I meant there is little support for nuclear in this country. China is interested but they are still building coal plants as fast as they can. Other countries are supportive while still others are trying to flush them.
Natural gas is better, perhaps not for global warming but for a whole host of other reasons. With new EPA rules expect the transition to continue.
You cannot raise the price of oil in this country without collapsing the economy. You may be able to do it slowly over time but not fast enough to make a difference.
The economics of putting food on the table. Given a choice of eating or buying solar panels, people will chose eating every time, the future be damned. The environment is not the mother of economics, economics is the mother of the environment. Rich countries can afford an EPA, green incentives, etc., poor countries cannot. We are flushing our coal plants, China and India are building them by the dozen.
If China and India blew off both Bush and Obama, I doubt this site will fare any better. We cannot stop China and India from doing what they are doing any more than we can stop Canada from bulldozing their forests to strip mine the tar sand beneath or Brazil from clear cutting their rain forest.
Note, I'm not saying this is what I want to happen, I'm just saying all things considered this is likely what will happen. I'll freely admit I could be wrong but I've seen no facts or statistics that prove otherwise, quite the opposite.
Solar panels on rooftops and BEV's would be a huge step for this country, how many on this site have either? If people on this site can't/won't do it, what's the likelihood of the general public doing it?
Hopefully this site exists to share ideas and offer encouragement for everyone to do their part. To that end it serves it's purpose. Though we cannot stop the third world from being part of the problem, we can be part of the solution.
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
7
Nuclear as religion sort of
Started by
Dingo
, May 26 2013 07:44 PM
283 replies to this topic
#22
Posted 29 May 2013 - 08:50 AM
One of the things that would help move Rifkins post fossil fuel distributive energy program along would be to end subsidies for fossil fuel. Interestingly I have the hardest time getting so called free market types interested in such an idea, which plays into my theory that almost all political advocacy is simply euphemism or call it dog whistles.
I can see how the distributive approach could for a while work with nuclear power. Nuclear power would supply the baseload backup until hydrogen storage was fully up and running. That way fossil fuel could be phased out earlier.
I can see how the distributive approach could for a while work with nuclear power. Nuclear power would supply the baseload backup until hydrogen storage was fully up and running. That way fossil fuel could be phased out earlier.
#23
Posted 29 May 2013 - 09:22 AM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 29 May 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:
....A question for the nuclear supporters on this forum; who's going to build them? Nuclear plants are very expensive
If I were an electric generating company executive here in the US, under current conditions, the expense of building a nuclear powerplant would keep me from considering adding one. If I were such a person and thought we needed to add capacity (and wanted to keep my job), I'd probably choose natural gas to fuel a conventional powerplant and add some renewables so we could advertise how green we were. See http://www.eia.gov/f..._generation.pdf
Conditions will eventually change though.
Renewables capital costs will continue to drop to some unknown extent. Maybe somebody will come up with a way of storing renewables energy (as hydrogen, perhaps) that doesn't add too much cost. We'll see more CO2 emissions restrictions or fees or taxes as time goes on. Maybe somebody will actually build a utility scale fossil fuel powerplant with CCS and show that it really can work at a reasonable cost. Maybe somebody will take the risk and actually build a gen 4 nuclear powerplant and maybe the cost won't turn out to be outlandish.
How much change and how fast?
#24
Posted 29 May 2013 - 09:57 AM
eds, on 29 May 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:
Some answers to your energy questions are on this video.
While Rifkin does have some interesting things to say, some is really incomplete and some seems fanciful.
In the second Rifkin video linked to is something about "...collect the wind off the side of the walls for green electricity..." How? We've seen "ideas" related to collecting wind energy from the sides of existing buildings, but nothing built, as far as I know.
Also in the second video, as part of his "pillar three" and using hydrogen as a storage medium, he uses the words "...a small thermodynamic loss..." He need to give us some numbers, at least a guess.
