SolaRoad: World's first solar cycle path to open in the Netherlands

November 7, 2014 by Robert Spakovskis

Imtech, in conjunction with the Province of Noord-Holland, Ooms Civiel, has developed the world's first solar road located in Krommwnie, Holland. The solar cycle path will be connected to the national grid to meet increasing energy demands and to advance of renewable energy use in Holland. It will be open to the public on Wednesday the 12th November.

The local authority-funded pilot scheme costing €3m ($3.7m) "SolaRoad" pilot cycle path is constructed with two lanes, one of which is made of prefabricated concrete slabs connected to the national grid. One lane is made of 2.5 by 3.5 meter slabs of concrete with an integrated layer of crystalline and has a top layer of translucent, tempered safety glass (~1cm thick). The second lane, constructed without solar cells, will be used for testing various top surfaces.

Crystalline solar cells are made with two 'doped' semiconductors . Doping is the addition of an impurity to the silicone. Impurities in the silicone of the n-type semiconductor create mobile free electrons. In the p-type semiconductor, the impurities create holes. Where the n and p-type layer meet (called the junction), electrons cross the junction and join with a hole, cancelling each other out, leaving a positive charge in the n-type. The holes also move across the junction from the p-type region to the n-type, leaving a negative charge. The movement of electrons across the p-n junction creates a built-in electric field that is always present across the cell. When photons from the sun strike the solar cell, there is a release of electrons from the junction back to the n-type semiconductor and holes back to the p-type semiconductor. The resulting separation and consequently fluctuation of positive and negative charges across the junction creates a potential difference or voltage .

Over the course of the three-year testing period, the team aims to collect data and research about a number of factors that could influence the project moving forward. In addition to lab-based experimentation, various aspects of the road will be researched and calibrated. Namely, research for the optimisation of the information and communication technology (ICT) largely responsible for power distribution, particularly at maximal (peak sunlight) and minimal (night) times, top layer research (e.g. effects of pollution and wear) and the possibility of integrating other solar energy technologies like thin-film .

Even though the single-lane path produces less than 30 percent less energy than rooftop solar panels, researchers hope that the SolaRoad will utilise up to 20 percent of the 140,000km roadway for generation, vastly increasing the surface area that could be achieved with rooftop solar panels. The short stretch of road is expected to generate enough electricity to power 2 or 3 average homes annually. Future projects aim at developing road surfaces to combine with a Road Energy Systems product, also developed by Ooms Civiel, that is designed to extract heat from asphalt surfaces.

SolaRoad: World's first solar cycle path to open in the Netherlands

Explore further: A single-sheet graphene p-n junction with two top gates

More information: www.solaroad.nl/en/

Related Stories

A single-sheet graphene p-n junction with two top gates

November 6, 2014

Researchers in Canada have designed and fabricated a single-sheet graphene p-n junction with two top gates. The standard technique, using a top and a bottom gate, can lead to damaging of the graphene layer. This is avoided ...

Stacking solar cells method could be electricity gain

August 7, 2014

Is there a way to stack solar cells and convert more of the energy in sunlight into electricity? Not only has a company developed a method, but, as a headline said Wednesday in MIT Technology Review, the approach could make ...

A better device to detect ultraviolet light

October 4, 2013

Researchers in Japan have developed a new photodiode that can detect in just milliseconds a certain type of high-energy ultraviolet light, called UVC, which is powerful enough to break the bonds of DNA and harm living creatures. ...

Towards more efficient solar cells

August 13, 2014

A layer of silicon nanocrystals and erbium ions may help solar cells to extract more energy from the ultraviolet (UV, high-energy) part of the solar spectrum. Experimental physicists from the FOM Foundation, the STW Technology ...

Recommended for you

Google braces for huge EU fine over Android

July 18, 2018

Google prepared Wednesday to be hit with huge EU fine for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system in a ruling that could spark new tensions between Brussels and Washington.

EU set to fine Google billions over Android: sources

July 17, 2018

The EU is set to fine US internet giant Google several billion euros this week for freezing out rivals of its Android mobile phone system, sources said, in a ruling that risks fresh tensions with Washington.

289 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottingham
4.3 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2014
I always thought that solar roadways were a pretty dumb idea, but solar bike paths seems to make a lot more sense! Too bad it's always so damn cloudy in Amsterdam.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (35) Nov 07, 2014
Little by little, we will rid ourselves of dirty fuels.

But why was this article voted down by some? Afraid of progress?
gkam
1.9 / 5 (33) Nov 07, 2014
If solar cells are sufficiently cheap to cover roadways, dirty power is done, for the most part. No pollution, no toxic coal ash, no Mercury in the atmosphere, no particulates.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2014
It is projects like this that epitomize the reasons why governments should not be involved in private industry. 30% less power to start and most likely a huge cost. Also scratches and dirt will play a huge role in declining future efficiency. Do they have to hire people to wash the bike path?

This project reeks of crony capitalism and politicians paying off their friends.

shyhalu
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2014
"It is projects like this that epitomize the reasons why governments should not be involved in private industry"

There IS no private industry for this you tart.....30% less is better than nothing at all.

There is NOTHING stopping companies from putting up the cash and working out deals to build roadways like this.

Businesses will barely budge on updating their buildings to insulate heat better to save money, what makes you think they will use solar panels anytime soon or build out anything new?

We've been on oil for 100+ years ffs.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (38) Nov 07, 2014
Some folk lose gracefully, some keep fighting and scratching long after they have lost.

Must be them sour grapes.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2014
"Some folk lose gracefully, some keep fighting and scratching long after they have lost.

Must be them sour grapes."

Yes Gkam I will keep fighting when politicians give my tax money to their political friends.
They will then complain that there is not enough money in the budget to provide school lunches or properly fight Ebola due to "Cuts".
gkam
2.1 / 5 (33) Nov 07, 2014
Please take your complaint of cuts to the Republicans who did it.

And did you speak up about those no-bid contracts to corporate crooks and cronies during the terrible, violent, and criminal Bush Years?
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2014
Gkam pretty much every nation in the world thought that Iraq had WMD and a recent article in the NYT admitted that was true to a limited extent. The real problem is that we removed a dictator that was keeping that area of the world stable.

Can you at least admit that Obama made a huge error in removing the few remaining US troops form Iraq before it had a chance of a stable government?
gkam
2 / 5 (32) Nov 07, 2014
I throw those questions back to you not to offend you, but for you to consider.

We are changing, and if you have a better way, let's hear it.
MR166
1.2 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2014
How can you say that the Republican made "Cuts" when Obama has not presented a budget to cut in 6 years. This is unheard of in American history.
gkam
2.2 / 5 (34) Nov 07, 2014
Thanks for the response. "Can you at least admit that Obama made a huge error in removing the few remaining US troops form Iraq before it had a chance of a stable government?".

Not sure. That removal date was determined and signed as a treaty by Bush. But even so, the real trouble, in addition to our naked aggression and mass killing, was because Bush and Bremer fired all the Iraqi military. We fight them today as ISIS.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (35) Nov 07, 2014
"How can you say that the Republican made "Cuts" when Obama has not presented a budget to cut in 6 years."
---------------------------------------------

Strawmen, come not here.

Look at what your Republicans did to the budgets of the Centers for Disease Control and our other bulwarks against Ebola.

Let's get back to PV power and how it will displace filthy fuels.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2014
There is no doubt that former Iraq military are part of ISIS but the country was stable before we left. During the 2012 campaign Obama pledged to remove all troops from Iraq and when he did he was bragging how HE ended the war. I suppose a turn your tail and run away policy can be considered ending a war in some circles. He made absolutely no attempt to keep our troops there. He is solely responsible for the increase of ISIS power in the region. In fact he supported them trying to overthrow the government in Syria and turned Russia into an aggressor again.
Scottingham
5 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
I always wondered what think-tanks do...now I suspect that MR166 is an example of what. Of course, I could be wrong. In that case, MR166, you should really be getting paid for this on-script drivel you constantly shill.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (26) Nov 07, 2014
Let's get back to PV power and how it will displace filthy fuels.


Well, first you have to solve the problem of time-shifting the output away from the mid-day peak, or you will never meet more than ~30% of the energy demand with solar power. Increasing PV output without being able to store any of it ultimately results in surplus that you cannot use, so there's a practical limit to how much you can build.

Even if solar PV is cheap enough to pave roads, the same isn't necessarily true for the technology needed to store and release it when needed.

In truth, the technology simply isn't available at this moment, and it isn't being funded enough because all the money is going towards building the solar panels, because people are making money off of them instead of investing in necessary R&D.

gkam
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 07, 2014
" . . . people are making money off of them instead of investing in necessary R&D."

R&D is important, but the actual building of the system is more important. We use Research and Development to get to an end. Then,we can continue R & D to a newer end, but we have to integrate the developed ones into our infrastructure if we are to have the power and ability to do R & D. We will use what we have developed and still do R & D.

So what is the real iron in the fire here? Nukes? Coal? Cold fusion? What?
CyberRat
not rated yet Nov 07, 2014
Copycats, dutch stole the idea http://www.solarr...ro.shtml
tejolson
1.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2014
Solar roads will not work. Bike paths might if they don't melt the tires. Are there counter measures to theft though?
24volts
5 / 5 (2) Nov 08, 2014
Personally I think it would be a pretty good idea no matter who installs them. It would be hard to redo roads and the wear would be heavy but many cities and towns are now starting to really build bike paths and sidewalks as they are trying to attract people and reduce the smog. Putting these in while they are already installing them would be much simpler to accomplish.
As far as people stealing them goes... as far as I can tell you can't stop a really determined thief no matter what you do but if they we buried even with the rest of the blocks and were really difficult to get out that would stop most would be thieves.
It's not like they would require much in the way of maintenance to begin with. Bikes and pedestrians wouldn't put much wear on them compared to cars so they should last the lifetime of the solar cells used.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2014
tejolson muttered
Solar roads will not work. Bike paths might if they don't melt the tires. Are there counter measures to theft though?
Are you making a tangential implication that riding on solar panels will make the tires warmer than if there were no solar panels converting some of that insolation to electricity - then taking it AWAY.

Theft is getting less likely also, as cost of panels go down & in any case trying to remove, damages them so they won't function, it would then be a case of vandalism. If that does happen punish the vandals by putting them to work with shovels clearing coal dust spillage at coal fired plants that bit of operant conditioning will drive it home, they will come back & polish the glass !

Your statement "Bike paths might if they don't melt the tires" suggests you don't know how solar panels work & have no understanding of thermodynamics ?

Clarify your comment please ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2014
Bike paths might if they don't melt the tires. Are there counter measures to theft though?

Theft doesn't seem to be a problem even with solar panels openly deployed on fields. Why would you think that solar panels embedded under a translucent road surface would have an issue with that?

Stealing solar panels isn't particularly lucrative. They're big and they're unwieldy (and they're dirt cheap).
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
BTW has anyone ever ridden a bike on wet smooth glass? I would imagine that traction would be terrible and it could be quite dangerous.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (16) Nov 08, 2014
MR166 asked
BTW has anyone ever ridden a bike on wet smooth glass? I would imagine that traction would be terrible and it could be quite dangerous.
Sure likely to be terrible well, unless its prepared to appear smooth but, provides great 'coefficient of friction' in all weather (thats local) conditions, this is why civil/mechanical engineers would make sure its not so 'smooth' & subject to various international standards defined by Scientists who have a keen capacity to 'think ahead'. Not difficult to provide a clear glass surface suitably designed for high frictional coefficient that protects whilst allowing key spectra through for the panel to function.

The whole study of friction is, by itself, pretty interesting...
http://en.wikiped...Friction

Almost as interesting as statistical mechanics to enable a key understand of heat ;-)
http://en.wikiped...echanics

zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2014
"BTW has anyone ever ridden a bike on wet smooth glass? I would imagine that traction would be terrible and it could be quite dangerous."

Lucky they already thought of that, isn't it? You could have just followed the links provided and learned that for yourself, though.
Eikka
4.5 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2014
R&D is important, but the actual building of the system is more important.


So what you're saying is that it's more important to try running, than to learn how to walk first? I suppose, if you like to be on your face a lot.

It'll get you there eventually, but there's a better option, and it isn't sending millions of people into poverty and destroying jobs just because you want to play 'green' before you actually have the technology to do so.

Eikka
4.4 / 5 (26) Nov 08, 2014
Stealing solar panels isn't particularly lucrative. They're big and they're unwieldy (and they're dirt cheap).


I don't know. If people are willing to break into electric substations to steal copper cable, It's only a matter of time before they start climbing on to rooves to unscrew your solar panels.

The problem is rather, who are you going to fence the stolen panels to? The market doesn't exist yet because there's no similiar recycling effort for materials, and anyone buying panels needs legitimate paperwork to collect the government subsidies.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 08, 2014
but we have to integrate the developed ones into our infrastructure if we are to have the power and ability to do R & D.


On the contrary. The effort to "integrate", or in this case install a load of solar panels, is simply bleeding resources out of the country and hurting the R&D efforts. The nations that are subsidizing solar PV aren't making any gains over it - they're losing money.

The money is feeding an expansion in volume production of obsolete technology because cheap mass-manufacture of previous-gen solar panels is outcompeting the newer versions, especially with China subsidizing their manufacture and dumping the products on the market to kill off competition.

With the current subsidy model, the people have no incentive to buy better and support new research. The cheaper they buy, the more profit they're making on the subsidies to themselves, and none of the money is going towards the R&D in energy storage technogy where it is most needed.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 08, 2014
After all, why would you invest in batteries when the utility co. is forced by the government to buy all the electricity you produce and pay you more for it than it costs for you to buy the electricity back.

In Germany for example, you make more money if you isolate the solar panels you own from your house electricity, so you don't accidentally use any of it directly yourself. When all the solar power goes out through one meter, and all your house electricity comes in through another meter, you get the electricity back and the government pays you to use it.

All you need is enough capital to afford a suitable property and solar panels to buy yourself a direct transfer of wealth from the poor lower classes.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
I don't know. If people are willing to break into electric substations to steal copper cable

As noted: you don't need to climb anything. This stuff is out in the comuntryside all over germany on fields that are currently not in use (due to crop rotation or just simply seasonal). That'd be ideal stealing quarters as this stuff is unsupervised and no one around to be alerted.
Still, theft does not seem to be an issue.

The expensive part of panels these days is the setup and connecting them to the grid - not the panels themselves. So no profit there (not even oif you pack them all up and ship them somewhere with lax laws).

A ton of copper is a different issue. That has some resale value. Used solar panels? Not so much.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (32) Nov 08, 2014
This is hilarious! I wanted to hear the ideas of Eikka, but he/she has none! It is ALL complaints, all whining. Every little complaint one can imagine goes through that head when we bring up alternatives to filthy fuels.

What are your ideas for clean power, . . mountaintop removal?

Let's hear something else, Eikka.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (29) Nov 08, 2014
The most expensive and dirty power is used during peak periods. These are the inefficient plants we like to keep offline, second-tier spares. Solar PV generates the power at the peak, exactly when we need it, keeping our most expensive power and the dirtiest power offline.

Why does Eikka want us not to use it?
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2014
This raping of the taxpayer will never end.

http://www.foxnew...federal/

Of course none of you really care since, most likely, you are all on the government teat yourselves.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (32) Nov 09, 2014
"Of course none of you really care since, most likely, you are all on the government teat yourselves."
---------------------------------------------

If you have nothing to say, say it somewhere else.

Thanks.
howhot2
5 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2014
It is projects like this that epitomize the reasons why governments should not be involved in private industry. 30% less power to start and most likely a huge cost. Also scratches and dirt will play a huge role in declining future efficiency. Do they have to hire people to wash the bike path?

This project reeks of crony capitalism and politicians paying off their friends.


That is pretty stupid position considering that the fundamental research that helped identify and develop silicon technology for solar was government sponsored through ventures like NASA, DOE, etc... etc.

The only thing crony and corrupt in this world right now are the republican wing. And your just gullible enough to believe them.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2014
MR166
This raping of the taxpayer will never end.
http://www.foxnew...federal/
Of course none of you really care since, most likely, you are all on the government teat yourselves.
Would you prefer the military rape 100 times more & regularly ?

Would U prefer oil & coal companies spend on a propaganda campaigns on the internet to undermine Science & attract people to make political posts instead of focusing on the Science, heard of irony ? Seems like they have more than enough money to do it:-
http://en.wikiped...d_losses

Nothing unusual about business 'trying it on to use governments to further their income, doesnt make it right (or wrong for that matter) however, circumstances of changing infrastructure seems to be at government door, private interests should be smarter to use Science better to offer tangible alternatives.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (28) Nov 09, 2014
166 "forgot" about the no-bid contracts to corporate crooks and cronies with Dubya.
antonima
2 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
$3,700,000 to power 2 or 3 houses is astronomically expensive! It would be cheaper to hire 10 full-time cyclists to produce electricity through pedal power. One thing a lot of these green projects are NOT about is sustainability!

Sure, its a beautiful idea and may be aesthetically pleasing to both the eyes and the mind. But expressing the practical necessity of 'sustainable energy' with symbolic gestures like this seems counter-productive.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 09, 2014
Once again, the lack of imagination leaves us stuck in the past. These have already been tested as roads for automobiles in small scales. The advantages are a lighted roadway, with lanes and signs and other information presented on the road and beside it with electric signs. Piezoelectric mounts can charge the fixtures by the weight of the moving cars, along with the PV.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 09, 2014
Having an electric roadway allows us to control many things, with the rolling cars lighting the roadway ahead of us, for special signs which come on when needed, changing lane markers, warnings, and other needs. And it is self-powered.

Hide and watch.
antonima
4 / 5 (4) Nov 09, 2014
It is true that self-powered is more useful in some cases, for instance at distant intersections far away from the grid. Make no mistake, I am all for sustainable energy. But it has to be approached realistically. The roads aren't paved with gold in the US or anywhere else; spending billions of dollars to power a few thousand households is not going to happen, not in a hundred years.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 09, 2014
I wonder what antonima's great-grandparents thought of the noisy, stinky, overly-expensive automobile?

Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
I wonder what antonima's great-grandparents thought of the noisy, stinky, overly-expensive automobile?


Probably very highly.

At the turn of the 20th century, horses were a real health and sanitation problem because there were so many of them, they crapped everywhere, there was never enough feed for them, and they literally died on the streets in the thousands and were left there rotting until they could be picked up by the city workers. People were constantly maimed and killed by frightened horses, and at the least they were very expensive to keep and many people couldn't afford to.

So the prospect of having a machine carry you around was heralded as a great success, even if it did put out a bit of smoke. Cars being expensive at the time was a moot point, because everyone saw that you didn't need a Rolls Royce to get around - all you needed was an engine and a cart - and people did make them out of bicycle wheels etc.

Eikka
5 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
This is hilarious! I wanted to hear the ideas of Eikka, but he/she has none! It is ALL complaints, all whining. Every little complaint one can imagine goes through that head when we bring up alternatives to filthy fuels.


Why are you asking me?

I don't need to make a summary of all the possible alternative forms of energy every time I point out a flaw in one of them. They exist, they all got problems. Creating unnecessary hype about them serves nobody except people with vested interest.

Why does Eikka want us not to use it?


Why do you think that? Why are you blaming me? I'm not the one telling you not to. I'm just telling you the consequences of what will happen when you do.

The only problem here is that renewable power profits a small class of privileged upper class investors, and the losses are externalized to the people at large by the force of law, so they don't care if it works.

As long as you pay your own mistakes, please, go ahead.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
Solar PV generates the power at the peak, exactly when we need it, keeping our most expensive power and the dirtiest power offline.


Actually, it doesn't. It just reduces the amount of fuel needed, but the plants themselves are operational day-in day-out because of cloud coverage and bad weather. Without batteries, you can't get rid of peaking powerplants, and because they're more rarely used they become more expensive per unit of energy as a result because you still have to pay for them to exist.

A large megawatt-class engine that operates for 1 day a year costs nearly the same as an engine that operates a day in a week, because the fuel costs relative to the investment cost are neglible, so you aren't saving much money.

And with money representing economic activity and production, which requires energy, which creates emissions, you aren't saving much of that either because keeping up both the renewable energy and the backup is costly.
Eikka
5 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
the dirtiest power offline.


Gas turbines and engines, running on NG and diesel, are actually among the cleanest and most efficient you have on the grid. They have replaced the dirtiest peaking powerplants in the past 30-40 years.

It's the cheap baseload power that is turned out of coal that is the dirtiest, but those you cannot touch with solar PV because, if you build enough solar power to displace baseload power, your electricity prices shoot up because you have to replace the cheap baseload generating capacity with peaking powerplants for the time when you don't have sunlight, and that in turn requires you to build MORE of the most expensive type of powerplants.

When you start to displace baseload power with renewables, it becomes 70-90 MW new load following capacity for every 10 MW of solar panels you install.

gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka misses the Big Point: We have been doing this for over 35 years. We understand the consequences much better than you and your imagination.

We integrated our system decades ago, and now, you can,too!!

It is not all in your imagination,it is real, and it works!!

Please stop the whining.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
it becomes 70-90 MW new load following capacity for every 10 MW of solar panels you install.

Sorry, not capacity but output.

If we talk capacity, you need 100 MW for every 100 MW of panels installed to replace baseload power.

For production averages, 100 MW of solar panels would make 10-20 MW power on average, so the other 80-90 MW would have to come from newly built or converted load following powerplants.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka, this is NOT theory, if has been practice for decades in California.

I am not going to educate you any further. Take your fears somewhere else.

If anybody else wants to understand how to integrate a grid into a modern system, speak up, and we can discuss it.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka misses the Big Point: We have been doing this for over 35 years. We understand the consequences much better than you and your imagination.


Who we? With whose mouth are you speaking here?

It seems like you personally don't, because you keep systematically ignoring the problems and refuse to aknowledge them when they are presented to you. I'm not the first to put malice before honest mistake, but you seem so idealistic about renewable energy and so one-sided in your assesments that I can't but believe that you have something at stake here.

It is not all in your imagination,it is real, and it works!!


All the numbers disagree. It doesn't work, and the key feature missing from the renewables equation is the lack of energy storage, without which almost none of it works. Yet you pretend that we're making a difference.

What I'm saying is: Cui bono.

Developing batteries costs money. Erecting windmills earns you money, which comes from the taxpayers.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka can whine and complain all he wants. We have been doing it successfully for almost 40 years here, and it was WE, as I was a Senior Engineer for Pacific Gas & Electric in Technical Services at the time. What is your job?

We already did this, proved it, improved it for commercial purposes. You are on the sidelines whining about things you only think you understand.

What else you have to whine about?
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka, this is NOT theory, if has been practice for decades in California.


The practice in California is FAR less impressive than you pretend it to be. But sure, you can keep chanting about the Altamont Pass wind farm while ignoring how much it costs and how little energy it turns out.

California, as I've pointed out before, is a perfect storm for renewables because you got both low electricity demand, high sunshine, plenty geothermal resources, plenty of hydroelectric power and good grid ties to neighbors, and you haven't actually reached half of the integration limits yet.

What about Denmark? What about UK? What about Germany?

Figuratively speaking, you're still at the first mile of the marathon, on a bicycle, and have the audacity to tell other people further away to take a lesson from your running style. What arrogance.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
We have been doing it successfully for almost 40 years here


Tell me what exactly you've accomplished?

We already know it isn't much. It's easy to have a little renewables, when it doesn't really bother anyone because it isn't really making any difference.

You are on the sidelines whining about things you only think you understand.


Many people understand and know what I'm saying. Many others choose not to.

But in any case, you're just trying to pull off an argument ad populum to make yourself seem bigger.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (26) Nov 10, 2014
Eikka, I do not want to turn this into a shouting match or urinating for distance. I just wanted to tell you your fears are already known, compensated for, and taken care of. If you cannot figure it out how to do it, let the others do it for you. Really. You are working yourself up over things out of your control.

How much will it cost to "clean up" Fukushima? We still have three out-of-control nuclear masses, deadly, and leaking radioactivity into the Pacific. Is that your fix for wind and PV ?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Make myself "bigger"? I do not need any of that, I am retired. I got to do really interesting things in my life, and do not need any more, especially from strangers.

I hope your life is as interesting as mine has been.

And we really can integrate our systems for improvement. Thanks, for the discussion.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
BTW, I actually do not want Eikka to stop questioning. We really do need that. I am usually the one guilty of such behavior. Many politicians like to brag about "talking truth to power", but those of us who do have very colorful employment histories.

Good luck to you.

And thanks for the discussion.
Eikka
4.7 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
I just wanted to tell you your fears are already known, compensated for, and taken care of.


You've shown me no solution to the issues I pointed out. You barely even aknowledge that the issues exist, yet you simply keep repeating that assertion.

Make myself "bigger"? I do not need any of that


Then why do you do it? Why do you try to appeal to the crowds? Why do you throw one-liners and appeals to emotion like "filthy power" and the like if you got something real to back your case?

You're nothing but a propaganda evangelist.

How much will it cost to "clean up" Fukushima? We still have three out-of-control nuclear masses, deadly, and leaking radioactivity into the Pacific. Is that your fix for wind and PV ?


Red herring, and a loaded question. How about you? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Appeal to the crowds? Oops, they are outside my balcony right now, . . .

No red herring Eikka, it is one of the "cures" for alternative energy. Did you just take your first physics class? It turns out alternative energy does not leave toxic coal slurry or high-level waste, all of which you have trouble just storing, let alone cleaning up.

The rest of us will continue our progress into the future of energy, . . . I guess barking from the sidelines is your job.
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
Is that your fix for wind and PV ?


The obvious and I would say only fix to wind and PV issues is grid scale massive energy storage. Doesn't matter if it's a small battery in every home, or a big battery in some central location, or power-to-gas, or huge hydroelectric dams, flywheels, superconducting magnets, even lifting up mountains - whatever works.

Practically none exists, and very little effort is being put towards it.

There needs to be massive re-direction of money from production subsidies to developing the storage system, because the current system is geared to pay you money even if your connect your windmill to a massive heater and blow it all off to warm the birds in the sky.

The point is that without energy storage there are hard limits in the future for intermittent renewables, and those are the only ones that we have in abundance. Everything else is too limited, or unsustainable, or ecologically damaging at large scales.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
"Practically none exists, and very little effort is being put towards it. "

Have you not been reading these pages of this stie?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Look up the geothermal resources in the United States and get back to us. Geothermal is continuous, as is hydro. Solar thermal is storable.

We have been doling this for 40 years, Eikka. Who do you think knows more about their integration? A bystander?
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2014
On Australian ABC Ch 2 Lateline re Feldheim, Germany. Completely self sufficient, of course a full net present costing is ideal to analyse but, for now this link appears relatively recent.

http://www.abc.ne.../5879360

1998 I worked in Sabah jungles installing (AVR/BCR) upgrades to self-contained shipping container based system, ostensibly a large UPS designed to monthly cycle two diesels with most economical loading to minimise fuel consumption whilst allowing the village of Mendulong to run their power system mostly during the day only. Too overcast for solar & not enough wind. Back then diesel in Malaysia was ~18c/L, some rough info on my oldie web link:
http://members.ii...s/Power/

Any definitive reports gkam on earliest solar/wind in California as discussed ?
Eikka's tone offers a sense of defeat, how *could* anything solar/wind "ever" be viable with what metrics ?
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Appeal to the crowds? Oops, they are outside my balcony right now, . . .


Appeal to the crowds, argument ad populum, means claiming that other people with more authority are behind you and your argument, even when such people don't exist and when their opinion has no relevance to the matter. It's a rhetoric used by people who try intimidation instead of reason to win arguments.

The rest of us will continue our progress into the future of energy, . . .


Just like you did right there. Pathos instead of logos, when the facts fail you. Pitiful.

No red herring Eikka


Yes, it is a red herring to try to point out to flaws of others to dodge the criticism of your own case. In specific, it's called a "tu quoque" or "you too" fallacy, but in this case it's also a strawman argument because you posit that I would necessarily advocate nuclear power to replace wind and solar power.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
I guess some folk do not give up. You keep tilting at "windmills" while we use wind turbine generators to power our society, along with other renewables, and very few polluting powerplants.

As I said, we have been doing this since you were pooping your pants.
Eikka
5 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
Look up the geothermal resources in the United States and get back to us. Geothermal is continuous, as is hydro. Solar thermal is storable.


Yes, we've been through this already. Three or four times. You keep bringing it up like you got dementia.

There's lots of geothermal power under California, and there's scant little at the east coast where 2/3 of the US population actually lives. Geothermal is highly inefficient due to the small temperature difference, so it requires lots and lots of cooling water, which practically limits it to the seaside.

Solar thermal is storable for a few hours, but at the same time solar thermal power is having a host of other problems, like the new Ivanpah facility killing 28,000 birds a year that mistake the mirrors for water and get burned alive. it also hasn't reached a third of its projected output and is making a big loss.

And it's only really available in the deserted areas. Not so much in e.g. Northern Europe or New York.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Mike, are you aware of Jock Gill, who tried to put solar powered internet connections and lighting to remote villages? He works with biochar now. Look him up.

I do not know the state of integration any more, since Ieft PG&E in late 1987, and went to work for myself as a technical consultant to utilities. My particular point was power quality, and the effects of electronic and non-linear technologies on electrical systems.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
"Geothermal is highly inefficient due to the small temperature difference, so it requires lots and lots of cooling water, which practically limits it to the seaside."
----------------------------------------

Compare it to nuclear plants which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any system we use. And no radioactive waste!! Been to a geothermal plant? I did some power quality work at the Geysers for PG&E.

Again, you are talking from no experience in the field.

