ThatJerkDave Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, 15412 said: Once again, nat gas is the source for the foreseeable future all things considered. Warms the planet? So do cow farts. I used to be full on with nuclear, but reality bites. It takes what, more than a decade to get a nuclear power plant permitted and built in the USA? Is that going to change? The enviro whackos will never allow that. These palnts are being built left and right in parts of Europe and China, not so here and that will NOT change. We have seemingly boundless reserves of nat gas, we're flaring out the stuff at sickening rates. Time to get serious about this abundant resource. I'm just a Sasquatch, I'd love to power the plant with nothing but the wind that blows through my hair and the sun that bakes my backside. But like I already said, reality bites. Sounds like I need to stop inviting the cows to taco Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, ThatJerkDave said: I was thinking of a free fuel source. The hydroplant doesn't consume water, like a coal plant consumes coal. So my input of "1 water" can be used again whereas my "1 coal" cannot. If that "1 water" can create a net positive amount of electricity when powering a pump to refill its reservoir, a plant can be self sustaining. I have been informed that the hydroplant is not nearly that efficient. Like I said, I have no idea how much power any type of power facility produces, I just vaguely know how they work. I was also under the impression that I could use the same input to do more units of work, "1 water" turns "1 turbine" 1 rotation, so a series of 2 turbines could be turned by the same "1 water" but it cannot. as a free fuel source, yes. Hydro is sustainable and doesn't "consume" water. Relies on the water cycle and rain filling up said river and reservoir. But it doesn't create a ton of electricity and it is expensive to make and it is limited by the presence of a river which is not developed and can be dammed up. Back in early 2000s I think china built a dam which displaced a TON of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 7 minutes ago, 15412 said: Once again, nat gas is the source for the foreseeable future all things considered. Warms the planet? So do cow farts. I used to be full on with nuclear, but reality bites. It takes what, more than a decade to get a nuclear power plant permitted and built in the USA? Is that going to change? The enviro whackos will never allow that. These palnts are being built left and right in parts of Europe and China, not so here and that will NOT change. We have seemingly boundless reserves of nat gas, we're flaring out the stuff at sickening rates. Time to get serious about this abundant resource. I'm just a Sasquatch, I'd love to power the plant with nothing but the wind that blows through my hair and the sun that bakes my backside. But like I already said, reality bites. Nice to meet you - what Squatch clan do you come from? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanedorf Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 One of the ways that they are using turbines is to store solar energy. In San Diego county they have (2) reservoirs at different elevations. During the day when the solar is kicking it, they use that energy to pump water uphill to the higher elevation reservoir and store it there. Then when they need power, they release from the upper lake to the lower lake and generate "solar" electricity at any time of day/night they need it There is also a focus now on harnessing wave power, it has few of the constraints of a hydro-electric plant You aren't constrained by the variability in seasonal flow of a river or the year-to-year variability of rainfall/snowpack. As far as nuclear, typically its not the actual reactor that's the main issue - its what to do with the spent fuel rods that are radioactive for the next thousand years. Nobody wants a nuclear dump in their state. US spent untold billions building the Yucca Mountain facility in Utah only to have the deal killed by politics. Nuclear is messy to work with and store and once you include all of those challenges, it just doesn't pencil out. Solve the spent fuel storage problems and maybe the equation changes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: One of the ways that they are using turbines is to store solar energy. In San Diego county they have (2) reservoirs at different elevations. During the day when the solar is kicking it, they use that energy to pump water uphill to the higher elevation reservoir and store it there. Then when they need power, they release from the upper lake to the lower lake and generate "solar" electricity at any time of day/night they need it. There is also a focus now on harnessing wave power, it has few of the constraints of a hydro-electric plant You aren't constrained by the variability in seasonal flow of a river or the year-to-year variability of rainfall/snowpack. As far as nuclear, typically its not the actual reactor that's the main issue - its what to do with the spent fuel rods that are radioactive for the next thousand years. Nobody wants a nuclear dump in their state. US spent untold billions building the Yucca Mountain facility in Utah only to have the deal killed by politics. Nuclear is messy to work with and store and once you include all of those challenges, it just doesn't pencil out. Solve the spent fuel storage problems and maybe the equation changes Agree entirely. Nuclear may be the best energy producer "per se" - but - it also happens to produce one of the deadliest byproducts known to mankind that doesnt ever go away.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, 15412 said: We have seemingly boundless reserves of nat gas, we're flaring out the stuff at sickening rates. Time to get serious about this abundant resource. I'm just a Sasquatch, I'd love to power the plant with nothing but the wind that blows through my hair and the sun that bakes my backside. But like I already said, reality bites. this is just not very true. Just because cow farts contribute to global warming (and do they really, in any significant way?) doesn't make burning natural gas at the rate you're proposing any kind of an answer. it's fine if you just don't care about what will happen in the future, but pretending you aren't spending next month's payment today by switching from one fossil fuel to another is incorrect. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Leader said: Agree entirely. Nuclear may be the best energy producer "per se" - but - it also happens to produce one of the deadliest byproducts known to mankind that doesnt ever go away.............. and we can't send that stuff into space either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, skibrett15 said: this is just not very true. Just because cow farts contribute to global warming (and do they really, in any significant way?) doesn't make burning natural gas at the rate you're proposing any kind of an answer. it's fine if you just don't care about what will happen in the future, but pretending you aren't spending next month's payment today by switching from one fossil fuel to another is incorrect. I think he was talking about wind energy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said: this is just not very true. Just because cow farts contribute to global warming (and do they really, in any significant way?) doesn't make burning natural gas at the rate you're proposing any kind of an answer. it's fine if you just don't care about what will happen in the future, but pretending you aren't spending next month's payment today by switching from one fossil fuel to another is incorrect. Actually the methane produced by livestock is an issue. How big an issue? I personally cant say its ever been scientifically quantified - but its been noted as a factor - plus, as there are more and more people - eating more and more meat...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: As far as nuclear, typically its not the actual reactor that's the main issue - its what to do with the spent fuel rods that are radioactive for the next thousand years. Nobody wants a nuclear dump in their state. US spent untold billions building the Yucca Mountain facility in Utah only to have the deal killed by politics. Plus the MUTOs destroyed it in Godzilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Leader said: doesnt ever go away.............. these are old generation 1 reactors and models. There are modern designs which produce waste which can be neutralized in the 500ish year time frame, and there is much much less OF it (1000x less), than with older models. 500 years is a long time, no doubt. But 10k years+ is what you're comparing it to, and what's currently being used. As far as being dangerous. Burning coal is killing many many people every year. Air pollution is killing people. It's extremely dangerous. It shows up steadily and constantly in mortality rate. It's a far more dangerous option than nuclear. For me the plan has to be fossil fuels convert to nuclear, nuclear converts to renewables. That is the fastest, most actionable track to halting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Edited August 21, 2019 by skibrett15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skibrett15 Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, Leader said: Actually the methane produced by livestock is an issue. How big an issue? I personally cant say its ever been scientifically quantified - but its been noted as a factor - plus, as there are more and more people - eating more and more meat...... a separate and related issue for sure. Does not excuse burning fossil fuels given the effects far outweigh the farts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Just now, skibrett15 said: a separate and related issue for sure. Does not excuse burning fossil fuels given the effects far outweigh the farts. Agree - and you dont want to get me started on fracking and what a wonderful ****show that whole process is! Gee....lets devise a system whereby we inject thousands of gallons of pressurized water containing any number of known carcinogens into our water tables.....YES! Purposefully and with malice aforethought pollute our effing drinking water (!!!!!) suck it up out of the ground (most of it anyways.......) separate it all - extract the commercial product - then dump the unwanted residue here there and anywhere on the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This makes perfect sense no???????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 24 minutes ago, Shanedorf said: One of the ways that they are using turbines is to store solar energy. In San Diego county they have (2) reservoirs at different elevations. During the day when the solar is kicking it, they use that energy to pump water uphill to the higher elevation reservoir and store it there. Then when they need power, they release from the upper lake to the lower lake and generate "solar" electricity at any time of day/night they need it There is also a focus now on harnessing wave power, it has few of the constraints of a hydro-electric plant You aren't constrained by the variability in seasonal flow of a river or the year-to-year variability of rainfall/snowpack. As far as nuclear, typically its not the actual reactor that's the main issue - its what to do with the spent fuel rods that are radioactive for the next thousand years. Nobody wants a nuclear dump in their state. US spent untold billions building the Yucca Mountain facility in Utah only to have the deal killed by politics. Nuclear is messy to work with and store and once you include all of those challenges, it just doesn't pencil out. Solve the spent fuel storage problems and maybe the equation changes We have transuranic waste sites already in this country. The issue is safely shipping the waste long distance. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, NM was built around 25 years ago and is currently home to waste from surrounding nuclear laboratories, including Los Alamos. Nuclear energy is still the most effective method around, but shipping it from the east coast to sites out west is an issue. https://www.energy.gov/em/services/waste-management/waste-and-materials-disposition-information/transuranic-tru-waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted August 21, 2019 Share Posted August 21, 2019 Did you know that the guy responsible for putting lead into petrol (which is a huge pollutant), then went on to invent fridges powered by CFC's (which destroy the ozone layer). Seriously, he has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts