Science Forums 2

[damocles]

Reply to Boerseun

Re: A New Manhattan Project for Clean Energy

Originally Posted by damocles


For the calendar year 1993 the total capacity was 563.8, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 3.4 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 90.7

For the calendar year 2002 the total capacity was 635.9, of which renewable( Geothermal/Solar/Wind/Biomass) was 23.6 and Hydroelectric(I consider this a renewable) was 93.3.

1. EU has come close to maxing out its riverine hydro-electric capacity.
2. Aside from France, as far as Nuclear goes? Pffffft.
3. Most growth comes from conventional thermal(fossil fuel) plants.
4. GSWB was the most aggressively pursued option, but its contribution remains INSIGNIFICANT.

A 700% increase, over nine years, INSIGNIFICANT?!? How, exactly?

GSWB output increased 700 percent. Valid stat.; but a deliberate misread of total EU generating capacity impact for the period. A 2.2% increase when GSWB was the primaryinvested effort at increasing generating capacity remains INSIGNIFICANT and is a wastage of time and scarce resources better spent elsewhere by the EU. D.

Originally Posted by damocles


It is usually GSWB that the greens cite as the future basis of electrical production.

What the greens forget; is that aside from riverine hydropower and passive conductive geothermal renewables, most present renewable energy technologies have these factors that if the technologies were scaled to the huge scales that the bycycle crowd envision would actually produce this;

1. GSWB entails toxic chemistry in its manufacture and maintenance.
2. GSWB introduces heavy metal poisons to the aquifer because of 1.
3. GSWB has a huge terrain footprint that takes farmland out of production.
4. GSWB due to its polllution scales destroys the ecologies upon which it imprints.
5. GSWB is a low density kilowatt per square meter land used generating scheme that is grossly inefficient.

As to:

B. said;

1. As opposed to thermal or nuclear power stations that generates no pollutants in its manufacture? Duh? The difference here, being, that GSWB doesn't produce pollutants when in operation - unlike your alternatives, thermal and nuclear. So point one is blown out of the water

--------------------------------


Why? Manufacture and maintenance for these systems is ongoing through the life of the system, or do you think the systems maintain themselves or don't wear out? The mine tailings(discards) for the raw materials components for solar collector arrays that would be equal in area to the area of New Jersey would cover an area 10 x the size of the collectors' surface area for example. That would be roughly equivalent to the surface area of Utah. D.

B. said:

2. Refer to the previous point. That's a pretty silly justification.

Refer to B's rebuttal of 1. and then my rebuttal of the rebuttal. I won't remark on "silly" as in good conscience I expect B. believes he is correct. I KNOW though that he is wrong. D.

B. wrote;

3. Huge footprint - sure. The US thermal energy complex has a footprint that spans halfway around the globe via the atmosphere. Brazilian treefrogs choke on their mosquitos so that the US can have streetlamps burning at ungodly hours. The difference here, is that per kilowatt the GSWB footprint might be considerably larger - but its effect on the ecosystem stops at the fencepost. Go GSWB!!!

An assertion? Prove it. Have you done the thermal pollution calculations or the weather pattern modifications caused by solar thermal collector systems at the magnitude engineering scales at which those systems have to operate to replace 30% fossil fuel generated U.S. capacity? If you think you have deserts now....D.

B. wrote.

4. HUH???

Farmland. Once you put a windmill farm on it.


http://www.turf.uiuc.edu/recent/rece...LL%20FARM3.JPG D.

B. wrote;

5. Compare healthcosts and ecological damage due to thermal/nuclear power generation. Add that cost to your electricity generation bill. Check you efficiency stats once more.

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q...org/page84.htm


Old but still quite VALID. D.

Originally Posted by damocles


And that these problems are a factor of two greater than the ecological footprint per square meter of land used of the hydrocarbon technologies we use at present.

Its a psychotic approach to energy production by the green's own criterion for making a minimal impact on the ecology.

B. wrote;

Hey - let's throw all our eggs in one basket and use carbon-based fuels for our electricity generation! Let's rely on oil till the last drop in another twenty years' time! When the oil is finished, we're stuffed - but who cares; it's another 20 years away! And you call GSWB psychotic?! At best, I think you've made yourself guilty of a horribly unfortunate choice of words.

I stand by "psychotic". I prefer my science dosed with reality. If you had read others of my post you would have learned that I am a champion of hydrogen fuel cells for mobility, fusion for electrolysis of seawater for the hydrogen. hydro-electric and geo-thermal where we can get it, and save the POL products for lubrication, plastics and jet fuel. D.

Originally Posted by damocles


Suggestion. Visit either a windmill plantation or visit a solar collector array. Look at it. Scale the monstrosity up a THOUSAND times. Think of the copper, mercury, arsenic, selenium, silicon, lead, sulphur, etc. that went into building both contraptive abortions.....

Now think of the FOOTPRINT and where the thing was sited. Look at the LAND.

B. wrote;

Suggestion. After the above visitation, go visit any thermal power plant. Not only the plant itself, but the surrounds. Go and take air samples and precipitation acidity levels thousands of miles away downwind. THAT's your coal/oil-fired power station's footprint. Then go to the surrounding towns and test the locals for lung disease, etc. See the drop in agricultural output downwind as opposed to the same soil upwind. Also, keep in mind the crap coming out of those power stations after the input is burnt off.

Like where I worked?

SCE & G. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) - SCE&G is SCANA's principal subsidiary, a regulated utility that provides electric and natural gas service in central and southern South Carolina. SCE&G owns and operates the Virgil C. Summer nuclear power plant, a 885 MW PWR. D.

B. wrote.

Don't EVER call GSWB-type installations 'abortive contraptions' if the above is the alternative!

I have and will continue to do so for the reasons I've scattered in this and related posts. D.

Originally Posted by damocles


When you digest that, investigate fusion, and hydrogen fuel cells(the hydrogen coming from electrolysis of sea water). Fewer poisons involved. Smaller footprint. More concentrated energy production per square meter of land used. Far more electrical generation potentially available. THAT is the future.

B. wrote;

Electrolysis of seawater with power you get from where? What makes you think the production process in building a hydrogen fuel cell involves less poison? Last time I checked, that was a particularly filthy thing to manufacture!

Batteries are particularly nasty things to manufacture as are PZ and PV cells, stack scrubbers catalytic converters, and most CHEMICAL and ELECTRICAL industrial infrastructure products .There are poisons and heavy metal pollutants involved in every step of extraction of raw materials, manufacture of and maintenance of these systems and products. If you are an expert in mining; I suspect you know thess facts much better than I do.That argument environmentally cited against manufacturing ,distributing and maintaining fuel cells as part of an energy policy(platinum usage; for example) is a red herring issue when it comes to implementation. A more practical argument against fuel cells might be; can we find a common membrane material for hydrogen fuel cells that will allow a fuel-celled car to start at - 15 degrees centigrade?

Electrolysis power for extracting hydrogen comes from the electrical grid's generating capacity for electricity as it exists now. and as we modify it in the future(fusion, hydro, geo-thermal, with niche solar and wind generation where feasible.). . I look at how we MOVE in vehicles when I discuss hydrogen fuel cells. I don't regard it as a source of PRIMARY electrical generation. This was misunderstood? If so, I apologize for beiing unclear. D.

Originally Posted by damocles


Remember this, the power of the individual is ultimately measured by his access to electricity.

B. wrote philosophy;

------------------------------------------
The power of the individual will eventually most likely be how wisely he applies his mind to survive on this planet whilst keeping the rest of the planet in mind. Using resources in such a selfish way as if there's no tomorrow will ultimately lead to humankind's eventual end. Shooting down or retarding GSWB development because you've got a huge investment in carbon energy, and damn the rest, is no way for a government to behave.


-----------------------------------------------

I wrote economics. Americans pay for their energy like everyone else on this planet. TANSTAFL.

As for governments?

ITER is a bolloxed enterprise. Squandering TIME we don't have as our extractable POL reserves run out is no way for governments to behave.

http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_chinaview_011204.pdf

GSWB is incapable of meeting the CURRENT energy needs of humanity(not enough planetary surface square meterage per kilowatts required. When you think of arguing about the future of humanity, consider this; a typical Category Three hurricane like Katrina is actually an atmospheric heat engine that is about 3% efficient. It, in a day, has mechanical energy(winds) that roughly equates to more than 350 billion kilowatt hours or roughly half of what the United States uses in a year. What I want to do is get a crack at that kind of electrical generation capacity.(Very difficult to do, heat pollution!) That capability alone would make ALL of humanity quite rich, but it depends on DENSER; i. e. CONCENTRATED energy production capacity(Kilowattage per square meter area used.) than what we have now.

GSWB on the other hand forces us to choose to produce far less electricity per person because of its low DENSITY per square meter used.. There isn't enough square meterage of land on Earth that we can dedicate to such an approach that allows any other conclusion to be reached; economically, environmentally, or physically. That is a return to the 19th Century standard of living for humanity or worse. Ask the people of the middle east or of New Orleans NOW what that is like. D.