um the fact that we use AC for long distances means that it is in fact better to convert locally to DC, and transmit AC.
DC can be used for long distances if electricity is transmitted at high voltage though. What I wonder as I don't know is if it is more efficient to transmit at the high voltage DC requires then step down the voltage where it's used or if using AC at lower volts then converting it to DC where used is more efficient.
Put it this way, the computer you typed that on runs on DC. If you print this out, the printer will use dc power as well. Almost every electrical or electronic equipment in the home and office converts the AC power they are fed into DC power. Inefficiencies are introduced during the conversion. Because of these inefficiencies people who build their homes Off the Grid wire the home mostly for 12V, 24V, or 48V DC then they furnish it with DC appliances where they can.
Except that your long post goes on about an entity that currently does not exist. The free industrialized world nations that you know today are representative republics. Democracy is where everyone votes and power and law are decided based on the outcome directly. A republic is where everyone votes but the power and law are implemented by representatives.
Second, re-design corporations - make directors accountable personally, make ceos accountable personally.
Ah but Corporate charters can be revoked. Corporations were originally granted charters if it served the public good and when a corporation no longer did the charter could be revoked. Unfortunately charters haven't been revoked in a long tyme. I agree though officers and directors of corporations should be held accountable.
ut you want solutions to capitalism? Sure, close the borders with any other country that doesn't implement capitalism the same way we do, so that we can compete under a fair system.
Oh you mean Mexico can and should give Mexican farmers billions of dollars, er pesos, in subsidies like the US gives to US agribusinesses? The US even gives farmers subsidies for NOT growing a crop.
Tesla died broke because he spent all his money trying to create a "wireless power distribution" that made no sense. If he had spent more time reading physics and less time building 100+ foot Tesla coils. Were some of his inventions stolen? Undoubtedly. But I think he has only himself to blame for losing all his money.
Or that he died broke and alone because people like Edison stole his ideas and robbed him blind. Tesla was a genius and could have done so much more for the world if only things weren't controlled by rich people with no vision further than how much money they can make, right away, off an idea. Tesla's failure is a perfect example of capitalism at work.
Without Tesla there's be nothing to watch the Super Bowl on. I'm pretty sure I could live without the Bengals or the 49ers (some might disagree with me).
I'm pretty sure most if not all TVs the Super Bowl plays on convert the AC power they receive to DC. Most home and office appliances have to convert the AC power they're fed to DC before using it. This conversion introduces inefficiencies. Now is it more efficient to transmit high voltage DC then step down the voltage when it reaches the point of use, or convert at the transmission point?
Not quite yet. While AC has an advantage over DC transmitting long distance at low voltages, at high voltages DC has the advantage. There are discussions in Europe to use high voltage CD current long distances. By stringing up all of Europe with these power lines it would make it easier for Europe to develop alternative energy sources. For instance while it may not always be windy in Spain it may be in Germany or Poland, and Turkey could provide solar power part of the tyme. Some months back I think IEEE's "Spectrum" had an article of this, here's one from the "Economist", "Where the wind blows".
Do you have a single country that you can use as an example that gets a majority of its power from Solar, Wind, Thermal? How about even a measurable amount above 10%?
Yes I can, every country on earth gets most of it's energy from the sun. All that coal and petro is stored solar energy. Now as for directly using solar energy, for by instance PV or solar collectors, no body gets even 10% of their energy this way. But only because solar hasn't been given the massive subsidies coal, nuclear power, and petro has been given.
Storage of waste is only a problem if you have never driven from the East coast to the West coast, or vice-versa. After you cross westerly over the Mississippi, you'll notice there aint much there except elbow room.
I live west of the Mississippi, it's less than 10 miles from me. Let me ask you a question, do you want and would you allow nuclear waste to be stored in your backyard? Would you also be willing to live next to a nuclear power plant? If not you're a hypocrite for demanding someone else live next to the power plant and store it in someone's backyard. And yet, the plant has to be built somewhere and the waste has to be stored in someone's back yard, unless it's sent into space or dumped in the oceans.
The problem with most "green" power is that it works great in a small area.
For example, solar is just the ticket for sunny parts of the world, but next to useless in places like Seattle where it's cloudy most of the time.
True but while some things won't be able to be used in some places, solar in Seattle, other things can be used there. For Seattle, and Portland, wind is good. Of course wind farms would upset those NIMBY environmentalists there, just as some NIMBYs are upset over proposed wind farms offshore in Cape Cop and Cape Hatteras. Puget Sound may also be good for tidal energy, though I admit I don't know this for fact.