Now a short video intended for a general audience maybe isn't a good place to include numbers, so I'll have to see of any of his books flesh things out better.
#25
Posted 29 May 2013 - 10:15 AM
Are you aware, that there are whole countries, going for 100% renewable energy?
99% of Iceland's electricity is generated by renewable power,
. . . most from hydro power and
. . . heating 89% of its building from geothermal.
Iceland also plans to become the world's first hydrogen economy
. . . converting its renewable resources to power
. . . cars, boats and public transport with hydrogen fuel.
Portugal reaches 70%
DENMARK WAS POWERED BY 100% RENEWABLES
100% Renewable Energy: Becoming the New Normal?
There are a number of other videos by Rifkin on Youtube you might want to look at.
. . I have posted most of them on this blog, I'm surprised that some of you haven't seen them.
99% of Iceland's electricity is generated by renewable power,
. . . most from hydro power and
. . . heating 89% of its building from geothermal.
Iceland also plans to become the world's first hydrogen economy
. . . converting its renewable resources to power
. . . cars, boats and public transport with hydrogen fuel.
Portugal reaches 70%
DENMARK WAS POWERED BY 100% RENEWABLES
100% Renewable Energy: Becoming the New Normal?
There are a number of other videos by Rifkin on Youtube you might want to look at.
. . I have posted most of them on this blog, I'm surprised that some of you haven't seen them.
#27
Posted 29 May 2013 - 08:43 PM
Phil, on 29 May 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:
Solar panels on rooftops and BEV's would be a huge step for this country, how many on this site have either? If people on this site can't/won't do it, what's the likelihood of the general public doing it?
A couple of points, both of which I've made before.
The environment, and protection of it, is a world issue. Not everyone has rooftop space. In cities of 20 million it simply isn't a practical proposition. When I first moved to England, I lived in a block of flats, an apartment building. I had no roof area. And no garden.The building still exists. As do many others like it in many countries, particularly the most populous. Rooftop solar panels and individual wind turbines are simply not an option.
Similar practicalities apply to BEVs for the denizens of such high rise buildings. Not insurmountable in that charging points at allocated parking spaces could be provided.If such spaces existed. My sister lives in London. In the centre of the city. About stone's throw from Buckingham Palace in the borough of Westminster. She doesn't have a car but, even if she did, she'd have nowhere to part it.
I suppose this comes across as negative and I don't mean it to be so. We just have to recognise the harsh, practical realities. And you obviously do. And, like you, I can't do a lot to stop China building coal fired plants.
I don't have global solutions - I'm not paid enough money for that.
I suppose fossils, conventional thermal, and nuclear will continue to be the major player in getting electricity to our homes and businesses for quite some time to come. Hydro will play its part in areas with suitable topology. Itaipu, the Three Gorges, Norway.....
Inevitably, things will change as things do. But, probably not very quickly. Those of us who don't need to drive to work because we have remote access will travel less. And I think that's an increasing number. Those who have to have a physical presence might find increasing travel costs an incentive to move closer to the workplace....
I'm in the former class. At just after 05:30 I'm already checking my business emails. I can do that just as readily from home as from my office which is a round trip of 50 miles.
#28
Posted 30 May 2013 - 04:25 AM
Rooftop panels across the nation (s) can ease the demand on fossil fuels and as prices come down, more
people will install them.
The major stumbling block that I see (at least here in the US) is the grid. I don't think the government
here (or elsewhere) should be the ones forcing utilities to switch to a more efficient system; they should
do it on their own.
**Our report card on our aging electrical system is D+, according to this site. (click on the arrow on the right for
more pages)
http://www.infrastru...energy/overview
It would raise the cost to customers, but it has to be done.
There are some small efforts to that end; 23,000 smart meters have been installed in Boulder, Colorado for instance; but on the
whole, not so much.