At the Geysers, waste water from Santa Rosa is being used to re-charge the system, cleaning up our environment at the same time we produce power. And the Geysers are on a mountain top, not the sea.
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
I guess some folk do not give up. You keep tilting at "windmills" while we use wind turbine generators to power our society, along with other renewables, and very few polluting powerplants.

As I said, we have been doing this since you were pooping your pants.


You "power your society" to the tune of 90% with fossil fuels. Your wind turbines turn less than 15% of your electricity, and your electricity represents only about half of the typical Californian home energy use. Not counting transportation fuels.

And the wind turbines you have weren't there when I was pooping in my pants. The vast majority, over 80% of wind capacity in California has been built in the past 15 years.

You can keep up the propaganda, but you can't keep from the facts that anyone can check with 30 seconds on Google.

Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014

Compare it to nuclear plants which have the lowest thermal efficiency of any system we use.


Either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're lying your ass off.

Nuclear powerplants have comparable thermal efficiency to any powerplant that uses a boiler. It's about 37-41% depending on model. Combined cycle plants get higher, but that's a different thing.

Geothermal plants have very low thermal efficiency in the 7-12% and up to 20% range because they have to operate with thermal reservoirs with limited temperature. It's economically and technologically infeasible to drill as deep to get the same high temperatures as you'd get from a combustion boiler or a nuclear reactor.

Only in select few locations do you get such high temperatures at so close to the surface that a geothermal plant could exceed a nuclear powerplant in efficiency.

Again, you are talking from no experience in the field.


The field of talking out of your ass?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Our wind turbines were up in the late 1970's. When were you born?

Give up, your fears lost to reality. Been to the control room of a large windfarm? No? In a nuclear plant? No? In a hydro facility? No? In a fossil plant? No? Landfill gas? Geothermal? High-head hydro? Pumped storage?

Ever do a strict thermodynamic analysis of actual power systems of all kinds? No? I guess you do not understand the field.

But google can keep you scared.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Our wind turbines were up in the late 1970's. When were you born?


You had some experimental wind turbines up in the 70's.

70% of the capacity in California is built after 2001.

Been to the control room of a large windfarm? No? In a nuclear plant? No? In a hydro facility? No? In a fossil plant? No? Landfill gas? Geothermal? High-head hydro? Pumped storage?


Irrelevant. By that standard, any schoolkid who's been to a field trip to the Hoover Dam has authority to talk about hydroelectric power.

Ever do a strict thermodynamic analysis of actual power systems of all kinds? No? I guess you do not understand the field.


I'd rather let the facts speak for themselves rather than stand around stretching my suspenders and counting my medals.

People who rail against "wikipedia knowledge" have the problem that the knowledge being quoted comes from people who have done all the things you demand.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
But if you insist:

Been to the control room of a large windfarm?


No, but I've been inside a wind turbine and observed the operation and remote control with a modem in the 90's. Had some insider info about what sort of maintenance frequency and production output they had. That particular turbine was later scrapped and sold off as unprofitable because it kept blowing the hydraulics.

In a nuclear plant?

That I haven't done.

In a hydro facility? High-head hydro?

Yes.

In a fossil plant?


Yes. In a district heating facility.

Landfill gas? Geothermal? Pumped storage?


No.
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
Give up, your fears lost to reality.


What fear?

You're trying to construe this as some sort of psychological issue, when it's about the demand that we discuss with facts and figures instead of emotional propaganda and personal ad-hominems and boasting with credentials.

You want to falsely paint me as an opponent to renewable energy, as the evil guy who puts sticks in the wheels of progress.

Why?
MR166
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2014
"You want to falsely paint me as an opponent to renewable energy, as the evil guy who puts sticks in the wheels of progress.

Why?"

Eikka renewable energy is a huge government supported business. Anyone who tries to interject anything about EROI or total real costs will be soundly castigated as anti progress and an oil shill.
Eikka
4.8 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
Besides, gkam, your favourite argument about the Altamont Pass wind farm, and how it's designed to provide you with electricity when the air conditioning loads are the highest...

Take a look at the picture: http://www.windby...raph.jpg

Californian wind production patterns often don't meet with the power demand patterns.

It's the same problem as in Texas. When a warm day turns to a cool night the winds come in, and when night comes to day the winds die off. Completely the opposite of what you need.

And from the graph we also see that the January peak demand is at 7 pm - not at noon when the solar power is available, so that's that for the reduced use of peaking powerplants as well...

There's also very large month-to-month and year-to-year variation in output, which would require seasonal storage to cope with in large scale: http://en.wikiped...neration

gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Look at all the nay-sayers. Not one has been in the business.
Eikka
5 / 5 (22) Nov 10, 2014
Look at all the nay-sayers. Not one has been in the business.


In what business? Applying for subsidies?

Look. We just post the figures that "your" industry puts out. We're quoting from the people who ARE in the business, and the figures ain't what you're making them out to be.

So what are you going to do about it?

And what nay saying? Nobody's saying "nay" to renewable power. We're saying no simply to the mismanagement and misallocation of resources. You can build as much as you want, as long as you're not picking my pockets for the money and forcing me to take your losses.

Again, you're painting everyone who points at an issue as an obstructionist, as if the issues would go away if you pretend they're not there!
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 10, 2014
" January peak demand is at 7 pm "
--------------------------

We don't need air conditioning in January. And every kWh produced by wind is one not generated with pollution of air and water.

We are still using alternative energy. You guys on the sidelines can just keep on whining.
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
We don't need air conditioning in January.


Indeed. You need light and heating.

And every kWh produced by wind is one not generated with pollution of air and water.


Except generating wind power does cause pollution of air and water because of the economic activity necessary to pay it off. You have people producing and consuming things in order to make more money, which is taxed in order to pay the feed-in tariffs, to pay the wind turbines.

The more you tax, the more the people have to work for a living, and the more they run around in cars and consume things made out of plastics and steel, and burn electricity made out of gas and coal - and just a little bit wind power too to make it all look good.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

We are still using alternative energy. You guys on the sidelines can just keep on whining.


Fossil fuels is what you're using. But you keep denying that and pretending that the emperor has clothes.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2014
We don't have the infrastructure to run more than about 15% of our grid off of "renewable" sources. You simply have to have either conventional fossil fuel plants or nuclear plants for baseload at this time (at a ratio of around 15-30% wind/solar per conventional unit) or storage systems that no only don't exist yet, but are not even realistically on the horizon.

It's simple math. It's not fear, or whining...it's just math and physics.

Either you spend the trillions to revamp the grid to handle the ludicrous interminacy of wind and solar, or you build nuclear plants like their going out of style...OR you fry the planet. Those are your only ACTUAL choices.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
Again, why do you folk not in the field assume it is a wholesale transformation? It is incremental, done when conditions are correct. You are setting up strawmen.

And you are losing out to reality.

Poco a poco.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
Here's another problem that you NEVER hear advocaes of wind and solar bring up...

IF you believe in climate change (which I do) then you obviously know that we've already done enough damage to significantly alter wind and weather patterns. Guess what that means? It means that all the places you've built your wind and solar farms, based on how much wind and sun you're getting in those spots, might have radically different production rates in the near future....how are you going to address that?

Again, why do you folk not in the field assume it is a wholesale transformation? It is incremental, done when conditions are correct. You are setting up strawmen.

And you are losing out to reality.

Poco a poco.


It doesn't matter how "incrementally" you get to 30% load on the grid...it's a brick fricken wall you're going to hit no matter how fast you get there. Do you ACTUALLY understand the argument???
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
And those big blades, how ya gonna transport them blades? And how ya gonna paint those things? They're movin'!

Let's see, any more invented potential problems these guys know about but the professionals who actually do it do not know?

Sorry, folk, . . no cooling water. No fuel. No toxic waste. No sweat.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 10, 2014
What the objectors to alternative energy fail to understand is that we have overcome all their fears in the use of these technologies decades ago. We do understand their characteristics, and they do make sense. Nothing you bring up will stop our advancement in energy production.

But whine away, . . .
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
And those big blades, how ya gonna transport them blades? And how ya gonna paint those things? They're movin'!

Let's see, any more invented potential problems these guys know about but the professionals who actually do it do not know?


If they know, then what are their answers? Surely they've got a plan...what is it? I've looked for it and can't find it. Perhaps you could tell us how the experts are going to change the laws of physics and basic principles of mathematics...

Sorry, folk, . . no cooling water. No fuel. No toxic waste. No sweat.


A molten salt breeder reactor needs no fuel, no cooling water, and produces no waste that can't be burned in a reactor or effectively sequestered for a few decades. No sweat.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
Okay, build a breeder, like Fermi I, or Monju, then what? Do you think it uses up all the radioactivity, instead of producing more unusable toxic waste?

For every Btu of power put on the grid, two or three are put into the environment by nuclear generation. Nuke plants are huge wasters of water. And can we send the waste to your house? Nobody has found a long-term way to even store it.

Will it be "too cheap to meter"?
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
Okay, build a breeder, like Fermi I, or Monju, then what? Do you think it uses up all the radioactivity, instead of producing more unusable toxic waste?


Yes that's EXACTLY what it does. Current LWRs use about 3% of the energy in the fuel. Do some reading....seriously.

Nuke plants are huge wasters of water.


A molten salt reactor uses no water. Again read before you spout off about something you (obviously) know nothing about.

And can we send the waste to your house? Nobody has found a long-term way to even store it.


There simply is no high level waste from new reactor designs. The small amount there is you can ABSOLUTELY and ACTUALLY store in my basement for the entire country. I'll take it no problem.

Will it be "too cheap to meter"?


Nope, but it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper than wind or solar ;)

I'm still waiting on an answer from "the experts" on intermittency and storage for renewables.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
"It doesn't matter how "incrementally" you get to 30% load on the grid...it's a brick fricken wall you're going to hit no matter how fast you get there. Do you ACTUALLY understand the argument???"
--------------------------------------------------

You have been screaming at me for so long, you have not listened. I advocate distributed and diversified systems, not concentration of one technology. Yet you folk keep on assuming these technologies will be the sole ones employed. The point is the integration of renewables as is appropriate, as we have been doing, and as you can learn to do, once you get over your prejudice.

Look at my posts. You folk are DENSE!!
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 10, 2014
"There simply is no high level waste from new reactor designs. "
-----------------

Get that from Reagan? Show me!! You are grossly unaware of the technology.

How long have we had their promises? How many more meltdowns do we have to suffer before we finally deny the Nuclear Priesthood the power to threaten life on Earth?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
You have been screaming at me for so long, you have not listened.


One can't scream on the internet, and if you consider my reasoned responses to you screaming I suggest adding some thicker skin to your hide...

I advocate distributed and diversified systems, not concentration of one technology.


Ok, what ratio of renewables? If it's over 30% (that's the optimistic figure) it's not going to work..period.

Yet you folk keep on assuming these technologies will be the sole ones employed. The point is the integration of renewables as is appropriate, as we have been doing, and as you can learn to do, once you get over your prejudice.


As long as it doesn't destabilize the grid, I'm OK with renewables...I just don't see the point. I'm not anti-renewable, it's just that I can do percents and basic math....

Look at my posts. You folk are DENSE!!


Who's screaming?
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
"I'm still waiting on an answer from "the experts" on intermittency and storage for renewables."
----------------------------------------

Hide and watch: We have been doing it for decades in California. Sorry about you folk choking on toxic coal emissions.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Get that from Reagan? Show me!! You are grossly unaware of the technology.


I actually have, you've failed to read. If I provide a source will you ACTUALLY read it?

How long have we had their promises? How many more meltdowns do we have to suffer before we finally deny the Nuclear Priesthood the power to threaten life on Earth?


Until we educate you....

Still waiting for an answer on intermittency and storage BTW....oh wait...

Hide and watch: We have been doing it for decades in California. Sorry about you folk choking on toxic coal emissions.


So...you and they don't actually have a solution but hide and watch. Wow...mmmmkay
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
Again, why do you folk not in the field assume it is a wholesale transformation? It is incremental, done when conditions are correct.


So it's going to happen when the cows come flying home.

And you are losing out to reality.


Your're denying the reality of the situation.

There's currently no reasonable way to get to a 100% renewable society. It just isn't going to happen with the current tax and subsidize model, and it isn't going to happen by energy-imperialism and micromanaging peoples lives with "smart grids" like what others propose as a solution to that.

We need cheap energy storage. We have none. We're just wasting time and money elsewhere, pretending like you are pretending that none of the problems exist, and though they don't exist they are solved anyhow.

Its doublethink of the worst kind.

In real terms it leads to poverty, mass-emigrations, war and strife on a global scale, because nothing gets done until it all breaks down.
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 10, 2014
For every Btu of power put on the grid, two or three are put into the environment by nuclear generation. Nuke plants are huge wasters of water.


By the same argument you should be railing against geothermal power, because it uses more water and puts out more heat per kWh produced.

But you don't, because you have double standards.

Hide and watch: We have been doing it for decades in California. Sorry about you folk choking on toxic coal emissions.


And now you're just preaching like an evangelist again. Ignoring everything that has been said. Argument ad nauseaum - repeat until you're sick in the stomach and maybe they'll believe.

You've made this into your religion, haven't you?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 10, 2014
Instead of whining on the sidelines, why don't you try to make things better, like I did in real life?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
Instead of whining on the sidelines, why don't you try to make things better, like I did in real life?


Instead of dodging tough questions with emotional non-sequiturs, why don't you honestly evaluate your position or provide answers to our concerns?
gkam
1.6 / 5 (28) Nov 10, 2014
Where do the bystanders get the idea they know more than the folk actually doing it?

Reagan? Religion? Technical ignorance? Political prejudice? Where?

Who assumed we would only use one or two technologies? My god, these folk keep on and on telling us about the technologies we have been using for decades, and think they know more than we do.

I have continually maintained the need for a diversified grid, not one based on one technology. How hard is it to get that straight?

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
Where do the bystanders get the idea they know more than the folk actually doing it?


When the folk actually doing it can't answer VERY basic and simple questions to significant problems.

Reagan? Religion? Technical ignorance? Political prejudice? Where?


Critical thinking and reason.

Who assumed we would only use one or two technologies? My god, these folk keep on and on telling us about the technologies we have been using for decades, and think they know more than we do.


So, which ones do we use and in which ratios? Will he actually answer or rant about Reagan....

Go hug your favorite coal-burner: It won't be there for long.


No it won't thank goodness, it'll be a nuclear plant...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
These folk perhaps are used to thinking of central plants, huge things, run by experts, and commoners need not be in the way. It is changing, and we understand the benefits of the integration of disparate technologies, based on practicality and availability and other factors.

Some of you folk must think power companies are run by hippies, not accountants or power professionals. All those decisions are agonized over in every field, since the investments in time and resources is so high. But we have folk here who know better than the experts in all those fields?

Yeah, you bring up good points, ones with which we had to deal for decades. I am trying to tell you we are way ahead of you and your understanding of systems. We are trying to tell you to not be so SCARED.