Ethanol works great IN BRAZIL, largely because they've got abundant sugarcane and no petroleum reserves (at least until they found some) But sugarcane doesn't grow everywhere. And most of the other things that might work as ethanol food sources require more development. Do you really want to stake our survival as a species on something that's still fairly speculative? Just because the Manhattan Project was able to make a nuclear bomb in time doesn't mean that everything you throw a bunch of scientists at will net results.
While throwing scientists may not solve all of the problems it most certainly can help. But for the life of me I can't think of a single place on earth that doesn't have some sort of energy source they can develop. Discounting oil even Siberia has an energy source, locked under the melting permafrost is a lot of methane gas. Methane is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, however it can be burned to produce electricity with CO2 and water as the emissions. It's better to burn methane and release CO2 than it is to let the methane be released into the atmosphere.
I have a buddy who lives off-the-grid. And I think it's the coolest thing ever and feel that it is highly geek-friendly. But you cannot take the results of a set of people who made it a success and try to apply these results to the rest of the world as a general solution. People in big cities like NYC do not own enough space to live off-the-grid. You can't just decree that NYC be liquidated to feed your "off-the-grid" dreamland, nor can you assume that factories that produce stuff that we need like metals or electronics can be easily made self-powered. Do you know how much power an aluminum plant takes up?
The Catskills Mountains in New York near NYC have good wind potential. A power company can lease small plots from farmers to erect wind turbines to generate electricity for NYC. While the the pads for the turbines would take up a little space there would be a year round source of income supplementing the farmer's income. NYC already does this sort of deal with farmers for water, the city pays farmers to conserve and not pollute the water the city needs to survive. As for the aluminum smelting plant, I'm not advocating the use only of alternative energy sources now, those big energy point users can still have a coal fired power plant, but those entities, businesses and individuals, who don't have large energy requirements can use an alternative energy source. Also cogeneration, which NYC already uses, can be expanded maybe. Besides NYC can reduce it's energy needs by simply replacing 1 incandescent light with a compact florescent light in just a tenth of the light fixtures.
I'm not saying that it's desirable, or that it doesn't present a number of difficulties (increased sea levels, changes in precipitation, etc which can all have serious economic and ecological consequences). However the parent claimed that global warming was making the planet UNINHABITABLE within the next couple hundred years, which is just simply untrue.
Ok, he installed a $50K system, to save himself $1,100 a year.
Which after rebates only cost him $15,000, which at your 10% would only be $1500. And while today he may be loosing $400 per year, energy prices are only going up. With rising energy prices his payback period would be shorter than the 9 years TFA says. The price of oil today is above $90 a barrel, what will it be in 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? After that his effective income, revenue - expenses, increases.
Then there's the 'energy saving appliances', which is hard to rate as I don't know the details.
Yea, the lack of details here makes it hard to make a decision on whether it's good or not. For instance a Sun Frost refrigerator will beat many other refrigerators that are Energy Star rated in energy efficiency. A simple redesign of refrigerators can make them more efficient. Most frigs and freezers have the compressors on the bottom, however compressors create heat which rises making it work harder to cool the inside. However Sun Frost puts the compressor on top so there's less work and energy needed to cool the inside.
So, to make this system economical for a home user, the Government has to pay him $35k up front and $500/year? Not very economical on a large scale. When I look at this stuff, I try to look at it without subsidies. After all, we can't afford to have all these subsidies if everyone's doing it.
Subsidies for solar and energy efficiency only help to level out the playing field. If you want to get rid of subsidies then get rid on those for all the others as well. Stop giving oil companies hugh subsidies, along with coal, and the nuclear power industry. A Nuclear Loan Provision which would guaranty loans was slipped into a farm bill, what does nuclear power have to do with farming? I'm all for ending subsidies for solar but I want all subsidies eliminated, including those for big businesses.
My monthly electric bill is ~$90
How many live with you? Admittedly I live alone, but even living with others my electric bill wouldn't be much higher than it is now, and it's below $30. I may be able to cut it in half though, because I'm on disability and don't work I basically stay at home, if you look at the tymes of my posts you can see I'm logged into/. for a big chunk of the day. And half the tyme or more I also have the TV on while online. If I were to get out daily for at least a few hours that would cut my electrical usage quite a bit. But I stay home because it's cheaper for me, even with a higher electric bill. But I don't personally even have to pay the bill, I may pay it occasionally but then I'm reimbursed later. I also don't see why I should go out, other than for shopping. I don't have much to do and other than my sister and her family, which I might see once a month, I don't know anyone to do things with around here.