(The problems with the meters are discussed in this article, and several customers from the area
have left comments about the problems with it.)
http://www.greentech...ens-in-the-Dark
When cell phones became the way to communicate, phone companies rushed to install cell towers across the
county. Are most cell phone plans on the pricey side? Probably. But if you want it, you pay the price.
If the phone companies can sell their product without much complaint, why can't the utility companies?
They obviously met the increased demand with more installations.
Adding to that, they need to bury their new smart grid too. Between heavy snows, blizzards, hurricanes,
and other weather events, lines go down and people are without power for days, sometimes weeks.
How 19th century is that?
As a side note, I agree with one of the comments from the link above; what's with the word smart on everything?
Smart cars, smart phones, smart appliances, smart grid.
Enough already. Or should that be smart enough?
people will install them.
The major stumbling block that I see (at least here in the US) is the grid. I don't think the government
here (or elsewhere) should be the ones forcing utilities to switch to a more efficient system; they should
do it on their own.
**Our report card on our aging electrical system is D+, according to this site. (click on the arrow on the right for
more pages)
http://www.infrastru...energy/overview
It would raise the cost to customers, but it has to be done.
There are some small efforts to that end; 23,000 smart meters have been installed in Boulder, Colorado for instance; but on the
whole, not so much.
(The problems with the meters are discussed in this article, and several customers from the area
have left comments about the problems with it.)
http://www.greentech...ens-in-the-Dark
When cell phones became the way to communicate, phone companies rushed to install cell towers across the
county. Are most cell phone plans on the pricey side? Probably. But if you want it, you pay the price.
If the phone companies can sell their product without much complaint, why can't the utility companies?
They obviously met the increased demand with more installations.
Adding to that, they need to bury their new smart grid too. Between heavy snows, blizzards, hurricanes,
and other weather events, lines go down and people are without power for days, sometimes weeks.
How 19th century is that?
As a side note, I agree with one of the comments from the link above; what's with the word smart on everything?
Smart cars, smart phones, smart appliances, smart grid.
Enough already. Or should that be smart enough?
#29
Posted 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM
Of course metro area's can't make use of rooftops to supply everything but even in cities like Chicago, the number of skyscrapers are relatively few, there are a lot of one, two, and three story buildings that could be outfitted.
Even if you live in a row house, duplex, etc. that doesn't mean the owner can't put up solar panels
Also, if you don't have a car now there is no need to buy a Leaf. :<) Indeed in a perfect world all parking spaces could be outfitted, some shopping centers are adding charging stations to their lots to keep people shopping longer.
Metro area's could be fed with wind power as is happening now. I personally think cities are in their sunset years though. With telecommuting and regional manufacturing the need for cities is rapidly disappearing. Not that they are going to disappear overnight but it will become increasingly expensive to live there.
At least in Washington, hydro is not considered green. Since we get 84% of our power from hydro the local utility and power provider have been fighting like hell to get the state to change that but they have been rebuffed so far. So if you do include hydro, my entire region is 100% renewable right now! Between wind and hydro we actually have an oversupply, particularly in the spring with snow melt and fall with rains.
I do think we'll eventually get to very high recyclables perhaps even 100%, (particularly if hydrogen takes off), but as I said it will take a long time before we can shut down all coal and natural gas plants and fill the last gas tank.
I also think if hydrogen becomes a reality in the next couple of years that could be the final straw for nuclear. Viable hydrogen storage and generation combined with renewables would seem to be a complete solution. Even if it happens overseas at first, investors will see the handwriting on the wall and won't want to fund something that takes a decade to even begin to pay off.
One thing that could change everything is hydrogen. If FCV's can be had for comparable prices to ICE autos and hydrogen generation ends up costing less than gas that could be a real game changer. That could also turn heads in China and India. If THAT happens don't be surprised if China turns fuel cells into a commodity! Time will tell.