How many times do you think we had to prove these things before we could employ them in conservative power companies?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
These folk perhaps are used to thinking of central plants, huge things, run by experts, and commoners need not be in the way. It is changing, and we understand the benefits of the integration of disparate technologies, based on practicality and availability and other factors.

I'll ask again. IF they have then tell me their solutions...

What ratio of which power minus fossil fuel are you going to use?

But we have folk here who know better than the experts in all those fields?


Well, if they have an answer to intermittency I'm all ears. By all means tell us.

Yeah, you bring up good points, ones with which we had to deal for decades. I am trying to tell you we are way ahead of you and your understanding of systems.


Explain your understanding then. How do you compensate for intermittency without using fossil fuels or nuclear?

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
For you absolutists: Once again, we will not get rid of fossil or nuclear power in the short term. Why do you continually try to take a situation to some ridiculous extreme to make a point? We know all your objections. We did not just find them out, . . honest!.

We will continue to replace dirty power with clean technologies because they make economic sense. If you take a good class in Environmental Economics, you would understand the societal costs of "externalities" imposed on everybody by coal and nuclear power. Gas is much cleaner, as a fuel as well as a feedstock, which eventually will be its primary use.

The additions and the evolution will not be overnight, and the results will be well-planned. Stop carping from the sidelines. It will not help us evolve our systems. Because you have not been in the business, you make assumptions about it.

Once again, how many times do you think we had to prove these systems before we could use them in a conservative utility?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
"What ratio of which power minus fossil fuel are you going to use?"
----------------------------------

That is always site-specific. Do you only have one tool in your shed?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
"What ratio of which power minus fossil fuel are you going to use?"
----------------------------------

That is always site-specific. Do you only have one tool in your shed?


No it's absolutely not site-specific. I'm talking about the entire grid here. It's an easy question. Which technologies are you going to use. Forget ratios for the moment, are we using just wind and solar? Are you using geothermal (which is really just natural nuclear btw)? Why is it so difficult for you to answer a simple question?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
For you absolutists: Once again, we will not get rid of fossil or nuclear power in the short term.


But you are talking about getting rid of them....what will be your end game?

If you take a good class in Environmental Economics, you would understand the societal costs of "externalities" imposed on everybody by coal and nuclear power.


Which are essentially zero. We've had one fatality in the US from Nuclear power. Coal kills about 1 million per year (on the heavy end and worldwide). Those are the ends of the scales.

Gas is much cleaner, as a fuel as well as a feedstock, which eventually will be its primary use.


Why use it at all?

The additions and the evolution will not be overnight, and the results will be well-planned.


What is the plan for over 30% renewables? If it's well planned we should know this already.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
"No it's absolutely not site-specific. I'm talking about the entire grid here."
---------------------------------

Yes, it IS site-specific. And we do not have one grid. We have many which are not connected. The assumptions you folk make are sophomoric.

If we are in a location for geothermal, we will use it. If we are in areas with hydro, we will already have used them. Welcome to sustainability and self-sufficiency, kids.

Stop bringing up more irrelevancies, and trying to find more and more tiny things to whine about. We are doing it, you are whining on the sidelines.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
"No it's absolutely not site-specific. I'm talking about the entire grid here."
---------------------------------

Yes, it IS site-specific. And we do not have one grid. We have many which are not connected. The assumptions you folk make are sophomoric.

If we are in a location for geothermal, we will use it. If we are in areas with hydro, we will already have used them. Welcome to sustainability and self-sufficiency, kids.


This has NOTHING to do with intermittency. You can split up the grid into a thousand teeny tiny pieces, it STILL doesn't address the fact that renewables are only running 20% of the time.

In fact if you split it up like you're talking about you're just going to have MORE problems with intermittency because then you can't dispatch power across a greater area and are more susceptible to local and regional weather patterns....

edit:I'm seriously doubting your credentials in the power industry at this point, you don't seem to get this at all
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 10, 2014
No societal impacts from coal?

http://www.skepti...wer.html

Time for a course in Environmental Economics.

No deaths from nuclear power? Been to Pripyat?
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2014
No societal impacts from coal?

http://www.skepti...wer.html

Time for a course in Environmental Economics.

No deaths from nuclear power? Been to Pripyat?


I didn't say for coal, in fact if you READ what I WROTE I said there are about a million deaths per year for coal. Please do that before you respond...READ what I WRITE.

I said only one death in the US for NUCLEAR which is essentially zero.. You seriously need to up your reading comprehension, that's not a dig or sarcastic..you have a serious problem with your reading.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
"Well, if they have an answer to intermittency I'm all ears. By all means tell us."

"This has NOTHING to do with intermittency. "
-----------------------------

Make up your mind.

"In fact if you split it up like you're talking about you're just going to have MORE problems with intermittency because then you can't dispatch power across a greater area and are more susceptible to local and regional weather patterns...."

We didn't "split it up". My god where do you get your ideas? The grids were grown from natural sources and loads, site-specific resources. It started with hydro. We connected them together, but the same geographical features that make our climate different also keep us from interconnecting, such as the Rocky Mountains. That is how we got separate grids.

I do not understand why you keep trying to find negatives. Stuck in your political prejudice? What other reason could you have to assume you know more than the folks actually doing it?
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
"I said only one death in the US. "
--------------------------------------

Like breeders? No deaths? Look up SL-1.

It created a fast fission so fast, it blew itself apart. But the NRC calls it a "steam explosion", even though they buried parts of the three bodies as High-level waste.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
"I said only one death in the US. "
--------------------------------------

Like breeders? No deaths? Look up SL-1.

It created a fast fission so fast, it blew itself apart. But the NRC calls it a "steam explosion", even though they buried parts of the three bodies as High-level waste.


I said one death, not zero deaths, and I stand corrected. Three deaths...and while tragic I'd say that's negligible.

You still haven't addressed how you're going to deal with the intermittency issues with renewables. How are you going to deal with the fact that for every unit of renewable you need at least 2 units of base load to keep the grid going reliably.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 10, 2014
"You still haven't addressed how you're going to deal with the intermittency issues with renewables. How are you going to deal with the fact that for every unit of renewable you need at least 2 units of base load to keep the grid going reliably."
------------------------------------------

OMG!! Why didn't WE think of that?

I suggest you start writing to your local papers and power companies right now!!

Stop this alternative energy madness before it's too late!

It's a good thing we have you smart folks to look out for us silly professionals.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2014
OMG!! Why didn't WE think of that?


You DID?! Wonderful! What's the plan?

I suggest you start writing to your local papers and power companies right now!!


I DO write opinion editorials often for the local paper on just these subjects.

Stop this alternative energy madness before it's too late!


No need really, if one tries to run the grid off 20% renewables and it fails it will be stopped for sure :) OR if it doesn't no one will be more pleased than I, but it will

It's a good thing we have you smart folks to look out for us silly professionals.


I guess if you silly professionals could actually answer a simple question about your field we wouldn't have to look out for you.

If a physician wasn't sure your bones would heal would you go through the pain of letting him set them and the inconvenience of a cast? The difference is he CAN answer those questions...YOU cant
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
Yes, yes, . . babble on.

Meanwhile the real folk will continue on to the future.

Don't forget to whine.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
Yes, yes, . . babble on.


If by "babble" you mean continue to raise hard questions to unworkable technologies we're pouring billions into that, if they don't pan out, will fry the planet by default....by all means you can be sure I will.

Meanwhile the real folk will continue on to the future.


BAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHhahahahahahaha......oh man that's a good one. Yeah "real folk" working on a power source they can't integrate into our infrastructure. Meanwhile the rest of us in the real world are focusing on technology that we KNOW works and is already providing 70% power in some nations safely and reliably without any grid issues. That's honestly the best belly laugh I've had all month, thanks man.

Don't forget to whine.


Critical thinking, and questioning is now "whining"? I thought that was more like complaining that someone was taking you to task on hard real questions about your positions....
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
Screaming "It can't be done!" will not keep us from continuing to do it.

Whether you understand how we do it or not is not important. We have started and will continue to replace Filthy Fuels.

Sorry.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 11, 2014
Screaming "It can't be done!" will not keep us from continuing to do it.


Well, first of all I never said it couldn't be done. Secondly what will keep you from doing it is failing to work on a plan. Is there a plan? I've not seen a realistic one from "the professionals". If they have one, share it.

Whether you understand how we do it or not is not important. We have started and will continue to replace Filthy Fuels.


It's not a matter of whether or not I understand. It's a matter of math and basic physics. No amount of "green belief" is going to change that for you.

This is VERY simple and straightforward;

A source of power that is only on about 20% of the time, is statistically random in when it's on or off, and requires a reliable source of power to balance this out can't possibly reliably run a modern national post-industrial grid.

How are you going to make it run reliably, do without base load reliable power, and what energy source you will use?

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
I know it is all a big mystery to you on the sidelines. You are stuck with the idea we will use mainly fossil fuels and a few others. You are completely unaware of the technologies we already proved, and are being integrated into the grids as we debate. Yeah, there are problems, as all systems must be integrated together.

One cannot give you a simple "plan" because it is all site-and-situation-specific. We did it using our heads and available resources. You will have to do the same if you want to get out of Filthy Fuels.

I am not going to go through it all again.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
I know it is all a big mystery to you on the sidelines. You are stuck with the idea we will use mainly fossil fuels and a few others.


No I'm not. It's a testament to your lack of reading comprehension that you think so.

You are completely unaware of the technologies we already proved, and are being integrated into the grids as we debate.


These are fundamental problems, they are not trivial. You can't make 2+2=5. You're going to have to do better than "it will just work somehow"...

One cannot give you a simple "plan" because it is all site-and-situation-specific.


You can't give me a plan because no one has a plan that changes the rules of statistics, percents, and arithmetic...

We did it using our heads and available resources.


You are only 1/4-1/3 there.

I am not going to go through it all again.


You've yet to explain once yet...you have no realistic plan, we get it.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
Sorry to be so snappy, but I have had to deal with folk who argue technical points from political prejudice.

The site-and-situation-specific statement is really the key to all of it. Got Wind? You can put up a turbine and sell the power to the utilities. Got cows? Every seven cows produce sufficient anaerobically-digestible manure to power an entire household.

PV power replaces electrons at peak. Wind blows all the time somewhere. Geothermal works continually. Solar thermal works for hours after sundown, in the late peak not covered by PV. Hydro is limited, but readily-dispatchable, and usually used as quick-response units, as well as quick load-following.

I was against nuclear power and said so loudly while I was hired by Pacific Gas & Electric. I do not buy the "company line". (I think my PTSD from the war may have something to do with it).

I do not want to argue with you, but am trying to tell you how it has to be done.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
While we were rebuilding our grid after Reagan, we still needed power, so the utility hired me and other industrial engineers to go into the facilities of our customers and reduce their usage of electricity. Yup, we got much of our additional power from reducing waste. You can do it, too.

As we did that, we diversified. I can see the day when we shut down Diablo Canyon, "Devil's Ditch".

But stop your silly accusations voiced because you do not understand what we are doing.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
Sorry to be so snappy, but I have had to deal with folk who argue technical points from political prejudice.


Pot, meet kettle..

Got Wind? You can put up a turbine and sell the power to the utilities.


That only works if you have something else on grid that takes up the slack at a 2/3 ratio...period.

Got cows? Every seven cows produce sufficient anaerobically-digestible manure to power an entire household.


Fossil fuel? We need to stop that.

PV power replaces electrons at peak. Wind blows all the time somewhere.


Only 20% of the time, so what is going to provide you're 20-30% base load? Even if it's blowing 20% of the time somewhere everywhere it's only going to provide 20% of your installed capacity...EVER. It's really important that you understand this point. D o y o u u n d e r s t a n d? You'll never get more than 20-30% of your installed capacity from wind and solar. Just 20-30%, that's all. Can we move on yet?

(cont)

Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
Geothermal works continually


And there's only so much you can get of this and it's not enough to provide your base load.

Solar thermal works for hours after sundown, in the late peak not covered by PV.


Hours doesn't cut it though does it?

Hydro is limited, but readily-dispatchable, and usually used as quick-response units, as well as quick load-following.


And we're already at peak with it. Even if we weren't just TRY to build a dam somewhere and see how many friend's of the court briefs are filed against you.

I was against nuclear power and said so loudly while I was hired by Pacific Gas & Electric. I do not buy the "company line". (I think my PTSD from the war may have something to do with it).


Oh, that's quite clear with you.

Yup, we got much of our additional power from reducing waste. You can do it, too.


Maybe 20%, but is our goal to just use less energy? Good luck with that one.

Modernmystic
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
Correction.

Only 20% of the time, so what is going to provide you're 20-30% base load?


should read

Only 20% of the time, so what is going to provide you're 70-80% base load?


Additionally I think there's another important point here to make. you said

I do not buy the "company line".


You're talking about LWRs, you obviously know little about molten salt reactors. Your statement is EXACTLY like saying;

"I don't buy the company line from Ford that fuel injectors won't clog on electric cars"

Molten salt reactors are PASSIVELY safe. You're comparing apples and oranges.

gkam
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
We are moving on. You are stuck with filthy fuels.

Apparently no amount of explanation will be sufficient. You took your silly position and now must defend it, I suppose.

The rest of us will continue into the 21st Century.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 11, 2014
We are moving on. You are stuck with filthy fuels.


Who's we paleface? And you're "stuck with" reality. You have no solution as you've demonstrated.

Apparently no amount of explanation will be sufficient.


Well I used to be anti-nuke and was convinced by facts and figures. Provide your numbers and your plan that's based in reality.

The rest of us will continue into the 21st Century.


You do know that everyone is already continuing into the 21st century. Especially those who don't rely on 13th century technology with a generator hooked to it...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
"Well I used to be anti-nuke and was convinced by facts and figures"
-----------------------

I learned to not trust the technology or the proponents when I worked with the technology. We were testing the BWR SRV hammer and bubble oscillation in Suppression Pools when TMI II melted down, and we saw the endless lies from the proponents of the nukes.

If you want to read the NRC or other propaganda, do it at Fukushima.

As for the alternative energy discussion, why don't you folk give it up? We have already done it, and can teach you to do it, too.
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2014
"I learned to not trust the technology or the proponents when I worked with the technology. "

If that is true then why do your trust the AGW proponents?

gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 11, 2014
Why do you assume I pay attention to them? I told you I earned a Master of Science in Environmental Management, concentrating on Energy and the Environment. I have been reading science, not political diatribes, for decades, watching as our fears became realized long before we originally feared.

I derive my opinion from education and attention, not politics. The concentration of power is using money to politicize science, not able to debate it straight out. And my opinion comes from a lifetime of experience, actually working in many of the fields.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
I learned to not trust the technology or the proponents when I worked with the technology.


Which technology specifically? LWRs or molten salt reactors, because those are two completely different technologies. You're going to have to be specific.

Molten salt reactors can't melt down (in fact their fuel is already liquid).

They are passively safe, this means you can walk away and they coast to a halt via the principles they operate on, NOT the design of the reactor.