Wind of course is vary variable and there is already significant resistance to more towers marring the landscape. So the only alternate at the moment is nuclear, preferably many low temp, long life reactors, rather than the high complexity, high temp units currently used.
Though there's resistance to wind farms there's also resistance to nuclear power plants, so that's a wash. As for variability of wind usually when it's not windy it's usually sunny, and modern wind gennie designs don't need a lot of wind. Though it's small, for Off the Grid applications, the BWC XL.1 Wind Turbine is a slow wind speed gennie capable of producing electricity with wind speeds as low as 5.6 mph.
You should have read the article. Far from having a nuclear wasteland, the French seem to be doing things right, for once.
I've got the issue TFA was in and did read it. Now let's see the conclusion, the last paragraph says this:
"With visions of nuclear electricity "too cheap to meter" long gone, the case for breeder reactors has shifted from creation of new fuels to management of spent fuels. Without breeder reactors, the case for reprocessing is less than compelling. Considered in isolation, the economic arguments for and against reprocessing are a wash. Most of the arguments concerning security and terrorism, too, seem moot. But until or unless breeder reactors are commercialized that can truly burn up all the residual fissile material found in spent fuels, reprocessing will simply concentrate high-level waste in a form that's hotter and harder to handle, exchanging one nuclear waste headache for another."
Notice how it says until breeder reactors that can truly burn up fissile material are commercialized all it will do is concentrate high level waste exchanging one headache for another. Do any of these reactor even exist never mind if they can be commercialized?
On the other hand, what should be asked first, is nuclear power even needed? In the US the Rocky Mountains have the potential wind power to supply energy to the 48 continuous states. But in case that's not enough a number of other states also have good wind potential. Those rolling blackouts in CA several years ago, while CA was suffering shortages of energy a wind farm sat idle in CA, why? Because the power cables needed to deliver electricity to end users weren't there. Fact is is the Pacific Northwest from British Columbia in the north to southern CA then through Arizona and New Mexico to Texas are good locations for wind farms. Also From S CA to Texas as well as FL solar is good. By combining geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind along with energy efficiency there is no need for nuclear power plants.
Whereas nuclear power proponents are looking at the "one big idea", what is needed is dispersed power generation. Use geothermal where appropriate, and solar, tidal, and wind where they are appropriate.
'Course, that's not actually sufficient to power our civilization, leading to wide-spread collapse and subsequent famine and pestilence
Guess what will happen when oil is gone. Collapse of civilization that's what. We have millions of people dying of hunger now, but when oil is gone not only will transportation suffer but so will food crops. WHY? Because conventional western agriculture depends on massive amounts of petrochemical inputs. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are all made from petro.
Last time I checked, I still had a payback period of infinity for a solar system
Clark Beebe, 57, of Springfield, N.J., bought a $50,000 solar power system two years ago for $15,000 after rebates, installing it on the roof of his four-bedroom house. Because he offsets what he uses with what he pumps into the grid, his annual power bill has dropped from $1,270 to $170, though he also installed energy-saving appliances. His $1,100 yearly savings is supplemented by $500 in clean energy credits, cutting the payback period for his system to nine years. After that, he'll effectively net at least a $200-a-year profit. "I am now an electricity company," says Beebe 57. "Plus, I'm generating electricity without any pollutants."
Carrie Buczeke, 42, of Livermore, Calif., rolled the cost of her $54,000 solar panels -- $25,000 after rebates and tax credits -- into a home-equity loan. She has wiped out her $400 monthly electric bill and pays $300 a month for the loan. After seven years, the loan will be paid off. "It was such a no-brainer," she says.
We have plenty of uranium at slightly higher price points. It helps that major deposits are in countries like Australia and Canada - not the middleast.
But you are not paying all the costs of nuclear power, even those who don't use any have to pay for it. All that's being done is shifting the costs onto everyone. I bet if owners of nuclear power plants had to pay all of the costs, including storage of nuclear waste and insurance, not only would your bill be a lot higher but not many businesses if any at all would even build a nuclear power plant. The only reason they exist is because of massive government subsidies.
