|
|
|
Record 31.77 cents per kWh charged in NYC!
Last Post 27 Feb 2009 11:01 PM by robinnc. 40 Replies. |
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
slenzen
Basic Member
Posts:434
 |
|
Brock
Advanced Member
Posts:599
|
| 31 Dec 2008 02:39 AM |
|
The little I do know about ESL is its much lower lumen to watt ratio compared to CF or LED or even HP or LP sodium. Commercially available LED's are now about to pass CF’s in terms of lumens per watt and some in testing have now passed low pressure sodium (orange street lights) as well. ESL is an off shoot from EL, if you have ever seen those older green flat nightlights those are EL technology, I actually have a ESL camping (area) light and I have since burned it out, I ran about 250 hours before slowing decreasing in output. Hopefully they will continue to work on them, they are light and durable. |
|
| Green Bay, WI. - 4 ton horizontal goethermal, 16k gallon indoor pool, 3kw solar PV setup, 2 ton air to air HP, 3400 sq ft |
|
|
bertus
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 02 Jan 2009 02:37 AM |
|
Posted By gregj on 08/22/2008 5:57 PM
It doesn't have to be that high. Nuclear energy has been around a long time. Cheap, safe, plentiful and no greenhouse gases. And we could use it to generate hydrogen for clean cars that also emit no greenhouse gases.
Good for the environment, cheaper than solar/wind, more practical than solar/wind, safe and no more being held hostage to Middle East, Russian and Soth American crazies. There's only one reason we're not going nuclear. Fearmongers whose only answer to any issue is to reduce our living standards. The answer is there for all to see. It takes a while to build nuclear power plants. If we had started 30 years ago we wouldn't even be discussing high energy costs, terrorists, global warming, nut jobs in Venezuela, Russia's new petro wealth and it holding Europe hostage to natural gas and oil. If we start now we could walk away from the crazies in 30 years or less. If not we'll be tied to them in one crisis after another for a long time. Great post gregi and
thanks for the courage to make it. New generation IV plants solve many
of the waste and refuling issues. China is building them. We should
have already done it. We also should have invested in the technology
sooner. I think there is a fair contingent of individuals, (I think
corrupt but suppose such claims can go either way), who for whatever
reason don't want to see the solution happen. I think they just ignore
this possible answer. Also it's not nuclear versus solar it's nuclear
versus coal. Nuclear power generates 1/10,000 of the radioacitvity we
are exposed to (if that). My own opinion is that the mercury in CFL
lights presents more of a threat to the interior of our homes than
nuclear power. (See the EPA site on mercury cleanup. Not to mention
the disposal issues.) It all depends on what's politically
convenient. All the nuclear waste ever produced in the US would fit in
a 40 cubic meter container. It degrades exponentially mostly at
first. Those who think there are still issues with nuclear technology
should go about solving them. Also, the generation IV plants are smaller and require less resources to produce. They can also make more use of heat energy that was previously wasted.
|
|
| LEDHomePlace<br>We provide a complete spectrum of energy and money saving LED products.<br> |
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 04 Jan 2009 10:23 AM |
|
Posted By bertus on 01/02/2009 2:37 AM
Nuclear power generates 1/10,000 of the radioacitvity we are exposed to (if that). My own opinion is that the mercury in CFL lights presents more of a threat to the interior of our homes than nuclear power.
Provided of course there is no accidents, there's 15,000 square miles of radioactive land in Russia that no one uses now. Roughly 830,000 people once lived in this area. Something to think about before you drop a nuclear power plant on every street corner. |
|
|
|
|
bertus
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 06 Jan 2009 12:17 PM |
|
I admit to not previously knowing the details of the so called exclusion zone. On research it turns out to be an ecological miracle. Even a slightly negative Wikipedia article says "Populations of traditional Polesian animals (like wolves, wild boar and Roe Deer), red deer, moose, and beaver have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. The area also houses flocks of European wisent and Przewalski's Horses released there after the disaster. Even extremely rare lynx have appeared, and there are reports of tracks from brown bear, an animal not seen in the area for several centuries. Special game warden units are organized to protect and control them." People still go there to work and it is I think a bit smaller at around 12,000 square miles but that was an estimate based on the radius of 30 km. I think the new generation IV reactors are much safer than previous versions, but those concerned should advocate more research. I would like to see an analysis of the health and ecological consequences of a communist built coal plant located at the center of Chernobyl. Including a summation of 30 years of operation including mining. And thats the choice nuclear vs coal not nuclear vs solar. I think people predate on misunderstandings and fear to create hysteria for political reasons. The rhetoric prior to Chernobyl predicted a disaster of far greater proportions if such an accident were to occur. |
|
| LEDHomePlace<br>We provide a complete spectrum of energy and money saving LED products.<br> |
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 06 Jan 2009 04:24 PM |
|
Posted By bertus on 01/06/2009 12:17 PM
... On research it turns out to be an ecological miracle. Even a slightly negative Wikipedia article says "Populations of traditional Polesian animals (like wolves, wild boar and Roe Deer), red deer, moose, and beaver have multiplied enormously and begun expanding outside the zone. .... People still go there to work and it is I think a bit smaller at around 12,000 square miles but that was an estimate based on the radius of 30 km. ... I think the new generation IV reactors are much safer than previous versions, but those concerned should advocate more research.
