knowledge on the matter and it is quite clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Water in a typical closed steam system is managed with various chemicals, and not simply pure water. That is because even with pure water, you will always get some interaction with the system elements and oxygen or whatever gases are present. Methods for managing that have been optimized for large steam plants. Who knows what would "get into the water" even in a closed system with this material and whatever others are required.
I wouldn't assume you can produce high pressure steam with any velocity through this foam. It appears very fragile, and would probably get torn apart by even a low flow approach. If true, that makes a direct closed system approach unlikely. If not true, it still would appear to require a huge exposure area to produce any usable output, which presents significant flow management and collection problems.
So, not all slashdotters are as lost on the matter as you may suppose.
Not even close. The waste is funded during the life of the plant. Today's plant designs are for a minimum 60 years of operation, but solar PV life ranges from 15 to 25 years, required all that capital to spent again to replace. Of course, nuclear plants will have lifetime costs as well, but not 3 x cap in present day dollars.
You could say that if we lived in an inflationary economy. Since we don't, that explanation doesn't hold water.
You could say that if there were no inflation, but since there is, that response doesn't hold water.
On top of that, they got those fast lane fees to cover.
Time will tell, if customers really care.
This foam looks pretty fragile to me. I would guess with any flow rate approaching what would be required to run a steam turbine, the foam would be torn apart. I think that is one reason the researchers didn't point this out as a likely use.
If there were a viable system, you would still likely WANT to use mirrors just because they are low cost and make better use of the higher cost heat transfer elements.
Only if you are boiling pure water, otherwise you will likely get mineral deposits and such rather quickly.
Didn't RTMF... What happens when it gets all gunked up with algae?
It seems fouling would be a big problem in an open system. If you had a closed system, sandwiched the material under a glass plate and circulated pure water or some other fluid in a closed system, with a heat transfer means on a bottom plate, then maybe that would make a usable system. But that would also reduce efficiency by some amount.
Possibly, but there is no indication if this material will see fouling or depositing from such a process.
“There is still a lot of research that can be done on implementing this in larger systems.”
Translated;
“There is still a lot of research that MUST be done TO IMPLEMENT this in larger systems.”
How about working on latency as well to enable truly responsive HD video conferencing? That, could storage, and external VPN connectivity are the key areas of benefit.
Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.
If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.
Are you making some point about cost? retail price? Market pricing? What? An individual contract in the context of a 50% subsidized source with added production credits means nothing in terms of actual cost.
You mix subsidized prices, market rates and costs in your analysis to the point where it doesn't make sense, not uncommon when trying to make an argument for solar. Stick to cost and you'll see the stark difference. The key thing is that 1Kw of nuclear capacity generates on average about 5 times the electricity in a year than 1Kw of solar PV. And, the cost of backup up is much lower, as you only need 1KW reserve for about 90 Kw of nuclear, while you need almost the full 90Kw of reserve for every 90 Kw of PV. Solar fanboys conveniently ignore that cost, and its a pretty big one.
but even without consideration of that huge additional cost:
The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.
A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.
The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.
Actually, coal plants are the ones that emit radioactive particulates into the atmosphere. Nuclear plants don't, and as the primary other available baseload generator therefore can historically be credited with offsetting more radioactive emissions from coal than any other single energy source.
So, if that kind of thing truly scares you, you should be glad we've had those nuke plants running for so many years. You can "breathe easier"!
Michigan's woes are in a large part due to the auto industry failure. In some respects, if you want to equate minimum wage law with union wage requirements, one could argue that Michigan is a prime example of the negative effects of higher wage requirements, as the industry clearly decided to leave that state behind.
I'm not really on one side or another of this debate, although I do believe some jobs just aren't that valuable. I just hate when folks start making claims where the numbers really aren't mature enough to support it.
Solar is already way cheaper than nuclear, has been for a few years now.
You'll have a hard time backing that claim up with real numbers. Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis. Many confuse price with cost, and on top of that forget that pricing is quite artificial due to production credits.
Lots of links, but none of them assert that nuclear plants are "emitting particles traveling on the wind".
But they'll never know what the results would look like had they not implemented minimum wage hikes, so its all a game of 'twist the data'. And frankly, its quite early to be claiming anything wrt results. There are much larger drivers of the economy than min wage. Frankly, I doubt we'd see any different results had those states not made changes, and there is probably a much stronger argument for that position at this time.
The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't..
Maybe some used this method, but the decisions were was highly political in most cases. Personally, I don't think it hurts or helps as much as those who sit solidly on either side of the debate believe, and fundamentally there are much larger concerns on driving a stronger economy.
Well, if you look at the conclusions, even the researchers stated "might" increase risk. There is a reason for that. Keep it in context of the entire body of knowledge on the matter and it is quite clear.
Care to provide a number?