This just in: The Obama Deficit Reduction Plan

[John-in-KC]

Gern,

 

As I stated in my earlier post, solar looks bad to Senator Boxer (D-Calif). She's a bloody NIMBY for solar farms on the California her high desert.

 

I'm conservative as anything. I'm somewhat green believing. I don't get why she's being NIMBY. IMNSHO, she's and IDJIT.

 

Brent: Pick one:

- Nuclear radiation accident.

- Hydrocarbon emissions pollution.

- Dead birds.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[vol_scouter]

Slightly off the initial post but in keeping with the thread's direction: There are significant problems in managing the grid with alternative energy sources. In power generation, there are two classes related to the load (the amount of electricity demanded). They are the base and peak loads. The base load is approximately the minimum load that is always required such as the middle of the night. Nuclear plants are great for base loads. Peak loads is the difference between peak electricity demands minus the base loads. Peak loads require relatively rapid changes best handled by hydro, coal, and natural gas plants. So say that you have a nuclear power plant for base load and large wind farms to assist with the peak loads. What if a large wind storm occurs? The windmills will provide too much power requiring that the nuclear plant power down. You MUST balance the supply and demand. If the windmills produce more, the nuclear plant must produce less. Also, the electricity has to go somewhere so you either cease to produce or it has to be used. So you power down the nuclear plant which due to the nature of nuclear reactors will have to be down for 3 days. During those 3 days, the nuclear plant will have to be replaced by fossil fuels, natural gas or coal, for electricity production. The fossil fuel saved by not using fossil fuels for peak loads but using it for the 3 days as the base load can exceed the saving in fossil fuel.

 

Solar is available only in the day. Batteries are expensive and use toxic materials so using them to store energy for the evening is a problem. What is the impact to the environment to covering large ares with solar panels? Those panels will absorb some wavelengths of solar radiation and emit others but the spectrum will be different than the ground. What is the impact if this is widespread? The answer is we don't know.

 

The problem is that there is no light weight, mobile source of energy that comes close to that of fossil fuels. The emphasis is alway on better sources of energy but what about conservation? Why should sports not all be natural light and most outdoors? Fewer computers, tv's, GPS units, etc.?

 

This is not meant as a criticism of anyone's post but an attempt to show that the issue is very complex and has no simple solutions. I concur with Brent and Beavah on the fuel tax.

[packsaddle]

Brent, that's the thing...we have an actual cuisine in the South. Midwesterners are still mastering ketchup.

 

Regarding energy, the new turbine designs cause much less avian mortality and this factor IS taken into account during decisions on siting (don't build them in the middle of a major migratory flyway). Nevertheless, it has been my experience that 'fair weather' environmentalists readily sacrifice the birds when they start to have to take cold showers.

BTW, those wind turbines don't HAVE to turn, they can be stopped if power demand is low...just take a look at the wind farms that exist already and you will see some working, others not, depending on needs.

The choices are hard choices. In this country we generate about 50% of our electricity from coal. There is enough coal to take up some slack in the future and still last for several generations. However, this means greater environmental impact (and so-called 'Clean Coal' is just a pipe dream and a very risky and costly one at that) as well as greater loss of life in the extraction process.

 

Nuclear has already put its stamp on the next 1000 generations or more so we might as well learn to love it. I am very disappointed with the Yucca Mountain decision which in my opinion was a political decision, not one on scientific or engineering merit. But there is a whole lot more to that story that most people don't understand. That said, if you ask anyone what is the Price-Anderson Act, they'll likely give you a blank stare. It is the largest government subsidy ever given to an industry.

 

Oil. As I ask my students...with regard to the stupid calls to 'drill baby drill': does it make sense to rather quickly deplete our domestic sources while the Middle East sits back with their gigantic reserves, or does it make more sense to exploit their cheap oil while conserving what little we have left?

The Saudis just love the 'drill baby drill' approach. It just moves the day when we are TOTALLY dependent on imports for oil even closer on the calendar. What a thoughtless approach!

 

The problem with most of the alternatives is that we still have not fully completed the net energy analysis for these sources. Some things are fairly straight forward (solar hot water, for example, or passive solar heating). But the higher-tech stuff is virtually still in the prototype stage. It pains me to know full well that almost all of the sources of biofuels would require more than all of our current agricultural land to replace oil, some of them many times all of our agricultural land. Only a few, the ones that require water only for example, fare well in that analysis but scaling up on those is far from being done or even feasible yet...almost all of them live and die on government subsidies. (I despise this political aspect of alcohol as a fuel in this country).

At this point I'd say..."don't get me started" but I see it's too late for that so I'll stop here.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[GernBlansten]

There is no real energy solution. Just options. It will need to be a blend of new tech, old tech, conservation and priorities.

 

World is gonna get a lot more interesting in the coming decades.

 

BTW, us westerners don't deep fry our meat, if we even eat it, its grilled and properly appointed with lots of fresh veggies.