Yes, the exculsion of people has been very helpful to the animals living there to thrive, but it's mainly to do with everyone is afraid to go there to hunt them, let alone eat the meat. The death toll to provide this "ecological miracle" may never be fully known. Some esimates run as high as in the 100's of thousands. People may still go there to work, but very few people dare to live there and employment is restricted to clean up efforts. There are no thriving factories in the region. It's safe enough on the roadways, but even a few feet off of them and the gieger meter increases significantly. Wood absorbs radiation, making the forests and wood buildings hot zones. While it's true reactors in the United States are far safer than those used in Cherobyl, history has shown us that any lunitic with a box opener, an agenda and a 747 can ruin your whole day. There's no way to protect a power plant against this kind of threat. |
|
|
|
|
bertus
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 07 Jan 2009 05:35 AM |
|
First, no one is claiming that the radioactivity is responsible for the return of animal species to the area. Next, Chernobyl is obviously a serious issue, but that does not justify vast exaggerations:
I quote the last comment by Techgromit:
"Yes, the exculsion of people has been very helpful to the animals living there to thrive, but it's mainly to do with everyone is afraid to go there to hunt them, let alone eat the meat. The death toll to provide this "ecological miracle" may never be fully known. Some esimates run as high as in the 100's of thousands."
Again I am researching as I go. I do the research as I sense the distortions. I recommend anyone to do a search for Chernobyl on Wikipedia. Anyone who claims 100's of thousands is basically inexcusably misleading others. Quoting Wikipedia:
"UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident,[5] however the latest UNSCEAR reports insinuate that these estimates were overstated.[80] In addition, the IAEA states that there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer) corroborating UNSCEAR's assessments."
Estimates of the total number of deaths seem to range around 4,000 with a bit of inconsistency, and the argument that it could be a good bit less due to the fact that in most cases the health conditions can be successfully treated. Why lie or exaggerate by a factor that is between one and three magnitudes (powers of 10)? There are people that refused to leave the exclusion zone still living there today. Now what happened seems significant enough that there should be no reason to exaggerate it. Unless of course there is a dishonest political agenda. This does not imply that I would want to diminish what occurred, however, it is not nuclear versus nothing it is nuclear versus the alternatives that would be used instead. Those alternatives also have health consequences and ecological consequences almost certainly more significant to the use of nuclear power. The use of oil has likely been a contributing factor in at least one war. Coal also obviously has problems. Also, I learned of the vast errors that were made in this disaster. These were the reactors in a former socialist regime. They are nothing like what is being currently designed or used in the west nor are the safety procedures. I think nothing like this would be reproducible absent a meteorite or hijacked plane. I suppose that's the next area of research (what an airplane could do to a modern generation IV reactor). |
|
| LEDHomePlace<br>We provide a complete spectrum of energy and money saving LED products.<br> |
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 07 Jan 2009 08:57 AM |
|
Posted By bertus on 01/07/2009 5:35 AM
... Next, Chernobyl is obviously a serious issue, but that does not justify vast exaggerations:
I quote the last comment by Techgromit:
" ... Some esimates run as high as in the 100's of thousands."
... I do the research as I sense the distortions. I recommend anyone to do a search for Chernobyl on Wikipedia. ...