I don't think smart grid will do much for the grid itself, just make better use of it. The more local solar generated the less the load on the current grid. Combine that with the utilities ability to cycle loads like AC, etc. and the current grid could be greatly off loaded. So I don't see a huge push to replace the grid or bury it, just to add to it to bring wind on line and to use it more efficiently. I haven't really followed the details though so I could be wrong.
Even if you live in a row house, duplex, etc. that doesn't mean the owner can't put up solar panels
Also, if you don't have a car now there is no need to buy a Leaf. :<) Indeed in a perfect world all parking spaces could be outfitted, some shopping centers are adding charging stations to their lots to keep people shopping longer.
Metro area's could be fed with wind power as is happening now. I personally think cities are in their sunset years though. With telecommuting and regional manufacturing the need for cities is rapidly disappearing. Not that they are going to disappear overnight but it will become increasingly expensive to live there.
At least in Washington, hydro is not considered green. Since we get 84% of our power from hydro the local utility and power provider have been fighting like hell to get the state to change that but they have been rebuffed so far. So if you do include hydro, my entire region is 100% renewable right now! Between wind and hydro we actually have an oversupply, particularly in the spring with snow melt and fall with rains.
I do think we'll eventually get to very high recyclables perhaps even 100%, (particularly if hydrogen takes off), but as I said it will take a long time before we can shut down all coal and natural gas plants and fill the last gas tank.
I also think if hydrogen becomes a reality in the next couple of years that could be the final straw for nuclear. Viable hydrogen storage and generation combined with renewables would seem to be a complete solution. Even if it happens overseas at first, investors will see the handwriting on the wall and won't want to fund something that takes a decade to even begin to pay off.
One thing that could change everything is hydrogen. If FCV's can be had for comparable prices to ICE autos and hydrogen generation ends up costing less than gas that could be a real game changer. That could also turn heads in China and India. If THAT happens don't be surprised if China turns fuel cells into a commodity! Time will tell.
I don't think smart grid will do much for the grid itself, just make better use of it. The more local solar generated the less the load on the current grid. Combine that with the utilities ability to cycle loads like AC, etc. and the current grid could be greatly off loaded. So I don't see a huge push to replace the grid or bury it, just to add to it to bring wind on line and to use it more efficiently. I haven't really followed the details though so I could be wrong.
#30
Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:44 AM
The person I would trust the most, James Hansen, wrote all about solutions in this book IN 2009!
http://www.amazon.co... Grandchildren"
Only Eclipse seems to get it.
However, time to change over all the fossil fueled power to GenIV, more tidal and wave, more solar and wind, is running out. Many get it that people in general are just too caught up in themselves to really make a difference, so we are nearly committed to extinction.
Reading Hansen's book, the time to go with Gen IV was in 1994 when Clinton got rid of all the plans and most of the data from the development of a great design, to appease the stupid anti-any-nuclear crowd that did not understand that Gen IV was a whole new thing(but many of the people involved are still around). Also appeased were the contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Taking away the time needed to go to an all no emissions power system and low emissions transportation has mostly slipped on by.
Just like the time to reduce population from the late sixties disappeared by the end of last century when the amount needed fell below one child per family. Now it is too late to stop the horrors of the crash, and it is unfortunate that the crash will reduce emissions too late to stop positive feedback loops in nature, that started formation in 2009 coincidentally, and will be complete and unstoppable in a decade, or less. All we have left is hope that somehow civilization will get into high gear and do everything to stop the crossing of tipping points and to reduce population to at least mitigate the horrors. Saving ours and millions of other species is most important, to me, and I think most others, if they are educated, and humanity goes fast with emissions reductions needed in a decade. Stop having kids for a while until we all understand sustainability.
The alternative to this "pipe dream" is ecological suicide.
http://www.amazon.co... Grandchildren"
Only Eclipse seems to get it.
However, time to change over all the fossil fueled power to GenIV, more tidal and wave, more solar and wind, is running out. Many get it that people in general are just too caught up in themselves to really make a difference, so we are nearly committed to extinction.