They produce virtually no waste and the waste they do produce is low level.

If you want to read the NRC or other propaganda, do it at Fukushima.


Oh it's not propaganda, the WHO are the ones who stated there will be no fatalities due to Fukushima. In fact based on the radiation readings people could move back tomorrow. The levels are lower than they are in places in Iran where people have lived without an increased incidence of cancer for thousands of years.
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
As for the alternative energy discussion, why don't you folk give it up? We have already done it, and can teach you to do it, too.


You haven't "done it". That would be running the grid off of solar/wind/geothermal/and hydro. NO ONE has even come close. Without fossil fuel based renewables Germany wouldn't be close to 30%, much less 100% renewable. Moreover those numbers do NOT take into account transportation which accounts for roughly a third of any modern economy's energy consumption.

You still haven't explained how you get to 100% renewable installed capacity with wind and solar when it's only physically possible to get them to operate AT MOST 30% of the time on average...

It's very simple math, it's a very simple question, and it's clear to all you haven't answered it.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
"You still haven't explained how you get to 100% renewable installed capacity with wind and solar "
-------------------------------------------

How dense are you??? You keep changing the rules. Now, it is 100%? Have you not seen my repeated comments about employing all renewables? Do you not understand geothermal or solar thermal?

Are you unaware of landfill gas, energy harvesting, increased conservation, and more efficient technologies?

You are on the sidelines, throwing anything you can find against the wall, trying to make your point which is political, not technological.

Once again: "Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us."

That was in the 1980's. What were YOU doing back then?


Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
How dense are you??? You keep changing the rules. Now, it is 100%?


I'm confused, isn't that the goal? Hydro is peaked now. You are never going to get enough geothermal, there simply aren't enough sites outside Iceland

Do you not understand geothermal or solar thermal?


What percentage are you getting from each? Do you understand math?

Are you unaware of landfill gas


Why not drill an oil well? Yeah I'm aware it emits GHGs..are you?

trying to make your point which is political, not technological.


It's neither, it's mathematical.

That was in the 1980's. What were YOU doing back then?


Learning math actually. Which day did you miss it in your education?
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
So, your brilliant plan, if I'm hearing you correctly is you're going to run the OTHER 80% of your grid off of biofuels (which are filthy), geothermal (which is hugely limited in scale), and hydro which is already maxed...

Does that sum it up?

Oh wait then there's solar thermal (who's advanced designs use molten salt too btw) which gives you a few hours after dark....
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
These folk certainly do not understand the sources of power available to us. Do you think you know ANY more than we do? Really? What were you doing when we integrated our grid, and paved the way for you to do it, too?

You are not writing from science, but arguing from politics. I have told you and told you how you must learn to think, and not just buy whatever somebody sells you. We got our power from available resources, not just huge polluting sources. You can learn to do it, too, . . all you have to do is ask, . .nicely.

Molten salt, cold fusion, . . if they are so good, go do them! Meanwhile the rest of us have to deal with reality.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
These folk certainly do not understand the sources of power available to us. Do you think you know ANY more than we do? Really? What were you doing when we integrated our grid, and paved the way for you to do it, too?


I do when all you do is stamp your feet and say "It is so!" If you can show your numbers and where you're going to build all these geothermal sites, how much it's going to cost, the capacity etc etc....you know...the MATH.

You are not writing from science, but arguing from politics.


Nope, I'm just pro arithmetic :)

I have told you and told you how you must learn to think, and not just buy whatever somebody sells you.


LMFAO...THINK about that...reeeeeealy hard.

You can learn to do it, too, . . all you have to do is ask, . .nicely.


I've been asking, you've been dodging and providing no concrete numbers.

Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Molten salt, cold fusion


When did I ever say cold fusion? Are you being stupid (literal meaning of the word not an insult at all, you may actually be senile), lying, or intellectually dishonest here?

Have you read anything about molten salt reactors? No? Then you're being lliterally ignorant. Try some enlightenment.

, . . if they are so good, go do them!


Well, you see we have outdated, hysterical, and willfully ignorant people like you in the way....

Meanwhile the rest of us have to deal with reality.


With the reality of being unable to run a grid off of renewables without nuclear...yes you will have to deal with that at some point. Just like Germany is now.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
Where do you live Mister Mystic? That will determine what technologies we use to replace the Filthy ones. Maybe you folk not in the business think you know how it all works, but you do not, and every time I try to explain it, you find some irrelevant point to argue.

Stop asking my how it works and figure out how to do it where you live. You have not looked into the geothermal resources, or you would not have made your statement about its availability.

It is not as simple as you folk seem to think, and I do not have your "formula" to do it. You have to figure it out, but you have our successes and failures from which to start.

Where do you live? And why?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Where do you live Mister Mystic? That will determine what technologies we use to replace the Filthy ones. Maybe you folk not in the business think you know how it all works, but you do not, and every time I try to explain it, you find some irrelevant point to argue.


You've yet to explain where you're getting 70-80% of your power. You've given no numbers, data, sources. Please I'm all ears...

Stop asking my how it works and figure out how to do it where you live. You have not looked into the geothermal resources, or you would not have made your statement about its availability.


Actually I have, and it won't work. Give me your source that says it will. You're making the positive claim it will...back it up. We need 80% of 1168 GW capacity of geothermal, hydro, and thermal solar power. Where are you going to get it?
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
Actually I have, and it won't work.
-------------------------------------

Maybe that is because you do not know how to do it.

We can teach you, if your attitude improves.

Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
Maybe that is because you do not know how to do it.


It's obvious to everyone here you don't or you would have.

Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
I have a source that shows we have access to 33,000 MW of geothermal energy that is practical to get to and economically competitive. I'll bet you can find it if you look a bit ;)

Oh, that's about 3% of what's needed...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
You guys keep on whining, we'll keep on re-building our infrastructure with modern technologies, not those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

You want me to specify your particular mix of resources, but you won't tell me where you live. You only made silly demands showing you do not understand what we are trying to tell you.

You are critical bystanders, wannabes, the guys at construction sites on the sidewalk looking through holes in the fence. You do NOT know more than the folk doing the work.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
Mister Mystic wants me to tell him how to run his life? To do that, I need to know where he lives.

What is your field, so I can couch my responses in words and concepts familiar to you?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
You guys keep on whining, we'll keep on re-building our infrastructure with modern technologies, not those of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.


Windmills were first made in the 1st century CE, AC generators have been around since 1882...

Read a book.

You want me to specify your particular mix of resources, but you won't tell me where you live.


Because...*gasp* I'm talking about the whole country.

You only made silly demands showing you do not understand what we are trying to tell you.


I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking for your math, which you can't provide or won't...

You are critical bystanders, wannabes, the guys at construction sites on the sidewalk looking through holes in the fence. You do NOT know more than the folk doing the work.


The work of putting intermittent technologies on a grid designed for constant load? Yeah, let me know how getting 20% power works. Oh wait we KNOW that...the lights go out.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
Mystic calls them windmills displaying his knowledge of the technology.

As I said, it is not some simple formula, but those of you not in this field keep on asking the same questions, after I tell you there is no one answer. You have to figure it out like we did in the 1980's.

This is not some political directive, it is the result of professionals finding power where we can get it the best. I will not continue to take you by the hand and try to educate a recalcitrant person.

If you want "proof", just hide and watch. Meanwhile stay out of the way.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
Mystic calls them windmills displaying his knowledge of the technology.


What are they if they're not a glorified windmill hooked up to a generator. The principles of both technologies are ancient and old respectively.

As I said, it is not some simple formula, but those of you not in this field keep on asking the same questions, after I tell you there is no one answer. You have to figure it out like we did in the 1980's.


With nuclear there is nothing to figure out. And there's nothing to figure out with wind and solar. There's no way to stretch 20% to 100%, just like 1+1 doesn't equal 10.

This is not some political directive,


Yes it is. It's heavily subsidized which is the government taking money from people who wouldn't usually pour it down a drain and forcing them to.

If you want "proof", just hide and watch. Meanwhile stay out of the way.


I'll no more stay silent on an obviously unworkable plan than any other reasonable person.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
Meanwhile, they need you at Fukushima. Plutonium is scattered for miles. Tell us what you are going to do with the waste, . . no pie-in-the-sky treatments, it is still radioactive with very long-lived radionuclides. You have no way to store it, so it is not moot.

And yes, I do understand BRMK, LWR, HWR, HTGCR, PWR and BWR, salt, liquid sodium, gas, or water cooled and moderated, pebble bed, I am familiar with them all. Why would you think we would not have known this decades ago, as they were being developed, and we were making the decisions? I told you I did some tests myself, but you know better from books?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
The problem is rather, who are you going to fence the stolen panels to? The market doesn't exist yet because there's no similiar recycling effort for materials, and anyone buying panels needs legitimate paperwork to collect the government subsidies.
Geez I dont know, since this is the fucking INTERNET why dont we press a few keys and FIND OUT??

"Solar-panel theft is rampant in California, and this could drive up the cost even more... California has over 34,000 solar installations and one of the highest solar-panel theft rates in the nation. Many wineries have the systems–it certainly makes a nice blurb on the label–and they've become favored targets... Solar-cell theft is such a big problem that Congressman Mike Thompson added a provision to the Solar Technology Roadmap Act that would create a national registry of solar panels... used to grow another one of California's biggest cash crops, marijuana"

fucking hell
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
And yes, I do understand BRMK, LWR, HWR, HTGCR, PWR and BWR, salt, liquid sodium, gas, or water cooled and moderated, pebble bed, I am familiar with them all
Yes and I am 'familiar' with them all as well, having read about them in the new york post, mother jones, and I have also skimmed many wiki pages.

Still pretending to be the expert youre not g?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
I am a generalist, Otto, what are you? I have expertise in several fields, but not know what an "expert" is, unless it's my score on the range in the service.

Having had to do thermodynamic analyses of all the facilities for thermo and prime mover classes in upper division and graduate school, , and having actually been a utility engineer, I may have more knowledge about these systems than you get from Popular Science.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2014


Meanwhile, they need you at Fukushima. Plutonium is scattered for miles. Tell us what you are going to do with the waste, . . no pie-in-the-sky treatments, it is still radioactive with very long-lived radionuclides. You have no way to store it, so it is not moot.


I've looked at the radiation map. Right over Dai ichi, in order to get a low dose that's non cancer causing you'd have to camp there 24/7 for 41 days. Just about 300 meters away it's 1000 or more times less...which means it's safe year round. Sell that unmitigated BS somewhere else because there are educated people who know what a sivert is and how many of them per hour are actually a problem.

gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Is Otto going to tell me that the wind does not blow all the time, (unlike him), or that the sun is down at night?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
And yes, I do understand BRMK, LWR, HWR, HTGCR, PWR and BWR, salt, liquid sodium, gas, or water cooled and moderated, pebble bed, I am familiar with them all.


You understand this stuff and don't know that radiation levels just outside the immediate area of the reactors in Fukushima is not an issue? You were trying to convince me that tritium is radioactive water (no kidding, he seriously thought that). You don't understand that you'll NEVER run more than 20% of installed capacity on a grid from solar and wind. You "understand" molten salt reactors and think they're unsafe? You think people actually died at Fukushima when EVERY credible source states no one did or will. You seem to think that 3 deaths from nuclear power in the US (and NONE in France) is somehow a problem worth ignoring the entire technology for.

What's the fuel cycle for a thorium reactor?
How much energy do you get from fuel in such a reactor?
How much waste is produced and specifically which kind?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Which kinds of radioactive "waste" can be burned up in a fast reactor?
How long can we power the United States if we used this "waste" in such reactors instead of sticking it in a mountain?
What's the relationship of half life vs. radioactivity of any nuclide?
Given this knowledge what's the half life of Thorium, and is it dangerous?
How hot does a molten salt reactor get and why is that a good thing?
How much water do you use to cool such a reactor?
Explain what passively safe means with respect to nuclear power.

Let's establish some of this expertise you claim to have...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Where to start? I am not going to play this simpleton game. All these factors are known and have been known, and are why we chose other technologies, except for LWR's, which were chosen because they produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we just may be using other cycles.

But the point is moot. We learned our lessons already, and should not let these folk keep playing with stuff they cannot control, no matter how much better it is supposed to be. The potential costs are just way too large.

All leave radioactive waste, and everything that touches it gets nasty. You cannot hide it, it needs constant watching and cooling. How ya going to do that for 240,000 years for Plutonium?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Where to start? I am not going to play this simpleton game.


You play it by breathing and talking bud.

All these factors are known and have been known, and are why we chose other technologies, except for LWR's, which were chosen because they produce Plutonium for nuclear weapons. Otherwise, we just may be using other cycles.


If you know them STATE them. I'm calling your bluff. Otherwise don't lie anymore.

But the point is moot. We learned our lessons already, and should not let these folk keep playing with stuff they cannot control, no matter how much better it is supposed to be. The potential costs are just way too large.


They are extraordinarily small as I've demonstrated.

Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
All leave radioactive waste, and everything that touches it gets nasty. You cannot hide it, it needs constant watching and cooling. How ya going to do that for 240,000 years for Plutonium?


If you ACTUALLY knew anything you'd know plutonium can be burned in IFRs...it's not waste...period.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
I have expertise in several fields, but not know what an "expert" is
I know you dont because youre not one.
Having had to do thermodynamic analyses of all the facilities for thermo and prime mover classes in upper division and graduate school, , and having actually been a utility engineer
BFD. By your own admission youre not an engineer, and youre certainly not a nuclear or an environmental engineer. Companies like these have tech categories in which they will use the term, but it has nothing to do with your degree or your professional licence or lack thereof.... and many of the people here are aware of this, having worked in such facilities with job shoppers and such.

So why do you continue to claim youre an engineer when youre not? Do you think this farce adds to your credibility or detracts from it? You think this makes your inflammatory antinuke rhetoric more believable, or less?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Gosh, otto, who are you to decide anything?

I care not what you may "think", I am telling you my experience, which you do not have.

Sorry. Maybe you can learn.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Ask the nukers here how Fukushima Dai-ini got Cobalt 60 in their steel.

I want these folk to tell me how Cobalt 60 is created, and how it was created miles away.

Any takers?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Gosh, otto, who are you to decide anything?

I care not what you may "think", I am telling you my experience, which you do not have.

Sorry. Maybe you can learn.
I worked at a major DOE nuclear research facility for a number of years. Direct. Your assumptions about the people here only reveals how naive you really are. You think you can spout lies about your professional status and 'plutonium raining down on idaho' and get away with it.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
How did Fukushima Dai-ini get Cobalt 60? You should have knowledge of the significance of that. It is from a high Neutron flux. Unit three had MOX, fuel spiked with Plutonium. Studies of the activation products indicated a nuclear release from compression due to the hydrogen from the Zirconium-water reaction.

I was a Research Engineer, testing BWR SRVs when TMI II melted down, and saw the lies from Met Ed and the NRC. We knew early in the morning that they vented Primary Coolant, the no-no, and trailed a scintillator from a long wire and helicopter to realize the core had melted.