Quoting Wikipedia:
"UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR originally predicted up to 4,000 additional cancer cases due to the accident,[5] however the latest UNSCEAR reports insinuate that these estimates were overstated ... A. Wikipedia isn't the source of all knowledge about everything, I suggest you expand your search other other sources. I think your getting a pro-nuclear view of the event. It's in some people interests to downplay Chernobyl as much as possible. One source I found particularly enlightenling is http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/B. The radioactive fire some places around the reactor were emitting 3,000-30,000 roentgens per hour during the first days of the accident. (A dose of 500 roentgens within 5 hours is fatal to humans.) The firemen who were sent to put out the reactor fire were fried on the spot by gamma radiation. You be hard pressed to find any of them alive today. The remains of the reactor were entombed within an enormous steel and concrete sarcophagus also built by workers exposed to high levels of radiation. The "Offical" figure of 57 is compete BS, The 57 figure is an old number, the only available updated number from the UN is 4,000. It all depends on who you talk to what numbers you get I've seen, 9k, 93k, 140k and even higher figures. Numbers from Greenpeace may be high, but the 57 figure is an outright lie. C. It might be ultimately we need to build more nuclear reactors to meet our energy demands in the future, but I believe it should be a last resort action, Solar and Wind power can fill a large part of our energy needs. Objective studies need to be performed to determine the real risks and impacts of nuclear power. |
|
|
|
|
senecarr
Basic Member
Posts:211
|
| 07 Jan 2009 09:07 AM |
|
I seem to recall that there was a corellated increase in cancer across the globe the year following Chernobyl with increases largest in areas that had the largest amount of jet stream between it and Chernobyl. In that sense, the number of people who died from Chernobyl would impossible to count. |
|
|
|
|
bertus
New Member
Posts:8
|
| 07 Jan 2009 10:05 AM |
|
My own sense of the Wikipedia article was that their was a slight anti nuke bias but that the inherent objectivity and completeness of the article was enough to make the information useful. I have not seen anyone make the "lie" that it's just 57. Not saying someone didn't but Wikipedia didn't. Seems the lies are coming from the other side who throw out the 100's of thousand figure. Shouldn't be to hard to calculate the global increase in radioactivity due to the accident and see if it was even measurable if so their should be some linear relation but I doubt it. The survival rate in the exclusion zone is too high. Volume expands to the third power of radius. By the way on the airplane theory the only article I found says that it's basically not likely it would supposedly be impossible to control a 747 at the required speed and a smaller plane doesn't have the required energy. I stick to the idea that for political reasons their is a group that predates on peoples fears generates hysteria on the whole issue. On that point the biggest ongoing health risk at Chernobyl was found to be peoples fear. See the wiki article. |
|
| LEDHomePlace<br>We provide a complete spectrum of energy and money saving LED products.<br> |
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 07 Jan 2009 12:07 PM |
|
The raw economics of construction & cumbersomeness of operation make building new nuclear power plants a ridiculous idea. Large baseload generators that don't throttle up/down rapidly and MUST be throttled down (to keep cool enough) just as the air-condiitoning load peaks is a very silly way to run a grid. Large baseload generators that need BACKUP generation for periods of refueling & maintenance make for an awkward and expensive way to run a grid as well. What seemed to make sense in 1950 is clearly NOT a realistic solution in 2009.
Even (considered expensive relative to fossil plants) wind power is far cheaper & more reliable to build & maintain, and is likely to fill a large share of the generation capacity for N. America over the next couple of decades. During the same time frame natural-gas fired micro-cogeneration will likely fill another large slice far more flexibly and reliably than nukes, or even NG fired central power plants, with a net reduction in overall NG use (micro-cogen's get 95%+ fuel utilization vs. ~35% best-case for NG fired central generation.)
Micro generation works, requires less grid infrastructure, and is far more reliable than centralized power generation. The technology exists and is cost-effective (far more so than any best-case nuclear scenario)- getting there is an implementation rather than a technical issue. Restructuring the business model of utilities (as several US states have alread done) to not rely on growth in delivered kilowatt hours or guaranteed minimum profits on large generating infrastructure to stay in the black is key to making it happen.
Also, the surface of the outright efficiency possibilities has barely been scratched. Even no-brainer investments for demand reduction are more often than not ignored by consumers (eg. high efficiency lighting), residential & commercial customers alike. As long as the power bill seems affordable, it isn't deemed worth taking the time to do the analysis or spend the money. Even when the analysis is done, most residential customers need/want a sub-2-year return on investment (compared to 2-3 DECADE ROIs that utility companies make routinely.) When utilities are restructured so that the utility companies can make (and make fair profit from) those customer-site efficiency investments it blows the lid off- it's much more cost effective & immediate to manage the efficiency gains profitably, and there well never NEED to be another large grid generator built (ever!). California has been at it longer than most of the US, uses half the power per capita (even compared to similar climates & industrial bases), and still haven't even peeled the first thin layer of the efficiency-onion. Cutting back residential power consumption by 3/4 using currently existing technology (without taking a hit in lifestyle) is economically viable, when the net-present-value of the up front investment is evaluated over a 15-20 year period (instead of the typical homeowner's 1 year NPV+ requirement.)