Reading Hansen's book, the time to go with Gen IV was in 1994 when Clinton got rid of all the plans and most of the data from the development of a great design, to appease the stupid anti-any-nuclear crowd that did not understand that Gen IV was a whole new thing(but many of the people involved are still around). Also appeased were the contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Taking away the time needed to go to an all no emissions power system and low emissions transportation has mostly slipped on by.
Just like the time to reduce population from the late sixties disappeared by the end of last century when the amount needed fell below one child per family. Now it is too late to stop the horrors of the crash, and it is unfortunate that the crash will reduce emissions too late to stop positive feedback loops in nature, that started formation in 2009 coincidentally, and will be complete and unstoppable in a decade, or less. All we have left is hope that somehow civilization will get into high gear and do everything to stop the crossing of tipping points and to reduce population to at least mitigate the horrors. Saving ours and millions of other species is most important, to me, and I think most others, if they are educated, and humanity goes fast with emissions reductions needed in a decade. Stop having kids for a while until we all understand sustainability.
The alternative to this "pipe dream" is ecological suicide.
#31
Posted 30 May 2013 - 10:04 AM
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Of course metro area's can't make use of rooftops to supply everything but even in cities like Chicago, the number of skyscrapers are relatively few, there are a lot of one, two, and three story buildings that could be outfitted.
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Even if you live in a row house, duplex, etc. that doesn't mean the owner can't put up solar panels
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Also, if you don't have a car now there is no need to buy a Leaf. :<) Indeed in a perfect world all parking spaces could be outfitted, some shopping centers are adding charging stations to their lots to keep people shopping longer.
But better to avoid driving there in the first place. Shop on line. Mrs B does.
And I avoid driving to my office when I can. E-mail, video conferencing, even the good old phone quite often obviate the need for that 50 mile round trip.
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
At least in Washington, hydro is not considered green.
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Viable hydrogen storage and generation combined with renewables would seem to be a complete solution.
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
One thing that could change everything is hydrogen. If FCV's can be had for comparable prices to ICE autos and hydrogen generation ends up costing less than gas that could be a real game changer. That could also turn heads in China and India. If THAT happens don't be surprised if China turns fuel cells into a commodity! Time will tell.
Indeed it will
#32
Posted 30 May 2013 - 12:11 PM
BIPV (Building Integrated Photovoltaics)
. . . refers to PV systems that are integrated within a building’s design and architecture,
. . . so that the solar components also serve as structural or design elements.
. . . These can include roofs, walls, awnings and facades.
When PV panels are integrated into a building during construction,
. . . the incremental costs of the system are reduced,
. . . while the building owner is provided with tangible, cost-saving advantages, such as
. . . . . . significantly reduced demand for peak electricity,
. . . . . . reduced transmission losses and
. . . . . . the ability of back-up power.
BIPV gives buildings the opportunity to become more self-sufficient,
. . . by allowing them to generate their own electricity,
. . . rather than merely consume energy.
PV integrated into a building can, as a second function, also provide
. . . . . . shade,
. . . . . .insulation and
. . . . . .help to control the interior climate.
BIPV doesn’t use any extra space and
. . . because the material savings from replacing ordinary construction material with BIPV,
. . . substantially reduces the cost of the installed PV system and
. . . thus the cost of PV electricity.
The building in the photo above is 4 Times Square,
. . . a 48-story skyscraper at the corner of Broadway and 42nd St.,
. . . was the first major office building to be constructed in New York City in the 1990s.
The building’s most advanced feature is the photovoltaic skin,
. .. a system that uses thin-film PV panels to replace traditional glass cladding material.
The PV curtain wall extends from the 35th to the 48th floors on the south and east walls of the tower,
. . . making it a highly visible part of the midtown New York skyline.
