How do ya'll feel about nuclear power?

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But there's one of the major problems: why should solar be competing against nuclear? They're complementary, and both are needed to displace fossil fuels: solar providing energy for homes & distributed applications, nuclear for power-dense sources to run industry.



But in fact they are. Not necessarily the state, but there are a lot of people out there who apparently think it's ok to destroy a desert ecosystem (hey, it's a desert, nothing important there), or fill up a nice view with wind turbines, in pursuit of supposedly green energy.

As for the other part, what's so hard about calling a state by its right name, or a recognized abbreviation if you're too lazy to type, instead of those nasty two-letter codes?

I'm from LA, CA, and I don't mind. This is a very weak critique on your part that diminishes your overall argument. Instead of "taking offense" and attacking your opponent over details that aren't germane to the thread, how about sticking to a principled defense of your POV?

I think the "covering NV in PV" argument is also specious. I think it is mostly mentioned because the square footage of the state roughly matches the energy requirements of 100% PV use in the USA (at 15% efficient?). You can argue that it is because of the amount of desert that NV has, but CA, AZ, and NM also have a lot of desert, so maybe they can give up some land too.

I'm against nuclear energy because I don't trust it's track record in the USA and I don't hear nuclear energy proponents explaining solutions to the classic problems of nuclear waste and proliferation at the *beginning* of their advocacy. If you can find a way of processing nuclear waste so that all the leftovers can be released back into the environment, then we can talk. If you propose to store the waste for any length beyond 100 years, then I will reject your solution. I don't see any government as capable of being stable for long enough to steward the "1000 years or more" waste dump sites like Yucca Mountain.

CarloSW2

[Christ]

Originally Posted by cfg83

jamesqf -



I'm from LA, CA, and I don't mind. This is a very weak critique on your part that diminishes your overall argument. Instead of "taking offense" and attacking your opponent over details that aren't germane to the thread, how about sticking to a principled defense of your POV?

I think the "covering NV in PV" argument is also specious. I think it is mostly mentioned because the square footage of the state roughly matches the energy requirements of 100% PV use in the USA (at 15% efficient?). You can argue that it is because of the amount of desert that NV has, but CA, AZ, and NM also have a lot of desert, so maybe they can give up some land too.

I'm against nuclear energy because I don't trust it's track record in the USA and I don't hear nuclear energy proponents explaining solutions to the classic problems of nuclear waste and proliferation at the *beginning* of their advocacy. If you can find a way of processing nuclear waste so that all the leftovers can be released back into the environment, then we can talk. If you propose to store the waste for any length beyond 100 years, then I will also reject your solution. I don't see any government as capable of being stable for long enough to steward the "1000 years or more" waste dump sites like Yucca Mountain.

CarloSW2

Ideally, noone would have to give up land for solar use. At least noone who wasn't willing. When you stop and think about it, and I mean REALLY think about it, the sq. mile area of Nevada is probably less than comparable to the size of the rooftops and unused window spaces of the Federal and Corporate controlled buildings in the US.

*Obvious Questions*
What is your point?
If we could use that space on buildings, we save land that is already ecologically suited to grow plants, rather than trying to displace plants to the tops of buildings. (Another "green" strategy)

What the heck are "unused window spaces"?
These are the spaces in buildings that look like windows, from the outside, but they really aren't. Often, these will include glass spaces which span the floor/ceiling area of a story of the building, the areas where HVAC piping is run, as well as electrical conduit, etc. They're basically any space that a person wouldn't be able to look out of on a regular basis. These "windows" are often covered from the backsides with some form of insulation, to block light transfer, as well as to help insulate the building's unmentionable areas.

[Christ]

Plus, some guy, somewhere has designed the "helix wind generator" or something like that... I briefly saw it on the Green channel...

Basically, it's like the old lucky strike cigarette advertisement... it's a sign that can get wind current from any direction, and spin. This is great in like... Detroit, where wind can come from anywhere.

It can also take very light winds, and still be useful, meaning that it's more efficient than a standard wind turbine. It's designed to be used on rooftops and such in areas where it's not prudent to use standard wind technologies.