Absorb this economic analysis before jumping on the nuclear renaissance bandwagon:
http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlusion.pdf
If there is no need to go there, and it's more expensive/less reliable, why would we? The hazards of mining, processing & disposing of the fuel becomes all secondary when it's a "just plain stupid" investment in the first place. The likelihood & consequences of a Chernobyl or even much smaller accident aren't even on the charts at that point. |
|
|
|
|
PanelCrafters
Advanced Member
Posts:680
|
| 07 Jan 2009 01:29 PM |
|
Posted By Dana1 on 01/07/2009 12:07 PM
During the same time frame natural-gas fired micro-cogeneration will likely fill another large slice far more flexibly and reliably than nukes, or even NG fired central power plants, with a net reduction in overall NG use (micro-cogen's get 95%+ fuel utilization vs. ~35% best-case for NG fired central generation.) Yea, ask the people that heat their homes with NG how they feel about the use of all of that NG for generating electricity, and the cost increases that they've faced because of it. NG is a great fuel, and we're wasting it to generate something as basic as electricity. I love Wind & Solar, but we also need something to fill the gap besides NG. Otherwise, heating our houses in the future will become an expensive luxury.
|
|
| ....jc<br>If you're not building with OSB SIPS(or ICF's), why are you building? |
|
|
senecarr
Basic Member
Posts:211
|
| 07 Jan 2009 01:56 PM |
|
Posted By PanelCrafters on 01/07/2009 1:29 PM
Yea, ask the people that heat their homes with NG how they feel about the use of all of that NG for generating electricity, and the cost increases that they've faced because of it. NG is a great fuel, and we're wasting it to generate something as basic as electricity.
I love Wind & Solar, but we also need something to fill the gap besides NG. Otherwise, heating our houses in the future will become an expensive luxury.
Actually, based on CO2 produced a heat pump (geo or air source) with a COP of 3 or higher (essentially almost all Geothermal Heat pumps and some of the newer Daikan air ones) uses less natural gas as electricity than a 96% efficient NG furnace.
Given that her posting that natural gas electric generation is 35% and it could to go 95% efficient, we would save 2/3 of natural gas for heating if we switched to making 95% efficient electricity with it and used heat pumps to heat homes. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 07 Jan 2009 04:28 PM |
|
Posted By senecarr on 01/07/2009 1:56 PM
Given that her posting that natural gas electric generation is 35% and [b]it could to go 95% efficient[/b], we would save 2/3 of natural gas for heating if we [b]switched to making 95% efficient electricity [/b]with it and used heat pumps to heat homes.[/quote]
Uh.... good luck with that...
(A noo-improoved technology fresh out of the half-bakery, fashioned from pure Unobtainium! :-) )
The 95% fuel utilization number in NG cogeneration isn't the same as (currently impossible) 95% efficient electricity production. In a modern NG powerplant ~40-45% of the energy of the NG shows up as torque on the generator's rotor, with well over 50% of the energy going up the stack & cooling towers as wasted heat. The rest of the energy is burned as heat in the generator windings, grid wiring, & transformers before showing up at the meter at your house with about a 2/3 total energy loss.
In a typical micro-cognerator, 20-25% of the energy shows up as torque on your generator, with sub-1% generator-winding losses but already INSIDE your house or building. Properly controlled, 70-75% of the energy shows up as heat in the cooling jackets & exhaust stream, but unlike the base-load grid generator, that heat is then put to use heating your house/building/water/process-heat whatever, with ~4-5% of the heat lost up the flues, thus a [b]~95% fuel [i]utilization[/i][/b] (not to be confused with 95% efficiency [i]electricity production[/i].) Since typical existing small building & home heating plants only run at 70-80% efficiency, the net increase in fuel burned is very slight, but even replacing 95% efficient modulating-condensing boilers with cogneration it results in a large net reduction in NG fuel consumption, since the ~65% loss on the electricity generating side is avoided.
A NG driven heat pump (electricity used only for control purposes, not compressor drive) that utilizes exhaust heat in combination with the compressor output is technically feasible, but I'm not aware of any on the market. The less-green side of the (still pretty green) electric-power driven heat-pump sceniario is the substantial increase the grid infrastructure to get & keep those compressors turning. (It's a goodly sight less grid infrastructr than required for resistance-heating, but orders of magnitude more electricity than is required to run a NG boiler & pressurize the NG grid.)
In a "greener than thou" pissin' match between electric-powered geothermal pumps & co-generators, which technology wins? Depends entirely on the location, and the particulars of the local grid generation (coal burners, anyone?). Let's not make the perfect be the enemy of the good, eh? And neither are perfect- read on...