In fully economically deregulated environments, solar and wind would be slaughtered by nuclear.
In a fully deregulated environment nuclear power plant would have to get their own insurance and that would be expensive. But because of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act they don't have to.
Solar, even the more cost effective thermal designs: 11-13 cents a kwh. Hint: I pay less retail for my electricity.
Hint: Because of Externalities you don't have to pay full price. If coal fired and nuclear power plants had to pay all costs of the business then you would have to pay more. Because taxpayers will end up paying to store nuclear waste. Even those opposed to, and don't use, nuclear power will have to pay.
Ethanol is proven as a fuel. Brazil has proven ethanol made from sugarcane is feasible. Switchgrass however is a better raw material than sugarcane.
Windmills turned out to be bird-blenders are useless with still air.
Older technology windmills, with their faster blades, are a danger to birds however today's slower spinning wind gennies are safer.
The problem is that solar, wind, and biofuels are actually not half bad for "peak" load, but most folks can't tell the difference between base and peak load.
Nuclear power has been the answer for Canada, France, Japan and others for quite a while. The looney left is the only reason the US doesn't have more plants.
Oh, and France doesn't have a Nuclear Wasteland?. They still haven't figured what to do with the hot and toxic waste left over from reprocessing. Nuclear power is not an answer to any question that needs to be asked. In the US, the Rockies contain enough potential wind power to provide the 48 continuous states with energy. But in case that's not enough the Pacific Northwest on down to California, then through Arizona, and New Mexico to Texas hold more potential wind power. As does other places in the East and Northeast such as Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. Here's a Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Add that CA on through TX along with Florida are good places for solar power. Meanwhile, while it can take 10 or 20 years to build, inspect, then start a nuclear power plant, solar and wind can be added in less than a year.
Anyone who thinks we'll get all our energy from one source in the foreseeable future, however, is out of the loop.
I think that's the biggest problem. Most people will only consider one, or a small number of, large energy source(s). Instead use hydro where appropriate, the same with geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind.
Capitalism relies on scarcity to keep everyone obedient.
That may be corporatism but it's not capitalism.
Won't sell because of a power conspiracy? Give me a break. If a company could do this already, they'd be launching satellites on a daily basis. Think about it for a moment: you could be the company that supplies most of the world's power while waving the banner of environmental responsibility. But *no one* has even built *a prototype* because of your supposed cabal?
While I tend to agree there's no cabal preventing this, it would be in the incumbents' interest to prevent it. If it were possible it would rob power companies' of their monopoly, if anyone could launch satellites and beam down solar power then there's be competition and corporations fear competition when they are an incumbent.
Just FYI, halogen lights are just tungsten lamps, so they are really good for photography.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Being tungsten then I don't think they would have the funky effect I said previously. I haven't used studio lighting before, most of my exposures are taken outdoors with natural lighting or city night lights, but for an assignment in one photography class I took in college we had to take exposures indoors with incandescent lights then with florescent lights and compare how they were different.
The planet has seen much warmer periods in its history (just not very recently).
But that warming took centuries not decades. It's not so much that it's warming but that it's warming relatively fast compared to previous warming periods.
You stated we are not capable of mega engineering. This is false. We are capable of scaling our energy collection out as far as we need with technology that is over 30 years old, and with that capacity, we can pursue whatever mega engineering projects we want.
The problem is that we can't feasibly remove the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, GHGs, we have already released no matter how much the energy capacity is expanded. We could try to scrub the atmosphere but how much energy would it require to reduce GHGs?
Our biggest threats are population control and wasteful use of our non-renewable resources.
A way to reduce, er control, the population is to increase education, equality, and economic opportunities. As education and gender equality improve people's economic opportunities improve as well and the more people earn the less they reproduce, ie the birth rate declines. In the "Western World" or First World if it wasn't for immigration the population would be declining.
Slashdot Mirror
The transformers that are used to change the voltage of AC current don't work on DC current, so transmitting high voltage DC current wouldn't work.
I imagine the transformers used are better for AC so use other transformers. Like I've said elsewhere I don't know which is more efficient.
Falconum the fact that we use AC for long distances means that it is in fact better to convert locally to DC, and transmit AC.
DC can be used for long distances if electricity is transmitted at high voltage though. What I wonder as I don't know is if it is more efficient to transmit at the high voltage DC requires then step down the voltage where it's used or if using AC at lower volts then converting it to DC where used is more efficient.