[vol_scouter]

Gern,

 

This is an area where we agree. Solar water heaters are a great solution but will not be viable until the price of energy is a little higher. We had a great solar water heater. When the tank finally started leaking, we investigated replacing it. Unfortunately, it was cheaper to remove the solar panels that were prominent on the front roof (appropriate side but an eyesore), tank, pump, etc. and get a gas water heater installed. If the pump had died, there were no replacements. That said, if the price becomes competitive, solar water heaters are great.

 

Pack,

 

Good comment. I am against most biofuels since we could end up in the situation where our choice is between fuel or food. I see many areas where farmland is converted into subdivisions. Thus, there is less available farmland so biofuels seem risky. I agree with the oil development policy of using cheaper middle eastern oil. Nuclear fuel will not last 1,000 years unless we have a breeder program to reuse the fuel. The decision on Yucca mountain was clearly political and not based upon good science and engineering.

[John-in-KC]

We folks in flyover country have the best of all worlds:

 

- We grill our steaks.

 

- We slow smoke our ribs and brisket.

 

- We pan fry our chicken.

 

- And we have the best tomatoes on Earth.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Wait! I have the answer! I just remembered it - the Flux Capacitor! It runs on just about anything!

 

Or, wait - was it the Continuum Transfunctioner? I get those two so confused?!

[vol_scouter]

The flux capacitor required Pu (plutonium) as an energy source. You are thinking about Mr. Fusion after all it is only 20 years away as it has been for the last 40.

[BrentAllen]

No, I was thinking about the flux capacitor model at the end of the movie, from the future. It looked like a Cuisinart. Doc Brown went over and pulled a few things out of the garbage to fuel it up, IIRC. I'm sure GE just needs more stimulus money and government incentives to figure that thing out.

[vol_scouter]

That's Mr.Fusion that was on the trunk in the second "Back to the Future" movie.

[BrentAllen]

OK, got it - Mr. Fusion - how could I forget that?

[GernBlansten]

Come on Brent, the Mr. Fusion of the second movie powered the flux capacitor. Like the lighting bolt did in the first movie. Don't get me started on the scientific flaws of the third movie. We are doomed if you guys can't get this straight. Its the flux capacitor that allows time travel. Not the power source.

[Troop24]

John is right, of course, every inhabited building in this country has a roof. Put solar panels on them. The cost will have to be reflected lower by mass consumption, right? Sure the look of solar panels now on a residential roof is a little off-putting but if everyone had one they would be more architecturally designed and become more pleasing to the eye.

 

In regards to the tragic loss of birds and bats to the spinning turbines of wind mills I stumbled across something a little while ago. It may not be the absolute answer but it shows people are thinking about it: http://xrl.in/6jx3.

[Gunny2862]

http://xrl.in/6jx3 Try this for Troop24's link, the period for the end of the sentence was included, breaking the link.

[CalicoPenn]

California has acres and acres and acres of industrial rooftops that could hold solar panels, and are closer to the population centers that need power. And we're talking huge buildings - some well over one million square feet.

 

The Los Angeles market has 996,979,304 sq. ft. (as of January 2010) of industrial square footage (yes, that's close to a billion), the equivalent of 17,360 football fields. Even accounting for possible 2-story industrial facilities, there are hundreds of millions of square feet worth of very large flat roofs that could hold solar panels, right in the LA market.

 

Why is it that people think taking up land out in the desert for solar farms, with accompanying extra transmission & maintenance costs, is a better solution than creating solar farms right in industrial parks right where the power is needed? I don't think Boxer's opposition is Nimbyism - I think it's just good, plain, common sense.

 

As for wind - the giant turbines are really the start for wind - I believe they will be considered the energy equivalent to the steam engine in the future. Keep in mind that the earliest cars were steam engine driven - but it didn't really take long before the advent of the internal combustion engine. I don't think it's going to take long to develop new wind technology. I'm intrigued by those wind stalks that Troop24 shared. There are small scale vertical column wind turbines being developed - heck, the City of Chicago has a few on the roof of City Hall - and they can be set up to prevent bird collisions.

 

Wave energy harnessing can be done along the coasts and along the Great Lakes - and I believe that dam-less hydro power on rivers in possible too.

 

I know there is this belief that we need to let the free market develop this technology without interference from, or funds from, the government. I believe that is short-sighted and ultimately unproductive. Consider that business does things not to benefit everyone, but to benefit themselves (including their stockholders). Many of us have heard of some of the apocryphal tales of big oil buying up individuals inventions to improve engine performance, reduce gas consumption, or even replace gas as a fuel altogether. Those tales may or may not be true (and whatever did happen to the electric car? The first one that was tested in California that was great for short-distance driving for errands, and was testing very well among the folks who had leased them?) but it can't be denied there is that possibility.

 

Consider how many things we now use everyday without a second thought that came not from the free enterprise system but from defense and space spending? Microwave ovens? Raytheon wasn't trying to perfect them to sell at Walmart for $39.99 ($19.99 on Black Friday).

 

I think we need a lot more investment from government for alternative energy development - and for those free-marketeers still not convinced, consider that China is bounding away with alternative energy development, and it is their government that is funding that - and private business alone can't compete with that.