Although the surface area for PV is relatively small, the system still provides enough energy
. . . to power the equivalent of five to seven homes.
Source: BIPV
. . . refers to PV systems that are integrated within a building’s design and architecture,
. . . so that the solar components also serve as structural or design elements.
. . . These can include roofs, walls, awnings and facades.
When PV panels are integrated into a building during construction,
. . . the incremental costs of the system are reduced,
. . . while the building owner is provided with tangible, cost-saving advantages, such as
. . . . . . significantly reduced demand for peak electricity,
. . . . . . reduced transmission losses and
. . . . . . the ability of back-up power.
BIPV gives buildings the opportunity to become more self-sufficient,
. . . by allowing them to generate their own electricity,
. . . rather than merely consume energy.
PV integrated into a building can, as a second function, also provide
. . . . . . shade,
. . . . . .insulation and
. . . . . .help to control the interior climate.
BIPV doesn’t use any extra space and
. . . because the material savings from replacing ordinary construction material with BIPV,
. . . substantially reduces the cost of the installed PV system and
. . . thus the cost of PV electricity.
The building in the photo above is 4 Times Square,
. . . a 48-story skyscraper at the corner of Broadway and 42nd St.,
. . . was the first major office building to be constructed in New York City in the 1990s.
The building’s most advanced feature is the photovoltaic skin,
. .. a system that uses thin-film PV panels to replace traditional glass cladding material.
The PV curtain wall extends from the 35th to the 48th floors on the south and east walls of the tower,
. . . making it a highly visible part of the midtown New York skyline.
Although the surface area for PV is relatively small, the system still provides enough energy
. . . to power the equivalent of five to seven homes.
Source: BIPV
Attached Files
-
NY.jpg 59.06K
0 downloads
#33
Posted 30 May 2013 - 01:29 PM
Dustoffer, on 30 May 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
The person I would trust the most, James Hansen, wrote all about solutions in this book IN 2009!
http://www.amazon.co... Grandchildren"
Only Eclipse seems to get it.
However, time to change over all the fossil fueled power to GenIV, more tidal and wave, more solar and wind, is running out. Many get it that people in general are just too caught up in themselves to really make a difference, so we are nearly committed to extinction.
Reading Hansen's book, the time to go with Gen IV was in 1994 when Clinton got rid of all the plans and most of the data from the development of a great design, to appease the stupid anti-any-nuclear crowd that did not understand that Gen IV was a whole new thing(but many of the people involved are still around). Also appeased were the contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Taking away the time needed to go to an all no emissions power system and low emissions transportation has mostly slipped on by.
Just like the time to reduce population from the late sixties disappeared by the end of last century when the amount needed fell below one child per family. Now it is too late to stop the horrors of the crash, and it is unfortunate that the crash will reduce emissions too late to stop positive feedback loops in nature, that started formation in 2009 coincidentally, and will be complete and unstoppable in a decade, or less. All we have left is hope that somehow civilization will get into high gear and do everything to stop the crossing of tipping points and to reduce population to at least mitigate the horrors. Saving ours and millions of other species is most important, to me, and I think most others, if they are educated, and humanity goes fast with emissions reductions needed in a decade. Stop having kids for a while until we all understand sustainability.
The alternative to this "pipe dream" is ecological suicide.
http://www.amazon.co... Grandchildren"
Only Eclipse seems to get it.
However, time to change over all the fossil fueled power to GenIV, more tidal and wave, more solar and wind, is running out. Many get it that people in general are just too caught up in themselves to really make a difference, so we are nearly committed to extinction.
Reading Hansen's book, the time to go with Gen IV was in 1994 when Clinton got rid of all the plans and most of the data from the development of a great design, to appease the stupid anti-any-nuclear crowd that did not understand that Gen IV was a whole new thing(but many of the people involved are still around). Also appeased were the contributors from the fossil fuel industry. Taking away the time needed to go to an all no emissions power system and low emissions transportation has mostly slipped on by.