FalconPut it this way, the computer you typed that on runs on DC. If you print this out, the printer will use dc power as well. Almost every electrical or electronic equipment in the home and office converts the AC power they are fed into DC power. Inefficiencies are introduced during the conversion. Because of these inefficiencies people who build their homes Off the Grid wire the home mostly for 12V, 24V, or 48V DC then they furnish it with DC appliances where they can.
FalconExcept that your long post goes on about an entity that currently does not exist. The free industrialized world nations that you know today are representative republics. Democracy is where everyone votes and power and law are decided based on the outcome directly. A republic is where everyone votes but the power and law are implemented by representatives.
Excuse me but a "republic" is "any form of government other than a monarchy", that includes democracies as well as dictatorships.
FalconSecond, re-design corporations - make directors accountable personally, make ceos accountable personally.
Ah but Corporate charters can be revoked. Corporations were originally granted charters if it served the public good and when a corporation no longer did the charter could be revoked. Unfortunately charters haven't been revoked in a long tyme. I agree though officers and directors of corporations should be held accountable.
ut you want solutions to capitalism? Sure, close the borders with any other country that doesn't implement capitalism the same way we do, so that we can compete under a fair system.
Oh you mean Mexico can and should give Mexican farmers billions of dollars, er pesos, in subsidies like the US gives to US agribusinesses? The US even gives farmers subsidies for NOT growing a crop.
Tesla died broke because he spent all his money trying to create a "wireless power distribution" that made no sense. If he had spent more time reading physics and less time building 100+ foot Tesla coils. Were some of his inventions stolen? Undoubtedly. But I think he has only himself to blame for losing all his money.
Except that now MIT has developed wireless power transmission. Guess they need to learn physics as well, oh and stop faking having powered a light bulb wirelessly.
FalconOr that he died broke and alone because people like Edison stole his ideas and robbed him blind. Tesla was a genius and could have done so much more for the world if only things weren't controlled by rich people with no vision further than how much money they can make, right away, off an idea. Tesla's failure is a perfect example of capitalism at work.
No, that's an example of the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned against.
FalconWithout Tesla there's be nothing to watch the Super Bowl on. I'm pretty sure I could live without the Bengals or the 49ers (some might disagree with me).
I'm pretty sure most if not all TVs the Super Bowl plays on convert the AC power they receive to DC. Most home and office appliances have to convert the AC power they're fed to DC before using it. This conversion introduces inefficiencies. Now is it more efficient to transmit high voltage DC then step down the voltage when it reaches the point of use, or convert at the transmission point?
FalconNot quite yet. While AC has an advantage over DC transmitting long distance at low voltages, at high voltages DC has the advantage. There are discussions in Europe to use high voltage CD current long distances. By stringing up all of Europe with these power lines it would make it easier for Europe to develop alternative energy sources. For instance while it may not always be windy in Spain it may be in Germany or Poland, and Turkey could provide solar power part of the tyme. Some months back I think IEEE's "Spectrum" had an article of this, here's one from the "Economist", "Where the wind blows".
FalconDo you have a single country that you can use as an example that gets a majority of its power from Solar, Wind, Thermal? How about even a measurable amount above 10%?
Yes I can, every country on earth gets most of it's energy from the sun. All that coal and petro is stored solar energy. Now as for directly using solar energy, for by instance PV or solar collectors, no body gets even 10% of their energy this way. But only because solar hasn't been given the massive subsidies coal, nuclear power, and petro has been given.
Storage of waste is only a problem if you have never driven from the East coast to the West coast, or vice-versa. After you cross westerly over the Mississippi, you'll notice there aint much there except elbow room.
I live west of the Mississippi, it's less than 10 miles from me. Let me ask you a question, do you want and would you allow nuclear waste to be stored in your backyard? Would you also be willing to live next to a nuclear power plant? If not you're a hypocrite for demanding someone else live next to the power plant and store it in someone's backyard. And yet, the plant has to be built somewhere and the waste has to be stored in someone's back yard, unless it's sent into space or dumped in the oceans.
FalconThe problem with most "green" power is that it works great in a small area.
For example, solar is just the ticket for sunny parts of the world, but next to useless in places like Seattle where it's cloudy most of the time.