[cfg83]

Originally Posted by Christ

Ideally, noone would have to give up land for solar use. At least noone who wasn't willing. When you stop and think about it, and I mean REALLY think about it, the sq. mile area of Nevada is probably less than comparable to the size of the rooftops and unused window spaces of the Federal and Corporate controlled buildings in the US.

...

I agree, but I was too lazy to research the square footage (subset) of all the rooftops that are in prime alignment for solar access.

I always imagine installing solar panels as shade for parked cars in the massive concrete wastelands of mall parking lots and on top of the (usually flat) mall roofs. This would give the double advantage of modifying the microclimate by shading the asphalt.

CarloSW2

[Christ]

Eh, I didn't really research it, that's why I said "probably". Imagination takes a large part in that consideration, when you stop and think about exactly how many Federal and Corporate controlled buildings there are in the US, regardless of their positions relative to prime Solar PV real estate.

Imagine McDonalds having solar shingles... (yes, they exist)
Imagine if 25% of the glass panels on buildings were actually solar panels (the approx. percent of glass panels that were covered on the back side by something non-clear on the last building I worked in professionally, a State Court house, the "Pennsylvania Judicial Center" in HBG on Commonwealth St.)

The windows are especially my favorite, since they do nothing as it is... they just look pretty. They add to the visual flair of an "all glass" building, but they don't aid light transfer, they don't allow for heating or cooling of the building (see: potential for greenhouse heating in buildings' crawlspaces) they're purely aesthetic.

And frankly, they don't look all that great to begin with. I think a touch of blue every other set of windows would be excellent aesthetically, would it not?

etc and so on... it's not just roof tops... it's just about everything that has already displaced wildlife and ecology in general... how can we justify taking away more space without utilizing what is already there? (2 years ago, I would have slapped myself silly for saying something like that... and I just looked at myself funny in my reflection on the brand new LCD TV that isn't running right now.)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cfg83

I think the "covering NV in PV" argument is also specious. I think it is mostly mentioned because the square footage of the state roughly matches the energy requirements of 100% PV use in the USA (at 15% efficient?). You can argue that it is because of the amount of desert that NV has, but CA, AZ, and NM also have a lot of desert, so maybe they can give up some land too.

You're missing the point. The argument is not specious, it is exactly what the concentrated solar developers want to do. Sure, it wouldn't be the whole state of Nevada covered end-to-end, but it would be the same area spread out over southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and other states. (And see how easy that was? Didn't hurt a bit to use the real names, now did it?) We don't have enough open space left in this world that anyone should think it acceptable to pave & cover large chunks of it.

[blueflame]

Generate at point of entry to property ie: on your own roof or property and pay no bills! Apart from going up in price all the time, electricity is a big chunk of ones costs.

Solar arrays, thermal and electric and passive solar heating of homes and offices, and we wont need no fuel this, or fuel that. If we put up enough arrays we may reduce global warming!?

Buy stocks in black plastic moldings from drink bottles and trash. We spill water from our lakes most years because of surplus lake levels but still pay a good electricity bill every month.

Power lines are a real pain in the ass!

I still think bicycle generators in the home or gym...all that pedalling doing nothing...

You could hope on a train, sit on a cyclegenerator for the journey after swiping a credit/debit card, and not only pay for your journey but make enough to buy a drink for later.

[Bicycle Bob]

On average, people pedal at 1/10 HP. That does not do a lot to move a traditional train. I don't think even Lance Armstrong could pay for his Gatorade that way.

[jamesqf]

It has been done, though: Handcar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And though I haven't done it myself (or seen it done), I've been told that it's possible to push freight cars by hand on a level track.

[Christ]

I'm sure it is possible... a really old phrase comes to mind:



Give me a lever long enough, and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.
~Archimedes

And the same thing applies to moving freight cars by hand. Just because it could be done, doesn't make it more efficient or generally acceptable, especially when a 1000-5000 HP engine could do it for you with far less hassle and synchronicity.

Sure, I'd love to be able to tell a story to my Son that I helped pedal a train across the country... unfortunately, by the time the train got there, given the number of occupants, my Son would be aged, and I'd be dead. (Sarcasm.)

Some of that pedal power would better be used to run things such as accessories and lights, and leave the actual running of the train to the more capable battery/generator setup.