Just like the time to reduce population from the late sixties disappeared by the end of last century when the amount needed fell below one child per family. Now it is too late to stop the horrors of the crash, and it is unfortunate that the crash will reduce emissions too late to stop positive feedback loops in nature, that started formation in 2009 coincidentally, and will be complete and unstoppable in a decade, or less. All we have left is hope that somehow civilization will get into high gear and do everything to stop the crossing of tipping points and to reduce population to at least mitigate the horrors. Saving ours and millions of other species is most important, to me, and I think most others, if they are educated, and humanity goes fast with emissions reductions needed in a decade. Stop having kids for a while until we all understand sustainability.
The alternative to this "pipe dream" is ecological suicide.
#34
Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:16 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 30 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:
Not totally off topic. Not totally. Includes Hansen's views on nuclear electricity. Quoting one sentence, "Given the urgency of phasing out CO2 emissions, we need both nuclear and renewables."
Hansen's webpage is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
Click on the May 29 entry under "recent communications" for what HuffPost is reprinting.
#35
Posted 30 May 2013 - 07:18 PM
Dustoffer, on 30 May 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:
Reading Hansen's book, the time to go with Gen IV was in 1994 when Clinton got rid of all the plans and most of the data from the development of a great design, to appease the stupid anti-any-nuclear crowd that did not understand that Gen IV was a whole new thing(but many of the people involved are still around).
#36
Posted 30 May 2013 - 07:40 PM
eds, on 30 May 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:
BIPV (Building Integrated Photovoltaics)
. . . refers to PV systems that are integrated within a building’s design and architecture,
. . . so that the solar components also serve as structural or design elements.
. . . These can include roofs, walls, awnings and facades.
. . . refers to PV systems that are integrated within a building’s design and architecture,
. . . so that the solar components also serve as structural or design elements.
. . . These can include roofs, walls, awnings and facades.
All good stuff and I don't disagree with any of it.
But how, specifically, does it relate to nuclear power?
#37
Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:07 AM
When discussing Nuclear VS Solar,
. . . people that live in multi-story buildings and skyscrapers,
. . . seem to get stuck visualizing the "Solar on the Roof"
. . . as impractical, as the roof area is small, in relation to the buildings size.
Rifkin, talks about distributed energy on ALL buildings,
. . . He doesn't restrict that to ONLY on roofs,
. . . or only buildings NOT in cities, and
. . . we shouldn't ether.
. . . people that live in multi-story buildings and skyscrapers,
. . . seem to get stuck visualizing the "Solar on the Roof"
. . . as impractical, as the roof area is small, in relation to the buildings size.
Rifkin, talks about distributed energy on ALL buildings,
. . . He doesn't restrict that to ONLY on roofs,
. . . or only buildings NOT in cities, and
. . . we shouldn't ether.
Besoeker, on 30 May 2013 - 07:40 PM, said:
eds
All good stuff and I don't disagree with any of it.
But how, specifically, does it relate to nuclear power?
All good stuff and I don't disagree with any of it.
But how, specifically, does it relate to nuclear power?
Besoeker, on 29 May 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:
A couple of points, both of which I've made before.
The environment, and protection of it, is a world issue. Not everyone has rooftop space. In cities of 20 million it simply isn't a practical proposition. When I first moved to England, I lived in a block of flats, an apartment building. I had no roof area. And no garden.The building still exists. As do many others like it in many countries, particularly the most populous. Rooftop solar panels and individual wind turbines are simply not an option.
The environment, and protection of it, is a world issue. Not everyone has rooftop space. In cities of 20 million it simply isn't a practical proposition. When I first moved to England, I lived in a block of flats, an apartment building. I had no roof area. And no garden.The building still exists. As do many others like it in many countries, particularly the most populous. Rooftop solar panels and individual wind turbines are simply not an option.