True but while some things won't be able to be used in some places, solar in Seattle, other things can be used there. For Seattle, and Portland, wind is good. Of course wind farms would upset those NIMBY environmentalists there, just as some NIMBYs are upset over proposed wind farms offshore in Cape Cop and Cape Hatteras. Puget Sound may also be good for tidal energy, though I admit I don't know this for fact.
Ethanol works great IN BRAZIL, largely because they've got abundant sugarcane and no petroleum reserves (at least until they found some) But sugarcane doesn't grow everywhere. And most of the other things that might work as ethanol food sources require more development. Do you really want to stake our survival as a species on something that's still fairly speculative? Just because the Manhattan Project was able to make a nuclear bomb in time doesn't mean that everything you throw a bunch of scientists at will net results.
While throwing scientists may not solve all of the problems it most certainly can help. But for the life of me I can't think of a single place on earth that doesn't have some sort of energy source they can develop. Discounting oil even Siberia has an energy source, locked under the melting permafrost is a lot of methane gas. Methane is more than 20 tymes as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2, however it can be burned to produce electricity with CO2 and water as the emissions. It's better to burn methane and release CO2 than it is to let the methane be released into the atmosphere.
I have a buddy who lives off-the-grid. And I think it's the coolest thing ever and feel that it is highly geek-friendly. But you cannot take the results of a set of people who made it a success and try to apply these results to the rest of the world as a general solution. People in big cities like NYC do not own enough space to live off-the-grid. You can't just decree that NYC be liquidated to feed your "off-the-grid" dreamland, nor can you assume that factories that produce stuff that we need like metals or electronics can be easily made self-powered. Do you know how much power an aluminum plant takes up?
The Catskills Mountains in New York near NYC have good wind potential. A power company can lease small plots from farmers to erect wind turbines to generate electricity for NYC. While the the pads for the turbines would take up a little space there would be a year round source of income supplementing the farmer's income. NYC already does this sort of deal with farmers for water, the city pays farmers to conserve and not pollute the water the city needs to survive. As for the aluminum smelting plant, I'm not advocating the use only of alternative energy sources now, those big energy point users can still have a coal fired power plant, but those entities, businesses and individuals, who don't have large energy requirements can use an alternative energy source. Also cogeneration, which NYC already uses, can be expanded maybe. Besides NYC can reduce it's energy needs by simply replacing 1 incandescent light with a compact florescent light in just a tenth of the light fixtures.
FalconI'm not saying that it's desirable, or that it doesn't present a number of difficulties (increased sea levels, changes in precipitation, etc which can all have serious economic and ecological consequences). However the parent claimed that global warming was making the planet UNINHABITABLE within the next couple hundred years, which is just simply untrue.
Ok.
FalconOk, he installed a $50K system, to save himself $1,100 a year.
Which after rebates only cost him $15,000, which at your 10% would only be $1500. And while today he may be loosing $400 per year, energy prices are only going up. With rising energy prices his payback period would be shorter than the 9 years TFA says. The price of oil today is above $90 a barrel, what will it be in 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? After that his effective income, revenue - expenses, increases.
Then there's the 'energy saving appliances', which is hard to rate as I don't know the details.
Yea, the lack of details here makes it hard to make a decision on whether it's good or not. For instance a Sun Frost refrigerator will beat many other refrigerators that are Energy Star rated in energy efficiency. A simple redesign of refrigerators can make them more efficient. Most frigs and freezers have the compressors on the bottom, however compressors create heat which rises making it work harder to cool the inside. However Sun Frost puts the compressor on top so there's less work and energy needed to cool the inside.
So, to make this system economical for a home user, the Government has to pay him $35k up front and $500/year? Not very economical on a large scale. When I look at this stuff, I try to look at it without subsidies. After all, we can't afford to have all these subsidies if everyone's doing it.
Subsidies for solar and energy efficiency only help to level out the playing field. If you want to get rid of subsidies then get rid on those for all the others as well. Stop giving oil companies hugh subsidies, along with coal, and the nuclear power industry. A Nuclear Loan Provision which would guaranty loans was slipped into a farm bill, what does nuclear power have to do with farming? I'm all for ending subsidies for solar but I want all subsidies eliminated, including those for big businesses.
