NRG says planned nuclear reactors are in doubt...

[Mormon Red Death]

Why not skip the kites completely and build geosynchronous satellites with enormous solar arrays, and use those to beam power directly to a ground station?

While theoretically possible, I don't know that they are yet capable of transmitting more than a few kW, and higher energy levels would mean beams with higher energy.

That energy can be transmitted through microwaves is a known fact. The Soviet Mig 25 was allegedly able to instantly "cook" a rabbit at 1km by turning the radar on while on the ground (turning it on while the plane was on the ground was prosecuted as a felony).

I know this much about microwave power transmission -> "0.00000001" (very little)

Yeah iread about that In popular science

Sent from my T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide using Tapatalk

[Moliere]

They are so enormously profitable that the employee cost is minimal. The nuc operating companies also are directly funding Yucca Mtn, completely without any federal dollars.

Ironically a few of the biggest nuclear plant operators merely purchased the assets of bankrupted or financially troubled electrical power companies for a song, and now run them far better than ever.

When it comes to producing power, profitability shouldn't be the most important factor. I agree though that after the nuclear plant is built it is much easier to maintain.

I used to work at Questar when I was in school (I WISH I had purchased stock when I was there...GRRR!). For a while there was a big push to run cars directly on hydrogen, converted directly from natural gas.

Besides making each car a potential bomb*, the total expected energy output was quite a bit less than if the cars burned the CNG directly. Plus, CNG cars are already on the market!


*the explosions at the Fukushima plants were all hydrogen explosions.

A potential bomb? You've seen too many action movies.

[RobinFinderson]

Tethered turbines... flywheels... smart stuff.... more smart stuff... Howzat?

No doubt about the weight of cable! Last summer I built a garage that had some distance from the main breaker box, and I needed to wire it for 220 with the possibility of pulling a full 100 amps. I was laying some thick cable, and that stuff is HEAVY. So, to address your point about the weight of the cable, my understanding is that there is fairly serviceable wind in many place as low as 400 feet, and that there is a LOT of serviceable wind at 1000 feet. So you tether the thing to the ground and anchor it in the sky with a balloon, and you keep the weight low and you don't operate very high in the sky. Systems that tap from the eternal storm up in the jet stream have their generator on the ground, as you described.

As far as flywheels go, they wouldn't be individually attached to turbines, or set aloft in the kites. There would be a flywheel facility storing excess capacity from a wind farm. It would house many flywheels, underground (so they wouldn't 'get away'), and serve as a big kinetic 'battery.' As far as the energy requirements for maintaining the vacuum, well I have no idea what that would be, but if the casing where sealed and engineered to withstand the vacuum pressure, how much energy would it really take?

[NorthwestUteFan]

When it comes to producing power, profitability shouldn't be the most important factor. I agree though that after the nuclear plant is built it is much easier to maintain.

After safety and environmental considerations, profitability is at the forefront. Otherwise the energy company needs some highly competent lobbyists to secure government monies.

A potential bomb? You've seen too many action movies.

I threw that in as a bit of a joke.

All seals will eventually leak Hydrogen, it really can't be contained because it is too small. Hydrogen also dissipates very rapidly, unless it is contained within a space. I wouldn't keep a hydrogen-fueled car in the garage, for example.

The stoichiometric range for hydrogen is extraordinarily broad; it is flammable in concentrations of something like 5% to 95%.

No doubt about the weight of cable! Last summer I built a garage that had some distance from the main breaker box, and I needed to wire it for 220 with the possibility of pulling a full 100 amps. I was laying some thick cable, and that stuff is HEAVY. So, to address your point about the weight of the cable, my understanding is that there is fairly serviceable wind in many place as low as 400 feet, and that there is a LOT of serviceable wind at 1000 feet. So you tether the thing to the ground and anchor it in the sky with a balloon, and you keep the weight low and you don't operate very high in the sky. Systems that tap from the eternal storm up in the jet stream have their generator on the ground, as you described.

As far as flywheels go, they wouldn't be individually attached to turbines, or set aloft in the kites. There would be a flywheel facility storing excess capacity from a wind farm. It would house many flywheels, underground (so they wouldn't 'get away'), and serve as a big kinetic 'battery.' As far as the energy requirements for maintaining the vacuum, well I have no idea what that would be, but if the casing where sealed and engineered to withstand the vacuum pressure, how much energy would it really take?