Many of us know abut Brown's Ferry, Fermi I, SL-1, and the Keystone Kops running many nuclear facilities.
gkam
1 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
The worship of the Nuclear Priesthood is over. With all the failures, we realized you guys were playing around with stuff you did not fully understand, and could contaminate the entire hemisphere.

Why do we let them use this nasty stuff, if they cannot even store the waste?

Meet you at Panel 7, WIPP.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Why do we let them use this nasty stuff, if they cannot even store the waste?


What's waste? You don't even have a clue anymore. Your information is so outdated and behind the times it's beyond laughable.

The only thing more sad is your inability to understand the basic math that you're not going to EVER run a grid off of solar and wind power.

You spout and spout and spout complete BS about things you haven't a CLUE and pretend to be some kind of expert when a five year old can understand the math you're having issues with.

Everyone here sees it and knows it. It's time for you to watch wheel of fortune or something...maybe the weather channel...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
Show me your long term storage for nuclear power waste, not even the nasty stuff from weapons.

I want to see it. Personal attacks are insufficient.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 12, 2014
"you're not going to EVER run a grid off of solar and wind power"
-------------------------------------------

Smaller grids already do. And why do you continue to use the strawman of only using wind and PV? Haw many times have I told you of other technologies, ones we developed into commercial products for you? Get out of magazines and back into the real world.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Show me your long term storage for nuclear power waste, not even the nasty stuff from weapons.


What waste? You're still not getting it. We BURN it in fast reactors....


Smaller grids already do.


They absolutely do not, not without a base load power to take up the slack. Unless of course they use batteries. Now what I want you to show ME is how you're going to have batteries that can deal with a TRILLION watts of power as needed. Can you do that? Because if you can't you don't have a solution...
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
No, you do not get it. It does not burn up. It concentrates in volume, and it is intensely radioactive, and still exothermic for thousands of years. Where are you going to put it?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
No, you do not get it. It does not burn up. It concentrates in volume, and it is intensely radioactive, and still exothermic for thousands of years. Where are you going to put it?


No, YOU don't get it, it transmutes via fission into low level waste that needs sequestering for 100 years at about a 1/10000 ratio of volume we currently have. if you'd read something current you'd know this.

You STILL don't have a plan, we do. This is obvious to everyone.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
Mystic is taking the word of a group which promised it was going to be too cheap to meter. Then, it was absolutely safe, and nothing could go wrong. Then,we see they have still not solved the problem of where to put this nasty stuff, not in the 60 years they have promised us they would do it.

Sorry, but while working on the GE BWR SRV pool swell and oscillation problem, I went through the WASH archives, and found how they got such a good rating. After an experimental breeder reactor (SL-1), went critical so fast it blew itself apart, killing three workers, it was termed a "steam explosion" to keep their record clean. Parts of the workers had to be buried as high-level waste from that "steam explosion".

Ask Otto about Fermi I.

Stop looking for the Magic Box to solve our problems. They only create more.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
"You STILL don't have a plan, we do. This is obvious to everyone."
----------------------------------------

We saw your plan at Fermi I, at TMI II,at Brown's Ferry, at Chernobyl, at Fukushima.

We do not trust you folk with that technology because of your track record. It was "impossible" to have a meltdown, remember? Before we had many of them?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Quote a source to back up your claims. I have multiple times. You can't because they don't exist....well at least nothing older than thirty years....


We saw your plan at Fermi I, at TMI II,at Brown's Ferry, at Chernobyl, at Fukushima.


This is EXACTLY like saying;

We SAW your plan for a clean car, the model T, the corvette, the Porsche...

When I'm talking about a Tesla. Keep knocking down those straw men and living thirty years in the past.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
You are the one behind,still following the propaganda. We learned our lessons about nukes.

Electric cars? While a Senior Engineer for PG&E, I was on the EPRI electric vehicle committees which dumped money into loser electrics to get where we are today.

You're welcome.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 12, 2014
You are the one behind,still following the propaganda. We learned our lessons about nukes.


I'm sure someone will listen to your opinion when you demonstrate some knowledge on the subject. You have yet to do so. I know you haven't read a single engineering paper on the subject in thirty years. Do that, then give an informed instead of an IGNORANT opinion.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
Mystie, we can't wait for the folk to design the new plants, prove them, then build a fleet of them. We need power,. . now. We need technologies we can employ today. If later your dream comes true, you can take down the wind turbines and put up nukes.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 12, 2014
Mystie, we can't wait for the folk to design the new plants, prove them, then build a fleet of them. We need power,. . now. We need technologies we can employ today. If later your dream comes true, you can take down the wind turbines and put up nukes.

The designs are there, the reason we can't build them is because of hysterics like YOU. The French did it in ONE DECADE. Just ten years. OTOH you plan doesn't even have a solution in sight. Ours has been demonstrated, even with 50 year old technology...
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 12, 2014
Yeah, I kept us from building advanced nukes. Look up SL-1 and Fermi I, both breeders. Then, Monju, another one. Your ideas are OLD ideas. It is all old in nukes. They are SO last-century.

The Frogs are re-thinking their plans and reducing the amount of dependence on nukes. Sorry.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 12, 2014
I was a Research Engineer
And youre a liar. Weve already established that. Youre a validation tech and an antinuke hobbyist.
I went through the WASH archives, and found how they got such a good rating.
Liar.
Yeah, I kept us from building advanced nukes.
Delusional liar.
Ask Otto about Fermi I.
I'll ask you how you think you can lie like this and think that people wont find you out. You psychotic maybe?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 12, 2014
Tell them about Fermi I, otto.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 12, 2014
Look up "We Almost Lost Detroit", otto.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 12, 2014
As I said in another thread: A million cows now reside in the Central Valley, and the pollution is washing Nitrates into the water, and "volatile solids" in our "breathing zone", official terms. The "volatile solids" are pieces of you-know-what, which others get to breathe for agribusiness profits.

If we insisted on Nutrient Management programs, we could clean it up and provide electrical power for over 140,000 households.

We will not need nukes of any kind.

Meanwhile, I want one of you to prove to me reprocessing makes nuclear waste almost disappear. Show me. Prove it.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
Meanwhile, I want one of you to prove to me reprocessing makes nuclear waste almost disappear. Show me. Prove it.


I've given you multiple links to proven technologies. If you'd have read them you'd already know, but you aren't interested because you can see only one solution. The problem is that that solution is only 20-30% of the way there...and that's a hard stop. You simply can't get the wind to blow or the sun to shine more than 30% of the time. Them's the brakes and they will NEVER change.
Lord_jag
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2014
"Some folk lose gracefully, some keep fighting and scratching long after they have lost.

Must be them sour grapes."

Yes Gkam I will keep fighting when politicians give my tax money to their political friends.
They will then complain that there is not enough money in the budget to provide school lunches or properly fight Ebola due to "Cuts".


You mean like the news story out today that says 2 TRILLION dollars US goes to subsidize the production of GHG?
Lord_jag
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 13, 2014
Meanwhile, I want one of you to prove to me reprocessing makes nuclear waste almost disappear. Show me. Prove it.


I've given you multiple links to proven technologies. If you'd have read them you'd already know, but you aren't interested because you can see only one solution. The problem is that that solution is only 20-30% of the way there...and that's a hard stop. You simply can't get the wind to blow or the sun to shine more than 30% of the time. Them's the brakes and they will NEVER change.


Wait.. if your technology is proven, then where is your power plant making tonnes of cheap clean energy with no risk or waste?

That would be proof. All you have are theories.

I don't care how many people are anti-nuke. The world is a big place. Some government somewhere would jump at the chance to have a free source of energy.

I call shenanigan!
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
The Deniers keep on with the same thing, either technologies which do not work, or flimsy excuses that the sun does not shine at night, as if we were unaware.

Lacking the imagination to assess their own surroundings with an eye on power production, they read popular magazines and get strange ideas of what is possible by listening to the wrong folk, like they did with "WMD!".

Did Otto ever look up Fermi I? It is in the book "We Almost Lost Detroit.

Conservatives do not oppose saving the Earth because of knowledge, they do it from political prejudice, and it could kill us.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014


I call shenanigan!


Read away...

http://en.wikiped...ar_waste

They built a prototype and proved it worked perfectly. The full reactor got canceled by Al Gore, the wiki article says congress, but in actuality it was Mr. Gore, not because the man actually understood anything, but because he's a typical anti-nuke hysteric...

So there's your PROVEN technology that will eat "waste" and it's walkaway safe as stated in the article.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 13, 2014
This is how much of it happens. I was hired to assess the possibilities of making ethanol on a 6,000 head diary. Making ethanol is energy-intensive, and if not done creatively takes more energy to make, and even more to distill, than we get from the product. On my trip to Eastern Idaho, I saw the extent of their real troubles. Their manure was contaminating the Snake River. The incident gave me the idea to fully power it all, leading to an integrated system with off-the-shelf components which created all its own power to produce ethanol, cattle feed supplements, the nutrients for next year's crops, cow bedding , all the hot water and electricity they needed on the Dairy, and electricity to sell. Every seven cows can power an entire household.

What would Mystic, Mr 166, Rygg and Joeblow do?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2014
This is how much of it happens. I was hired to assess the possibilities of making ethanol on a 6,000 head diary. Making ethanol is energy-intensive, and if not done creatively takes more energy to make, and even more to distill, than we get from the product. On my trip to Eastern Idaho, I saw the extent of their real troubles. Their manure was contaminating the Snake River. The incident gave me the idea to fully power it all, leading to an integrated system with off-the-shelf components which created all its own power to produce ethanol, cattle feed supplements, the nutrients for next year's crops, cow bedding , all the hot water and electricity they needed on the Dairy, and electricity to sell. Every seven cows can power an entire household.

What would Mystic, Mr 166, Rygg and Joeblow do?


I wouldn't bother with ethanol at all....it produces green house gasses. It baffles me that anyone continues to talk about energy that isn't carbon neutral. Want a cookie?
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 13, 2014
We do not have the time for any more miracle cures from black boxes which need a Nuclear Priesthood and a Police State to maintain.

Wake the heck up and realize we will do things more simply, efficiently,and SAFELY than we do now. It is called progress.
gkam
1 / 5 (24) Nov 13, 2014
As usual, I try to tell folk the secret of life and power is the integration of systems. Just like you, my system is a integration of systems which feed off the outputs and waste of other systems, just like Nature does. That's why these systems work. You want some simple box. It does not work that way. It has to be integrated into all we do, the entire environment, and Nuclear waste does not fit in it.You have yet to find a way to contain the waste. So stop whining.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
We do not have the time for any more miracle cures from black boxes which need a Nuclear Priesthood and a Police State to maintain.

Wake the heck up and realize we will do things more simply, efficiently,and SAFELY than we do now. It is called progress.


Well we need all of that AND a power source that's on more than 20% of the time. You haven't demonstrated such technology. I have.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
My power system for the dairy and the electricity it generates works continuously. No nuclear priesthood needed. No billions of dollars. No risk of radiation. No risk of death.

Where is your system?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
My power system for the dairy and the electricity it generates works continuously. No nuclear priesthood needed. No billions of dollars. No risk of radiation. No risk of death.

Where is your system?


Your power system will heat up the Earth, and eventually kill us all.

My system is posted. Can you read?
gkam
1 / 5 (26) Nov 13, 2014
Nope. The methane made by my system goes to combustion, not to be released to the atmosphere where it is a terrible GHG. If not contained it would just drift away in normal continuing decomposition. The CO2 it generates is more than an order of magnitude improvement over the Methane as a GHG.

You do not have a system, you have the inappropriate dreams of somebody else.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
Sorry, but have already learned our terrible lessons about nukes. If you had experience with them, you would have more credibility. As it is, you only have the words of those with great investment in those loser technologies.

After 60 years of development, you still cannot guarantee the safety of these nasty technologies. PV and Wind turbines are safe, do not melt down, and we can use the materials over and over because they have not become radioactive forever, in Human terms.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2014
Sorry, but have already learned our terrible lessons about nukes. If you had experience with them, you would have more credibility. As it is, you only have the words of those with great investment in those loser technologies.

After 60 years of development, you still cannot guarantee the safety of these nasty technologies. PV and Wind turbines are safe, do not melt down, and we can use the materials over and over because they have not become radioactive forever, in Human terms.


No, actually I have a proven system, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. It's a FACT that this system was shown to be safe and it burns up stockpiles of "waste". Those are facts, not my opinions.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
Show me it working. Again, do not believe what they tell you. I worked in that industry during TMI II, and have a different opinion, based on knowledge and experience.

If it works, I guess you see a conspiracy to keep us from getting it, right?

Why do you folk not find a way with the technologies we have already used, proved, and are efficient and do not leave messes for our children and grandchildren? We are leaving tens of thousands of tons of the nastiest stuff on Earth for our survivors to deal with, because some corporations wanted to make money.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2014
Show me it working.


It was demonstrated in front of an independent panel and a group of journalists. This is uncontroversial and it works. I've shown you vetted sources that it works. If you don't think it does then SHOW your source that it doesn't. Your OPINION doesn't trump a vetted source no more than a looney that says we didn't land on the moon.

Give your source or everyone will know that I'm stating facts, and you're a raving hysteric with nothing but an opinion...
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
Sorry, Misty, but no more nukes until you clean up Fukushima. It is still out of control. They do not know where the molten masses of the core and fuel and remains of the reactor vessel even are. Or what state they reside. We had several indications of self-criticalities after the meltdowns, so we know it was still moving around.

The molten masses have burned to within 10 inches of the ground, after going through meters of steel and concrete. If it hits the water table, it could be all over for much of the Northern Hemisphere. Those of you not in the field, or not getting what technical information you can have no idea. The Japanese government has made it a federal crime to fly over them or to take pictures, or to question Fukushima negatively. They have made it a state secret.

What are they hiding? Would they have to do that for a field of PV? Or a field of wind turbines?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
Sorry, Misty, but no more nukes until you clean up Fukushima. It is still out of control. They do not know where the molten masses of the core and fuel and remains of the reactor vessel even are.


Fukushima is presently safe. I've shown the map that proves that. You're stating a hysterical opinion. You should be on Fox News...

The IFR isn't Fukushima, it's a proven tech. and it works. Show a source to the contrary, or continue to wave histrionic opinions. Most everyone here is educated enough to know the difference.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
"Give your source or everyone will know that I'm stating facts"

You want a copy of my thesis? It includes a D-size block diagram with all process parameters, mass flow, nutrient flow, and energy flow at every step. I only have one left. It became required reading, I found out later, in the program. The library got all my spares.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
You want a copy of my thesis? It includes a D-size block diagram with all process parameters, mass flow, nutrient flow, and energy flow at every step. I only have one left. It became required reading, I found out later, in the program. The library got all my spares.


Is it a thesis on the IFR? If not then why the hell would I want it?

You're stating the IFR isn't safe and doesn't work, IF you have a source to the contrary STATE it otherwise you can continue to give your OPINION that it doesn't contrary to the sourced FACT that it does...