My monthly electric bill is ~$90
How many live with you? Admittedly I live alone, but even living with others my electric bill wouldn't be much higher than it is now, and it's below $30. I may be able to cut it in half though, because I'm on disability and don't work I basically stay at home, if you look at the tymes of my posts you can see I'm logged into /. for a big chunk of the day. And half the tyme or more I also have the TV on while online. If I were to get out daily for at least a few hours that would cut my electrical usage quite a bit. But I stay home because it's cheaper for me, even with a higher electric bill. But I don't personally even have to pay the bill, I may pay it occasionally but then I'm reimbursed later. I also don't see why I should go out, other than for shopping. I don't have much to do and other than my sister and her family, which I might see once a month, I don't know anyone to do things with around here.
FalconWind of course is vary variable and there is already significant resistance to more towers marring the landscape. So the only alternate at the moment is nuclear, preferably many low temp, long life reactors, rather than the high complexity, high temp units currently used.
Though there's resistance to wind farms there's also resistance to nuclear power plants, so that's a wash. As for variability of wind usually when it's not windy it's usually sunny, and modern wind gennie designs don't need a lot of wind. Though it's small, for Off the Grid applications, the BWC XL.1 Wind Turbine is a slow wind speed gennie capable of producing electricity with wind speeds as low as 5.6 mph.
FalconYou should have read the article. Far from having a nuclear wasteland, the French seem to be doing things right, for once.
I've got the issue TFA was in and did read it. Now let's see the conclusion, the last paragraph says this:
"With visions of nuclear electricity "too cheap to meter" long gone, the case for breeder reactors has shifted from creation of new fuels to management of spent fuels. Without breeder reactors, the case for reprocessing is less than compelling. Considered in isolation, the economic arguments for and against reprocessing are a wash. Most of the arguments concerning security and terrorism, too, seem moot. But until or unless breeder reactors are commercialized that can truly burn up all the residual fissile material found in spent fuels, reprocessing will simply concentrate high-level waste in a form that's hotter and harder to handle, exchanging one nuclear waste headache for another."
Notice how it says until breeder reactors that can truly burn up fissile material are commercialized all it will do is concentrate high level waste exchanging one headache for another. Do any of these reactor even exist never mind if they can be commercialized?
On the other hand, what should be asked first, is nuclear power even needed? In the US the Rocky Mountains have the potential wind power to supply energy to the 48 continuous states. But in case that's not enough a number of other states also have good wind potential. Those rolling blackouts in CA several years ago, while CA was suffering shortages of energy a wind farm sat idle in CA, why? Because the power cables needed to deliver electricity to end users weren't there. Fact is is the Pacific Northwest from British Columbia in the north to southern CA then through Arizona and New Mexico to Texas are good locations for wind farms. Also From S CA to Texas as well as FL solar is good. By combining geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind along with energy efficiency there is no need for nuclear power plants.
Whereas nuclear power proponents are looking at the "one big idea", what is needed is dispersed power generation. Use geothermal where appropriate, and solar, tidal, and wind where they are appropriate.
FalconSo would solar + tidal + geothermal + wind.
'Course, that's not actually sufficient to power our civilization
Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Combining geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind with efficiency should meet the US's energy needs.
'Course, that's not actually sufficient to power our civilization, leading to wide-spread collapse and subsequent famine and pestilence
Guess what will happen when oil is gone. Collapse of civilization that's what. We have millions of people dying of hunger now, but when oil is gone not only will transportation suffer but so will food crops. WHY? Because conventional western agriculture depends on massive amounts of petrochemical inputs. Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are all made from petro.
Last time I checked, I still had a payback period of infinity for a solar system
Clark Beebe, 57, of Springfield, N.J., bought a $50,000 solar power system two years ago for $15,000 after rebates, installing it on the roof of his four-bedroom house. Because he offsets what he uses with what he pumps into the grid, his annual power bill has dropped from $1,270 to $170, though he also installed energy-saving appliances. His $1,100 yearly savings is supplemented by $500 in clean energy credits, cutting the payback period for his system to nine years. After that, he'll effectively net at least a $200-a-year profit. "I am now an electricity company," says Beebe 57. "Plus, I'm generating electricity without any pollutants."
Carrie Buczeke, 42, of Livermore, Calif., rolled the cost of her $54,000 solar panels -- $25,000 after rebates and tax credits -- into a home-equity loan. She has wiped out her $400 monthly electric bill and pays $300 a month for the loan. After seven years, the loan will be paid off. "It was such a no-brainer," she says.
We have plenty of uranium at slightly higher price points. It helps that major deposits are in countries like Australia and Canada - not the middleast.