Phil, on 30 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Of course metro area's can't make use of rooftops to supply everything but even in cities like Chicago, the number of skyscrapers are relatively few, there are a lot of one, two, and three story buildings that could be outfitted.
Even if you live in a row house, duplex, etc. that doesn't mean the owner can't put up solar panels
Even if you live in a row house, duplex, etc. that doesn't mean the owner can't put up solar panels
#39
Posted 31 May 2013 - 08:42 AM
"self licking ice cream cone" I love it!
Yes new buildings can have a PV skin, I'm not sure how practical that would be as a retrofit. Five to seven homes seems like a lot of energy but the question is, what percentage of the building's power is that, 10%?, 1%? Just curious.
In the US we already do a lot of on line buying. The problem is our politicians now think we do too much! They are trying to tax on line transactions to reimburse states so local stores can compete. In other words our politicians, (bi-partisan by the way), want us to go out and shop!
A lot of people complain about Wal-Mart decimating mom and pop stores, what do people think Amazon does! That's the dilemma politicians are facing, people visit stores to check out an item then go home and order it on line at a lower price and much of the time tax free to boot. At least Wal-Mart generates local jobs, Amazon does not, (except perhaps more UPS drivers!).
Back to nuclear, I'm one of those who simply does not trust nuclear energy. I have not researched gen 4 designs, but unless I'm mistaken all major nuclear accidents have not been equipment errors, they've been human errors. As one article quipped, the problem with making things idiot proof is idiots are so damn creative! :<)
Long term I think renewables and hydrogen are the future, as well as local generation, I'd rather money be put to that. Perhaps it's the moderate in me but I don't think a couple of decades one way or the other will make a difference in the environment.
If it takes a decade to get a nuke built, how cheap will solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen creation/generation be by then? I could install solar, micro wind, and a home hydrogen refuel station in a couple of weeks, not a decade, and I could do it myself, no multi million dollar environmental impact statement required, no massive demonstrations, no multi million dollar law suits, (except perhaps from the local utilities!).
Yes new buildings can have a PV skin, I'm not sure how practical that would be as a retrofit. Five to seven homes seems like a lot of energy but the question is, what percentage of the building's power is that, 10%?, 1%? Just curious.
In the US we already do a lot of on line buying. The problem is our politicians now think we do too much! They are trying to tax on line transactions to reimburse states so local stores can compete. In other words our politicians, (bi-partisan by the way), want us to go out and shop!
A lot of people complain about Wal-Mart decimating mom and pop stores, what do people think Amazon does! That's the dilemma politicians are facing, people visit stores to check out an item then go home and order it on line at a lower price and much of the time tax free to boot. At least Wal-Mart generates local jobs, Amazon does not, (except perhaps more UPS drivers!).
Back to nuclear, I'm one of those who simply does not trust nuclear energy. I have not researched gen 4 designs, but unless I'm mistaken all major nuclear accidents have not been equipment errors, they've been human errors. As one article quipped, the problem with making things idiot proof is idiots are so damn creative! :<)
Long term I think renewables and hydrogen are the future, as well as local generation, I'd rather money be put to that. Perhaps it's the moderate in me but I don't think a couple of decades one way or the other will make a difference in the environment.
If it takes a decade to get a nuke built, how cheap will solar panels, wind turbines, hydrogen creation/generation be by then? I could install solar, micro wind, and a home hydrogen refuel station in a couple of weeks, not a decade, and I could do it myself, no multi million dollar environmental impact statement required, no massive demonstrations, no multi million dollar law suits, (except perhaps from the local utilities!).
#40
Posted 31 May 2013 - 08:52 AM
Phil, on 31 May 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:
Back to nuclear, I'm one of those who simply does not trust nuclear energy. I have not researched gen 4 designs, but unless I'm mistaken all major nuclear accidents have not been equipment errors, they've been human errors.
Bhopal
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Piper_Alpha
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