Vacuum chambers will leak, but the vacuum pumps do not need to run continually.

I still see the array of flywheels as providing more of a short term capacitance than a long-term energy source. I do not think such a facility could operate without an external power source.

I enjoy the discussion however. Also I do not think we humans should stop researching these ideas, because they may very well be workable given a few technological advances.

Concepts like these are interesting to ponder. I appreciate the input, and the and am appreciative you all let me download. It helps me process the info.

[Moliere]

I was laying some thick cable, and that stuff is HEAVY.

:flush:

[Uncle Ted]

No surprise here... Most americans are dumb about nuclear power.

* Over half (53 percent) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

[...]

* Seventy-six percent of Americans say they are now "more supportive than ... a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."

[...]

* Nearly six out of 10 (58 percent) Americans are now "less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States" than they were a month ago. Only about one in seven Americans (14 percent) said their views had not been changed by the Japanese reactor crisis.

* Fewer than half (46 percent) of Americans would "support more nuclear power reactors in the United States" and 44 percent now oppose new reactors. That support level is down by more than 25 percent from the most recent March 2010 Gallup Poll showing 62 percent support for nuclear power.

* Over half (51 percent) of Americans would support "a halt to the United States extending the operating lifespan of its oldest nuclear reactors."

* Ninety-two percent of Americans are "following news about the nuclear reactor crisis and related disaster in Japan."

In other news, the Brits still support building new nuclear power plants...

More Britons support the building of new nuclear power stations than oppose it, despite the crisis at Japan's Fukushima plant, an opinion poll says.

[...]

Since the problems at Fukushima emerged, ministers have declared that the UK must "learn the lessons", with Energy Secretary Chris Huhne calling for a safety review of UK installations - a process that will be supplemented by the programme of stress tests just agreed at EU level.

But the government has also been at pains to point out that the UK does not have reactors of the type used at Fukushima, nor does it sit on a seismically active zone.

More than 51,000 people have died in coal mining accidents in Pennsylvania alone (not to mention the thousands that die every year due to breathing the coal ash). (Side note: Utah gets over 90% of its power from burning coal.) How many people have been killed by nuclear power?

[Pheidippides]

No surprise here... Most americans are dumb about nuclear power.



In other news, the Brits still support building new nuclear power plants...



More than 51,000 people have died in coal mining accidents in Pennsylvania alone (not to mention the thousands that die every year due to breathing the coal ash). (Side note: Utah gets over 90% of its power from burning coal.) How many people have been killed by nuclear power?

I keep laughing as I read that bit on solar power. Lol.

[Moliere]

I keep laughing as I read that bit on solar power. Lol.

I may have posted this before but if not...well who cares here goes.

My company (well not my company but you get the idea....although I own some stock) bid on a solar project up in the northern regions of America. The economics of the project were so out of whack that 1/3 of the total cost of the project had to be subsidized along with a guaranteed power rate locked in 3 times the going rate for normal power.

Solar is a great source of energy for some things (solar panels on equipment/flashing signs/etc.) out in BFE but absent some remarkable improvement in technologies they shouldn't really be considered in the realm of alternative energy. I don't mind pumping some money into R&D for advancing solar technology, but it is laughable when people think it's viable right now.

[Pheidippides]

I may have posted this before but if not...well who cares here goes.

My company (well not my company but you get the idea....although I own some stock) bid on a solar project up in the northern regions of America. The economics of the project were so out of whack that 1/3 of the total cost of the project had to be subsidized along with a guaranteed power rate locked in 3 times the going rate for normal power.

Solar is a great source of energy for some things (solar panels on equipment/flashing signs/etc.) out in BFE but absent some remarkable improvement in technologies they shouldn't really be considered in the realm of alternative energy. I don't mind pumping some money into R&D for advancing solar technology, but it is laughable when people think it's viable right now.

Yeah.

I'm an oil and gas shill right now, but until 6 months ago I was a power industry financing guy, with a specific focus on alternative energy like wind and solar. With current technology the areas of the country - nay, the world - where solar is viable are very, very small. There are some neat developments and more efficient solar cells and such that may be on the horizon, and I think R&D is a good idea, but it's a nice footnote at best right now and for the foreseeable future.