If it's a thesis on an energy source that produces GHGs, NO ONE has any use for it because it will eventually kill us all...

I have spare copies of my Power Quality Manual, which I produced to sell to the librarian for Sandia National Laboratories. Want to learn about non-linerar currents and powerline harmonics, and protecting information?


And what does it have to do with anything?
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
I have spare copies of my Power Quality Manual, which I produced to sell to the librarian for Sandia National Laboratories. Want to learn about non-linerar currents and powerline harmonics, and protecting information?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 13, 2014
Okay, I give up. Go build your system.

I can find funding for mine. In fact, I see the employment of those very technologies all over now. My thesis was started in 1980,and finished in 1981, so it requires no special treatment or equipment. How long has your system operated successfully? Where do you put the waste?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
I have spare copies of my Power Quality Manual, which I produced to sell to the librarian for Sandia National Laboratories. Want to learn about non-linerar currents and powerline harmonics, and protecting information?


No...I mean really, why the hell are you bringing this into the conversation? I feel like I'm talking to someone who's senile and can't follow a point...
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 13, 2014
Where do you put the waste?


Again, if you actually read the article instead of being continually willfully ignorant you'd know it eats "waste".
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
I was offering you a chance to learn something. My experience with power is broad: How's yours? You are so infatuated with somebody's idea, you deny the potential of the others.

We do not trust you with nuclear technology. How's that? Ever worked with it?

So, go build it. Learn your lesson.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2014
I was offering you a chance to learn something. My experience with power is broad: How's yours? You are so infatuated with somebody's idea, you deny the potential of the others.

We do not trust you with nuclear technology. How's that? Ever worked with it?

So, go build it. Learn your lesson.


You were babbling about non-sequiturs while giving false and willfully ignorant opinions on technology you know nothing about that works....THAT'S what you were doing, just to be clear.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
We will see which system is the most practical and employed, won't we?
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
Misty, I do not want to argue. My shortness comes from the years I did initial analyses of inventions for Pacific Gas & Electric,which at the time was the biggest non-governmental power company on Earth.

In Technical services we got everything from the "Electrokinetic Device" of Townsend Brown to all kinds of perpetual motion devices, to magnetic miracle nonsense, to MHD solid state couplings.

There is MUCH more to a technology than just proving it can work.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Nov 13, 2014

There is MUCH more to a technology that proving it can work.


Well at least the IFR will work for a grid...solar and wind can't do it all.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 13, 2014
"solar and wind can't do it all."
--------------------------------------------

That is one of my points. We need an integration of all available and appropriate technologies which make sense in the long term. We will use gas to wean us off coal, then renewables to let us use that methane for feedstocks.

There is a place for your precious system, too, for concentrating the massive amounts of deadly nuclear waste now piled up everywhere. If it really works. It needs a few years of actual operation, not a demonstration.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
I'm still skeptical on any methane use, you're going to have to show me how it's carbon neutral, but yes we'll need a reliable 70-80% base load if we're going to use solar and wind. Right now nuclear is the only option that's virtually carbon neutral that can realistically supply the 876 GW of installed capacity we currently need.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 13, 2014
Not until you can show us you can hold the waste. Baseload does not mean huge concentrated plants, it is just what we are use to doing. Little by little, the grids are being supported from inside, not from external powerplants, or large facilities, but by the customers themselves.

That is the future of power systems.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 13, 2014
Not until you can show us you can hold the waste.


It will not be held, it will be burned. If you take a bite out of a sandwich do you throw the rest of it away? That's what we currently do with nuclear fuel...we've redefined what "waste" is. It's actually pretty exciting stuff. It's too bad you haven't taken the opportunity to read the links I've provided on the subject.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 13, 2014
When I eat a sandwich, i eventually pass parts of it as waste.

We will need a system to help reduce Plutonium, for sure. But it will NOT eliminate it.

BTW the flux density is very high in breeders, and care must be taken with the blanket.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
When I eat a sandwich, i eventually pass parts of it as waste.

We will need a system to help reduce Plutonium, for sure. But it will NOT eliminate it.

BTW the flux density is very high in breeders, and care must be taken with the blanket.


Actually, and AGAIN, if you'd read what I wrote you'd know that in fact ALL the plutonium does get used, in fact EVERY actinide is reduced. So if it's on this list it gets burned up...

http://en.wikiped...Actinide

All you have to do is look at the fuel cycle on the wiki page, it's EXTREMELY easy to follow.
MR166
5 / 5 (2) Nov 14, 2014
Modern there is really no acceptable power to the AGW movement other than renewables. Other than the possibly never going to happen fusion, nuclear energy, no matter how safe it is made, is seen as a threat to the adoption of renewable power. What is old is new again, sun worship lives .
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
MR166, once again, they need you at Fukushima and at WIPP. I suggest you go look up what is going on in each place.

Then, you can move your family to Hanford, where they have a run of babies with partial brains.

Mystic, if it is so good, why are you lobbying ME? I did not just talk about alternative energy I did something about it. Do your part for your beliefs. But it ain't here.

Good luck. I cannot tell you how many arguments I have had about this in 55 of my 70 years. Now, we are doling it.

Nukes is good!
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
I meant to take the "nukes is good" part out of the post.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
Mystic, if it is so good, why are you lobbying ME? I did not just talk about alternative energy I did something about it. Do your part for your beliefs. But it ain't here.


I'm not "lobbying you". You are putting out incorrect information about technology you are ignorant of. I'm simply correcting your opinions with facts. That's not meant as a dig or an insult, but I think it's important to get factual information out there about new nuclear...well it's not "new", we've had the technology for YEARS. It's just been on the shelf because of ignorant politicians and public opinion...so now we've got tons of nuclear waste piling up that could be making electricity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
When I eat a sandwich, i eventually pass parts of it as waste
So how come youre still full of shit?

People here should know that if you are willing to lie about your credentials then you are willing to make up facts and ignore them when they are presented to you. Which is obviously what you do. Plutonium is not raining down on idaho now is it?

Whats the point in trying to discuss anything with you? You talk shit.
You want a copy of my thesis? It includes a D-size block diagram with all process parameters, mass flow, nutrient flow, and energy flow at every step. I only have one left. It became required reading, I found out later, in the program. The library got all my spares
Did you tell them youre not an engineer and have no business designing anything? Or did they figure that out for themselves and quietly shitcan your 'thesis' right after you left?
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
And I responded by telling you (mystic), I have seen these promises before, the breeders, the use of three-million-degree Neutrons to boil water.

We am aware of the different types, and all have been unacceptable, and none have been what was promised. Now you have another one, but we do not have the time and money for another multi-billion dollar experiments with the technology which can kill us.

If you think France has done it successfully and cleanly, you are unaware it is all a State Secret in France. I'll bet you don't even know the few instances made public, like the smuggling of radioactive components out to put under the front seat of a rival's car.

In Japan, taking pictures, flying over it, or saying negative things about Fukushima is a state crime. I am sure you have all the pertinent information.
gkam
1 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
It is time we got rid of Otto and his filthy mouth.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Hey liar

Here are some of the advanced skills, duties, and qualifications of a utility engineer.

"Under supervision, the Utility Engineer performs semi-skilled work in maintaining and repairing building related fixtures. This class differs from Stationary Engineer in skill level, with the latter performing more difficult duties requiring journey level skills. Incumbents of this class perform semi-skilled work involving minor repair and maintenance of building systems, including plumbing, electrical fixtures, carpentry, door and window hardware, painting plus pool operation and cleaning responsibilities.

"Assembles and repairs furniture.
Performs minor carpentry.
Removes and installs window glass.
Prepares and paints surfaces.
Performs minor door hardware repairs.
"MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
1. One (1) year of experience in semi-skilled building maintenance or related work"

-Hey pool boy. WHAT makes you think you can lie on a site full of engineers and get away with it?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Otto, who has never been inside a utility, tells me what I did as a Senior Engineer in Technical Services?

Time for you to go, Otto. You are way too offensive.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
After I left PG&E and went on my own. I taught over 33,000 electricians, engineers, technicians the facts of power, over the continental United States for the utility industry, and EPRI. If you were sufficiently educated, you could have attended one of my seminars.

You can look me up. What have YOU done?

I come out and expose myself to your silly remarks and ignorance to let you know some of us have worked with this and know better than you do, despite your political prejudice.

Please tell us.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Otto, who has never been inside a utility, tells me what I did as a Senior Engineer in Technical Services?
?? I thought you said you were a utility engineer? No wait - a 'research' engineer? I wonder how you got promoted to Senior Engineer in Technical Services, especially without a licence to practice or even a degree in engineering?

Unless you lied to them as you are lying right here right now.
After I left PG&E and went on my own. I taught over 33,000 electricians, engineers, technicians the facts of power, over the continental United States for the utility industry, and EPRI. If you were sufficiently educated, you could have attended one of my seminars.
I have been to many lunch and learns although they werent called 'seminars'. And they werent usually taught by engineers. Well maybe utility engineers.
You can look me up
Sure. Provide your licence # and the state you are or were licenced in.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
I have been all those, Otto. And I also helped send pilots with astronaut wings into space in rocket planes when I was at Edwards AFB. Want to see the base paper with me as Air Force Flight Test Center Airman of the Month?

Otto, many folk like you stay in one field, and do not ever get to see things from multiple perspectives. I also was an Electronic Engineer for National Semiconductor in 1972-74, employee number 7476. And I was Plant Engineer for Iron foundries, injection molding companies, and founded a small PEM-based fuel cell company.

Once again, . . what did you do?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
"I have been to many lunch and learns although they werent called 'seminars'. And they werent usually taught by engineers. Well maybe utility engineers."
--------------------------------------

The ones I did for EPRI often lasted all day for three days. Can you do that?

These were not lightweight lunches, they were serious classes with CEU's. Now, you can apologize for your offensive remarks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Once again, . . what did you do?
Ill tell you what I DONT do. I dont go around pretending to be what Im not and knowing things I dont know. For instance I wouldnt claim to be a utility engineer without knowing that it was a term for handyman, and then when exposed, I wouldnt claim to have been a Senior Engineer in Technical Services. I mean, who would believe that?
Electronic Engineer for National Semiconductor in 1972-74, employee number 7476. And I was Plant Engineer for Iron foundries, injection molding companies, and founded a small PEM-based fuel cell company
-All without a degree or a licence? And why would a person who did all those things claim initially that he was a handyman, in order to impress us with his credentials?

YOURE FULL OF SHIT.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014

We am aware of the different types, and all have been unacceptable, and none have been what was promised. Now you have another one, but we do not have the time and money for another multi-billion dollar experiments with the technology which can kill us.


Yes, but fortunately your emotionalism, politics, and willful ignorance can't trump facts and reality. Eventually everyone will realize there really is no other option...unless fusion ever pans out.

The facts are;

We've solved the waste problem
We've solved the safety problem
The new modular reactors are very cheap to mass produce and even easier to do maintence on.
All the weapons grade material is burned in the fuel cycle.

There really are no valid objections left except for "Jane Fondaish" hysterics...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Want to see Desert Wings, the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center? It included not just Edwards AFB, but Rocket Site, NASA, Test Pilot School, the special projects such as Smokey Joe (U-2), the YF12, the SR-71 the XB-70, XV-5, XC-142 prototype F-111, YAT-37D, and Groom Lake, what you folk call Area 51. Yes, it is an auxiliary airfield for Edwards AFB.

Look me up. I got a great review comment from Major General Hugh Manson.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
Want to see Desert Wings, the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center? It included not just Edwards AFB, but Rocket Site, NASA, Test Pilot School, the special projects such as Smokey Joe (U-2), the YF12, the SR-71 the XB-70, XV-5, XC-142 prototype F-111, YAT-37D, and Groom Lake, what you folk call Area 51. Yes, it is an auxiliary airfield for Edwards AFB.

Look me up. I got a great review comment from Major General Hugh Manson.


For someone as educated as you are you seem to wish to be ignorant of subjects you have political animus against. It's a very anti-intellectual stance to take, which is why it strains credulity to think you have much of an education at all....
gkam
1 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
"We've solved the waste problem
We've solved the safety problem
-------------------------------------------

You only think you have. We still have the waste. Go do it, then, like I did in my jobs.

Quit telling me and just go do it.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Mysty, I offered you some proof, and you only whine. My name and photograph are on that front page.

Who are you? What have you done? No guts?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
These were not lightweight lunches, they were serious classes with CEU's. Now, you can apologize for your offensive remarks
Not at all dude. All you need to teach seminars is the inability to find real work. You certainly dont need an engineering licence.
Electronic Engineer for National Semiconductor in 1972-74, employee number 7476
-until they found out you lied on your resume, about being an engineer? Im guessing.
Plant Engineer for Iron foundries, injection molding companies
"Requirements for Plant Engineers
Most employers require job applicants to hold a bachelor's degree in engineering. Depending on the industry of the employer, a degree in chemical, civil, electrical, or nuclear engineering may be more relevant to the desired job"

-which leaves you out. Perhaps you were a maintenance guy? Theyre also called engineers.
and founded a small PEM-based fuel cell company
So - you on the map here?
http://atlinc.com...map.html
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
"We've solved the waste problem
We've solved the safety problem
-------------------------------------------

You only think you have. We still have the waste. Go do it, then, like I did in my jobs.

Quit telling me and just go do it.


I don't have to do it, it's already been done. This is history, all you have to do is quit being willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest and look it up. Quit telling me we haven't solved the problem, just look it up.

Who are you? What have you done? No guts?


Are you going to insult my mother next? Are we on an elementary school play ground? Christ how old are you??
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Unable to debate the topic, Otto tries to personalize this with comments based on ignorance. He has not been in this field, and is just a bystander,so he attacks me, the bearer of news he does not like.

If you do not understand how folk can do all those things, it is because of your own limitations. I think otto feels like he did nothing and is jealous of others, who got to do special stuff. I will not call him a liar, because my character forbids it, but he sure likes to smear those with differing opinions, especially those based on knowledge and experience.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (28) Nov 14, 2014
"Are you going to insult my mother next?"

Oh,stop it. It goes to the ability to understand the points. It is not to smear you. I want to tell you no matter what your education is, if you have not done it, you are just making noise.

And most of you have no education in the development of an integrated grid and the complexities of power.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Wow, I thought we would be more mature on this thread, but those with no experience in this field simply are bleating things they do not understand fully, . . . only enough to make them dangerous.

What is your background otto, and Mystic? Hmmmm? Tell me your credentials to challenge my points.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Want to see the base paper with me as Air Force Flight Test Center Airman of the Month?

(8) "airman" means an individual—
(A) in command, or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, who navigates aircraft when under way;
(B) except to the extent the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may provide otherwise for individuals ... who is directly in charge of inspecting, maintaining, overhauling, or repairing aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances"

-So I assume by what you said that you were "inspecting, maintaining, overhauling, or repairing aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, or appliances", correct?