In my prior post, micro-cogenerators were just an example of one existing economically viable small power generation technology (of many- read that .pdf for the economics of some of them) that can flexibly displace exisiting power plants as well as new ones (like nukes), with a net reduction in fossil fuel use (a huge net reduction in greenhouse gases when displacing coal fired plants.)
Geothermal heat pumps are just one usually economic (NPV+ in a 10 year or less analysis in most US markets) investment in efficiency that could/should be made in many instances. But until the grid is a lot greener it's nothing like a 75% reduction in greenhouse gases & other pollutants. The grid power in the US is ~50% coal fired plants running at somewhat lower efficiencies than NG powerplants and they emit TWICE the CO2 per delivered kilowatt-hour of NG plants (as well as spewing stuff a lot less nice than CO2, that NG plants don't.) If all NG fired heating systems were switched overnight to geothermal heat pumps it's not necessarily a net win (or not a very big one), since the overall electric grid-load goes up(!). But if all electric baseboard & other resistance-heating were replaced by geothermal it's a HUGE winner- net power use and associated greenhouse gases are reduced by 70-75%.
[/quote]
|
|
|
|
|
arkie6
Veteran Member
Posts:1453
|
| 08 Jan 2009 04:54 PM |
|
Posted By TechGromit on 01/07/2009 8:57 AM A. Wikipedia isn't the source of all knowledge about everything, I suggest you expand your search other other sources. I think your getting a pro-nuclear view of the event. It's in some people interests to downplay Chernobyl as much as possible. One source I found particularly enlightenling is http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/That woman, i.e. "Kidd of Speed", was exposed as a fraud years ago.
See the following link (just one example found via google) for details:
http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread_archive.asp?fid=1&threadid=8951 |
|
|
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 09 Jan 2009 10:39 AM |
|
Posted By arkie6 on 01/08/2009 4:54 PM
Posted By TechGromit on 01/07/2009 8:57 AM
[b]That woman, i.e. "Kidd of Speed", was exposed as a fraud years ago.
I will not debate weather or not "Kidd of Speed" did or did not ride thru the exclusion zone on a Motorcycle, car or even a UFO. But the pictures displayed on the website are real, the city is abandoned, the villages are empty. The effects of nuclear accident can not be disputed. |
|
|
|
|
geo fan
Basic Member
Posts:408
|
|
ContractorPete
Basic Member
Posts:115
|
| 01 Feb 2009 11:45 AM |
|
Yeah I guess nuclear is really bad. It powers our aircraft carriers and submarines saving Billions $ (yes $ Billions) of tax payer dollars in fuel cost. Its unfortunate that all the events that occured in the past caused people great harm to there health. May they rest in peace. Nuclear is making a comeback though. Using New scientifically proven safe containment technology, downsizing the overall cost of the system, cheap electricity is on the horizon. But definitely not with our new president.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ |
|
| [email protected]<br> |
|
|
Brock
Advanced Member
Posts:599
|
| 01 Feb 2009 05:21 PM |
|
Not picking a side but imagine if supertanker and super cargo ships used neuclear instead of diesel or fuel oil. They burn about 1 gallon per foot, it is about 5800 miles or over 30 million gallons per trip... |
|
| Green Bay, WI. - 4 ton horizontal goethermal, 16k gallon indoor pool, 3kw solar PV setup, 2 ton air to air HP, 3400 sq ft |
|
|
TechGromit
Advanced Member
Posts:634
|
| 26 Feb 2009 03:35 PM |
|
Posted By Brock on 02/01/2009 5:21 PM
Not picking a side but imagine if supertanker and super cargo ships used neuclear instead of diesel or fuel oil. They burn about 1 gallon per foot, it is about 5800 miles or over 30 million gallons per trip... I'm not denying the benifits of Nuclear, perhaps it would be a good idea if this country invested more in nuclear if all the generating stations were located somewhere more remote, like in the middle of a desert out west. This way if the worse were to happen and there was an accident in the future, the impact would be miminal. While it's true it's not as efficent to transmit the power from one side of the country to the other, instead of generating power locally. I firmly beleive that building hundreds of power plants located every 20 miles or so to meet all our energy needs is a really bad idea. More power plants increase the odds of an accident, reguardless of how safe they are. It would only take one screwup to kill thousands and make millions homeless if a nuclear power station was located in a heavy populated area. |
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.1
 |
Membership: |
 |
Latest:
croccohvacusa |
 |
New Today:
0 |
 |
New Yesterday:
0 |
 |
Overall:
35027 |
 |
People Online: |
 |
Visitors:
863 |
 |
Members:
0 |
 |
Total:
863 |
|
|
|