But you are not paying all the costs of nuclear power, even those who don't use any have to pay for it. All that's being done is shifting the costs onto everyone. I bet if owners of nuclear power plants had to pay all of the costs, including storage of nuclear waste and insurance, not only would your bill be a lot higher but not many businesses if any at all would even build a nuclear power plant. The only reason they exist is because of massive government subsidies.
FalconIn fully economically deregulated environments, solar and wind would be slaughtered by nuclear.
In a fully deregulated environment nuclear power plant would have to get their own insurance and that would be expensive. But because of the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act they don't have to.
Solar, even the more cost effective thermal designs: 11-13 cents a kwh. Hint: I pay less retail for my electricity.
Hint: Because of Externalities you don't have to pay full price. If coal fired and nuclear power plants had to pay all costs of the business then you would have to pay more. Because taxpayers will end up paying to store nuclear waste. Even those opposed to, and don't use, nuclear power will have to pay.
FalconEthanol is proven as a fuel. Brazil has proven ethanol made from sugarcane is feasible. Switchgrass however is a better raw material than sugarcane.
Windmills turned out to be bird-blenders are useless with still air.
Older technology windmills, with their faster blades, are a danger to birds however today's slower spinning wind gennies are safer.
The problem is that solar, wind, and biofuels are actually not half bad for "peak" load, but most folks can't tell the difference between base and peak load.
Many people are able to live comfortably Off the Grid with solar and/or wind gennies. "Homepower and Solar Today show how people do it.
FalconNuclear power has been the answer for Canada, France, Japan and others for quite a while. The looney left is the only reason the US doesn't have more plants.
Oh, and France doesn't have a Nuclear Wasteland?. They still haven't figured what to do with the hot and toxic waste left over from reprocessing. Nuclear power is not an answer to any question that needs to be asked. In the US, the Rockies contain enough potential wind power to provide the 48 continuous states with energy. But in case that's not enough the Pacific Northwest on down to California, then through Arizona, and New Mexico to Texas hold more potential wind power. As does other places in the East and Northeast such as Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras. Here's a Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Add that CA on through TX along with Florida are good places for solar power. Meanwhile, while it can take 10 or 20 years to build, inspect, then start a nuclear power plant, solar and wind can be added in less than a year.
FalconAnyone who thinks we'll get all our energy from one source in the foreseeable future, however, is out of the loop.
I think that's the biggest problem. Most people will only consider one, or a small number of, large energy source(s). Instead use hydro where appropriate, the same with geothermal, solar, tidal, and wind.
FalconCapitalism relies on scarcity to keep everyone obedient.
That may be corporatism but it's not capitalism.
Won't sell because of a power conspiracy? Give me a break. If a company could do this already, they'd be launching satellites on a daily basis. Think about it for a moment: you could be the company that supplies most of the world's power while waving the banner of environmental responsibility. But *no one* has even built *a prototype* because of your supposed cabal?
While I tend to agree there's no cabal preventing this, it would be in the incumbents' interest to prevent it. If it were possible it would rob power companies' of their monopoly, if anyone could launch satellites and beam down solar power then there's be competition and corporations fear competition when they are an incumbent.
FalconJust FYI, halogen lights are just tungsten lamps, so they are really good for photography.
Thanks, I didn't know that. Being tungsten then I don't think they would have the funky effect I said previously. I haven't used studio lighting before, most of my exposures are taken outdoors with natural lighting or city night lights, but for an assignment in one photography class I took in college we had to take exposures indoors with incandescent lights then with florescent lights and compare how they were different.
FalconThe planet has seen much warmer periods in its history (just not very recently).
But that warming took centuries not decades. It's not so much that it's warming but that it's warming relatively fast compared to previous warming periods.
FalconYou stated we are not capable of mega engineering. This is false. We are capable of scaling our energy collection out as far as we need with technology that is over 30 years old, and with that capacity, we can pursue whatever mega engineering projects we want.
The problem is that we can't feasibly remove the CO2 and other greenhouse gases, GHGs, we have already released no matter how much the energy capacity is expanded. We could try to scrub the atmosphere but how much energy would it require to reduce GHGs?
Our biggest threats are population control and wasteful use of our non-renewable resources.
A way to reduce, er control, the population is to increase education, equality, and economic opportunities. As education and gender equality improve people's economic opportunities improve as well and the more people earn the less they reproduce, ie the birth rate declines. In the "Western World" or First World if it wasn't for immigration the population would be declining.
Falcon