What does this have to do with being an engineer or knowing anything about nukes except possibly inspecting, maintaining, overhauling, or repairing them?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Otto, if you have to look up terms, you advertise your ignorance. Look me up.

We are waiting to see your credentials to challenge me.

Did you see my picture in the base paper? It is on the same page with Pete Knight.
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
"Are you going to insult my mother next?"

Oh,stop it. It goes to the ability to understand the points. It is not to smear you. I want to tell you no matter what your education is, if you have not done it, you are just making noise.

And most of you have no education in the development of an integrated grid and the complexities of power.


I understand your points, but you can't even grasp arithmetic and percents. You won't read the documentation which is in plain language and very easy to comprehend. What you're saying when you say we haven't solved the waste, proliferation, and safety issues is that the equivalent of "The Earth is flat". It is completely counter factual and flies in the face of the established facts regarding the subject. It's just that simple.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
Otto tries to personalize this with comments based on ignorance
No, you personalized it with all that nonsense about your fake credentials as evidence that you knew how nukes worked from a professional standpoint. YOU DONT. Your lack of cred was therefore open to attack.
He has not been in this field
-and I told you I have. But I would not presume to be a design engineer, which is what you are doing.
and is just a bystander,so he attacks me, the bearer of news he does not like
Youre the bystander here, pretending to be a professional. Youve been found out. Youre a liar. Whatever you present has no credibility as we have to assume its all fabricated.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Then, DO IT, and stop whining that we are holding you back! We have proved the use of alternatives. If you are smarter, then YOU DO IT.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
Then, DO IT, and stop whining that we are holding you back! We have proved the use of alternatives. If you are smarter, then YOU DO IT.


I Don't have to, it's been done :) That's what you're not getting, this is proven technology, it's a FACT that we've solved the waste problem, it's a FACT that we've solved the proliferation problem, it's a FACT that we've solved the safety problem. This is well documented and uncontroversial unless you are willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or are unable to comprehend plain English (which in fairness to you, you HAVE demonstrated a significant deficiency in reading comprehension on this thread multiple times).
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
I gave the opportunity for Otto to verify my claims, but he is SCARED to do it. Otto projects his ethics onto the rest of us, and assumes we all have his character,, perhaps indicative of him not having a mother to teach him truth and civility.

Look me up. Then, tell us what YOU have done.

SCARED?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
if you have to look up terms, you advertise your ignorance
You ought to look them up before you misuse them and think nobody would notice.
Look me up
I did. You are a maintenance guy who likes to pretend hes an engineer. What else do you think I need to know?
I gave the opportunity for Otto to verify my claims, but he is SCARED to do it.
Post your professional licence # and the state you are or were licenced in. And I promise I will look it up.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014

Mystie, GO DO IT! Stop smearing me, my character, my experience, and my knowledge.

We did it in the alternative energy field, so YOU DO IT! It has not been done in any real sense of operation, but if it is so good DO IT!!

But stop smearing others!
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
perhaps indicative of him not having a mother to teach him truth and civility.


You live in a HUGE glass mansion sir...

Look me up. Then, tell us what YOU have done.

SCARED?


I don't care what you've done, it obviously hasn't helped you intellectually at all. You are demonstrating all the traits of an uneducated person who has no desire to learn anything new or is willing to stretch his beliefs beyond his petty political party line.

Just in case you missed it, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR CREDENTIALS....are we clear now?
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014

Mystie, GO DO IT! Stop smearing me, my character, my experience, and my knowledge.


In order to smear I'd have to be telling a falsehood, I'm not. You DO have a problem with reading, you DO tell falsehoods (remember the tritium?), you DO have a problem understanding percents. This is not smearing, this is stating facts.

We did it in the alternative energy field, so YOU DO IT! It has not been done in any real sense of operation, but if it is so good DO IT!!


It's been done sir, I don't have to re-invent the wheel. All that's needed is for people like you to get educated, and then to step out of the way politically and let progress move forward

gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
I now know what a troll is, one with no knowledge, but strong opinions. They hide behind pseudonyms, and pretend to be what they are not in real life. When somebody with experience and education speaks up with views they do not like they scream "LIAR!".

We can do without the bystanders here who think they know what they are discussing. Look at otto, and his comments. Any intelligence there? Any real debate about the real issues? Nope. His only tool is attack to make us look like the goobers they are.

Let's get back to the topic: Filthy Fuels are losing.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014


Let's get back to the topic: Filthy Fuels are losing.


I agree, and solar and wind never were in the race...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
"(remember the tritium?)"
-------------------------------------

Tritium? I let that one go, but not now. Look at the problem with tritium in the water table under Lawrence Livermore. Look up Fukushima and see the technical discussions of the Tritiated water. If you have tritium as the Hydrogen in the H2O, it is tritium.

Are you sure you understand this?
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
"I agree, and solar and wind never were in the race..."
---------------------------------------

In Britain, the most recent strong storm did not take out the wind turbines, it made them generate over 50% of the total British electrical power during the storm.

Then,there is this:
http://www.reuter...20141015

Response please.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
"(remember the tritium?)"
-------------------------------------

Tritium? I let that one go, but not now. Look at the problem with tritium in the water table under Lawrence Livermore. Look up Fukushima and see the technical discussions of the Tritiated water. If you have tritium as the Hydrogen in the H2O, it is tritium.

Are you sure you understand this?


I do, but the WATER isn't radioactive, the tritium is...you said water can be radioactive and it can't. You know what you said and so do I.

As an aside I'll bet the ESA wishes they'd have put a radioisotope thermoelectric generator in that expensive probe that's in a shadow and solar powered ;)
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
"I agree, and solar and wind never were in the race..."
---------------------------------------

In Britain, the most recent strong storm did not take out the wind turbines, it made them generate over 50% of the total British electrical power during the storm.

Then,there is this:
http://www.reuter...20141015

Response please.


http://www.telegr...nap.html

Now you're demonstrating you don't understand STATISTICS. The wind may blow really well for a week, and then not at all the next. This is why it's NEVER been more than 20-30% reliable...GET IT?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Good luck, guys, keep on following your dreams of a magic box. Those of us who have worked in the field will continue to advance alternatives and renewables, "fuels" we do not have to buy from others or deplete from our own stocks. With no pollution, no Mercury, no particulates, no sulfur, no nitrates, no radionuclides, no stink, they will win out over other sources eventually.

As they are doing right now.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
Good luck, guys, keep on following your dreams of a magic box. Those of us who have worked in the field will continue to advance alternatives and renewables, "fuels" we do not have to buy from others or deplete from our own stocks. With no pollution, no Mercury, no particulates, no sulfur, no nitrates, no radionuclides, no stink, they will win out over other sources eventually.

As they are doing right now.


And all you're going to get is 30% power at best. Let us know how that works out...

Whereas if you go nuclear you have cheap, clean, reliable, safe, and (with breeder reactors) renewable energy for billions of years.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Otto and Mystic do not understand what they hate. They think the non-continuous feeds from wind machines is a killer, not having ANY understanding of how grids work. They are there, and working. How about your magic box?
Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
Otto and Mystic do not understand what they hate. They think the non-continuous feeds from wind machines is a killer, not having ANY understanding of how grids work. They are there, and working. How about your magic box?


We understand math. If your grid on average only produces power 30% of the time, your lights are going to be lit 30% of the time...

We also understand that the grids that are "working" work because they have a huge base load that's not renewable...IOW reliable and easily dispatchable.

Also I don't hate renewables, I think they're a good niche technology. You just can't run a national modern grid on them...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
How do those in not in the field get the idea they know things we do not? We have used wind turbines here since the 1970's. We really do understand the dynamics of power generation, even if you do not, but assume you do.

Otto even had to look up the terms "Airman" and utility engineer, as if those terms were narrowly defined.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Caught in a rut, Mysty simply cannot understand how we do it. You folk scream "30%, . . 30%!!", yet we continue to employ them successfully. Perhaps there is something you do not understand.

Hide and watch, and see which technologies win out.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
Headline: "Wind blows away fossil power in the Nordics, the Baltics next"

"* Rising wind power output pushes Nordic prices down

* Low power prices cut gas, coal power profitability

Remarks? Teamed up with the other alternative technologies, it is being done. Somebody define condensing power for otto.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
Caught in a rut, Mysty simply cannot understand how we do it. You folk scream "30%, . . 30%!!", yet we continue to employ them successfully. Perhaps there is something you do not understand.

Hide and watch, and see which technologies win out.


No one has successfully ran a grid with more than 20% installed capacity of wind and solar...that's another one of those fact things you seem completely unfamiliar with.

This is ONLY for residential and industrial electric power too...transportation which is roughly 30% of any modern economy's consumption isn't even factored in...

http://www.spiege...288.html

These are the prices worldwide...Denmark is at at whopping 40 cents per kWh, and
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
(cont)

Germany is at 36 cents and continuing to rise...

Remarks? Teamed up with the other alternative technologies, it is being done.


No it isn't, not carbon free, and not sustainably with those prices.

http://en.wikiped...mparison
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
They are obviously losing, but otto and the others will not give up on their points, even with the knowledge those of us who actually use there technologies have dealt with them successfully already. they keep on sreaming "wind and solar will not do it!", not understanding we will not depend on one or two or a even a dozen technologies. They are stuck in the Big Power mentality, the Immense baseload plant. We went through all,that, guys, . . it is twentieth -century thinking.

I think you folk have utilities still stuck in the nineteenth century, using coal.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014

Gotta go. I have given you bystanders a look into how utilities can do it, but your fragile egos will not let you face it.

I will be waiting tor Mystic's Magic Box, while we are diversifying our grids intelligently with clean and modern technologies, not the nasty stuff we used in the 18th-20th Century.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014
They are obviously losing,


You've yet to refute a single point with anything other than feet stamping and opinion. Facts are unknown to you. This is here for everyone following this thread to see in black and white. gkam has not demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that you can't generate 100% of your power from something that generates power 30% of the time without using fossil fuels or a huge base load that isn't renewable. These are the facts and they've been uncontested the entire thread.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014

I guess you "forgot" the advances in electrical transportation you liked in another thread.

Ego is a terrible thing.
Modernmystic
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 14, 2014

I guess you "forgot" the advances in electrical transportation you liked in another thread.

Ego is a terrible thing.


Not at all, I'm excited for it. However, all those numbers you quoted don't factor transportation via non-electric vehicles in...so if they're all electric those have to be accounted for. You see there is a difference between liking and being excited about a technical advance and understanding math and statistics and analysis of energy consumption...
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
We prepared our grid for electric transportation starting in the 1980's. Soon, you will all be driving electric cars, thanks to us Californians, and the utilities who funded them over thirty years ago.

Having been on several transportation committees for EPRI, I get good feelings when I see the Tesla, . . built in California by the sons of hippies.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (26) Nov 14, 2014
"there is a difference between liking and being excited about a technical advance and understanding math and statistics and analysis of energy consumption..."
--------------------------------------------

Really? just find that out?

I think our professional economists engineers and financial folk in power companies understand the economics of this, don't you? Take it up with them.

Modernmystic
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 14, 2014
"there is a difference between liking and being excited about a technical advance and understanding math and statistics and analysis of energy consumption..."
--------------------------------------------

Really? just find that out?

I think our professional economists engineers and financial folk in power companies understand the economics of this, don't you? Take it up with them.



I have, they complied the statistics I sourced for you....
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.8 / 5 (25) Nov 14, 2014
Otto even had to look up the terms "Airman" and utility engineer, as if those terms were narrowly defined
Of course I did. I dont pretend to know things I dont know. I dont happen to lie about my credentials.

You claimed you were an airman. We find out that an airman can be a mechanic. You claimed to be an engineer - a utility engineer. I showed you what a utility engineer really is, and its obviously not an engineer.

Whats next - are you a train engineer? MM is arguing with you as if you have any integrity at all. I demonstrate that you have none. MM can waste his time letting you make up all sorts of shit because hes bored I guess.

Post your licence # and the state. Unless youre afraid to do so. Or unless youre a senile old liar, which is obviously the case.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Otto, I proved who I was with the sourcing of the front page from the Edwards AFB USAF Flight Test Center. My name and picture are on it for being the top airman out of thousands on base.

Sorry.

And you have no credentials, do you?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Otto, I proved who I was with the sourcing of the front page from the Edwards AFB USAF Flight Test Center. My name and picture are on it for being the top airman out of thousands on base.

Sorry.

Unable to debate the issue, you bleat: "Or unless youre a senile old liar, which is obviously the case.", assuming we all are condemned to have your character and inability to use the apostrophe.

And you have no credentials, do you?

gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Who are you, . "otto"?

You said something about a guvmunt facility. I'll bet it was Dugway.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
http://phys.org/n...ver.html

I used to teach power to these folks at their national conventions (7X24Exchange). Good bucks.

This an electronic data equivalent to the diversification and distribution of power, and this communications idea reduces the power consumption of homes. Fact is, last year we dropped in power use for households, even without this stuff. Add PV to it, and soon we are getting there, aren't we?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (27) Nov 14, 2014
Before the personal attacks, curses, and diatribes against me by these three wannabes, I had no appreciation of how interesting my life has been.

Thanks.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (25) Nov 15, 2014
You haven't proved you're the engineer you claim to be. You have however proven yourself to be a liar by claiming to be one. In addition you seem to think that running PowerPoint at seminars and fixing planes at some AFB makes you an expert on nukes.

You're full of shit, plain and simple.
No appreciation of how interesting my life has been
Who fucking cares? Your interesting life does not make you either a nuke expert or an engineer. Perhaps your interesting life story is composed of similar lies and pretense?
Eikka
5 / 5 (23) Nov 15, 2014
I don't know. If people are willing to break into electric substations to steal copper cable, It's only a matter of time before they start climbing on to rooves to unscrew your solar panels.


That didn't take long:

http://www.nytekn...4604.ece

137 solar panels stolen from a solar farm being built in Sweden, weighing over 2000 kilos and worth about 30,000€. The thieves tried to come back to fetch more, but their lorry got stuck in the mud and someone started questioning what they're doing there.

The thieves escaped, but later the police arrested two men who returned to retrieve the lorry.
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 15, 2014

Eikka has a point: These are valuable devices, ones to get us off dirty fuels. People want them.

Only terrorists want stuff from nuclear plants. That's why they need a Police State to maintain, essentially forever.

Conservatives love Police States.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) Nov 16, 2014
"Conservatives love Police States. "

So let me get this straight, you are so far left that you consider China and the old Soviet Union to be conservative states. Those 2 nations are or were the poster children for a "Police State".
gkam
1.2 / 5 (25) Nov 16, 2014
I tried to take that dig out, because it lets you dodge the real points, and is unnecessarily harsh.

The point remains: These are valuable devices, ones to get us off dirty fuels. People want them.

Only terrorists want stuff from nuclear plants. That's why they need a Police State to maintain, essentially forever.

How's that?
MR166
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2014
Gkam It is fair to include most if not all of the government agencies as part and parcel of the "Police State". You can put the EPA at the top of the list.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.