We're Not Getting Ahead of the Energy Conservation Curve

[Wayneb]

Originally Posted by Philip T

But btw, I agree the existing Nukes are outdated. But even any new designs look like the products of some rather limited minds. Let's face it, the "best and brightest" of Engineering Land are not exactly drawn to Happy Nuke Land. Probably not as bad as the dim bulbs of Hazardous Waste, but we are not talking about the Talented and Gifted crew, right?

Give me a break, we had better pant designs years ago but the research was shut down by short sighted people. Nuclear power shows lots of potential and that is why even Bill Gates is putting his money behind it.
TerraPower Home
TerraPower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

Give me a break, we had better pant designs years ago but the research was shut down by short sighted people. Nuclear power shows lots of potential and that is why even Bill Gates is putting his money behind it.
TerraPower Home
TerraPower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hmmm, do you understand why this is kind of . . . . goofy?

This is pie-in-sky, not even to be built for a decade stuff. And even if built, STILL leaves behind a stinking, steaming pile of radioactive goo for . . . . somebody else (right?) . . . to clean up.

What kind of dirtbag would think THAT was actually a good idea? And why?

And citing Bill Gates' involvement is not quite the good thing you expect either -- his main product skill was ripping off other folks work and making money on it.

Meanwhile some folks with some real wits and brains are doing much better things in the real world, in real time. Here is a sample story of some of Google's (they are smart folks, right?) real world, real work >>>

Google Invests in World's Largest Solar Power Tower Plant

[RememberMee]

Less Energy Per Unit of X = More Units X are consumed = More Energy Consumed. It doesn't look like technology can do a trick without major social, economical, political, etc. adjustments.

[Wayneb]

Originally Posted by Philip T

hmmm, do you understand why this is kind of . . . . goofy?

This is pie-in-sky, not even to be built for a decade stuff. And even if built, STILL leaves behind a stinking, steaming pile of radioactive goo for . . . . somebody else (right?) . . . to clean up.

What kind of dirtbag would think THAT was actually a good idea? And why?

And citing Bill Gates' involvement is not quite the good thing you expect either -- his main product skill was ripping off other folks work and making money on it.

Meanwhile some folks with some real wits and brains are doing much better things in the real world, in real time. Here is a sample story of some of Google's (they are smart folks, right?) real world, real work >>>

Google Invests in World's Largest Solar Power Tower Plant

If you read the links I posted, you would know that some extremely intelligent people are behind this project, calling people dirtbags does not make your points valid.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

If you read the links I posted, you would know that some extremely intelligent people are behind this project, calling people dirtbags does not make your points valid.

Yes, I did read it. That was how I was aware that it does not even exist in any functional state -- and will not for a decade or more. It is not "real." Do you follow that?

But as far as intelligent and dirtbags . . . these clowns (is that better?) are proposing to create MORE mess when they have no idea how to clean up the existing messes, let alone the additional mess they wish to create.

Is not dumping your mess on other people being a dirtbag? What term would you wish to place upon this behavior? Greedy, Selfish, or what?

But let's say they are extremely intelligent as you say -- does not that even make this behavior worse? If they were dumb or had no knowledge of the mess they are proposing creating more of -- perhaps they could be educated.

Some backgrounder on Nuke Waste . . . .

Into Eternity The Movie - Nuclear Facts

[Wayneb]

These dirtbags and clowns as you call them are working to create a better power plant. The amount of electricity used will sky rocket if we all switched to electric cars and we will need to generate massive amounts of electricity to charge them.
The average American driver drives over 13,000 mies a year, a Nissan Leaf uses 34kwh for every 100 miles driven, of course you realize it takes more than 34KWH from the grid to put that 34KWH of power in the batteries. Most people will want to charge their cars at night, while Solar thermal power plants can store some energy for after the sun goes down, they can't deliver full power all night long. In the winter the solar plants make less power and you can't depend on wind to always be blowing either.
The current Nuclear power plants we are using don't use up the fuel and the waste from the current power plants can be used in fast breeder reactors, the volume of waste will get smaller if we use the fuel in more efficient power plants. We were working on building these designs but the reserch plants were shut down even though they worked great.
The Truth About Energy

We have some very bright people working on better power pant designs to deliver the massive amounts of power we will need and all you can do is make childish insults.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

These dirtbags and clowns as you call them are working to create a better power plant. . . . .

. . . AND if by "better" that included methods that did not put everyone downwind at risk and leave following generations a wasteland legacy to clean up . . . I would not be calling them dirtbags and clowns.

BUT that is not the case, is it? At the end of the day, it is STILL a big steaming pile of crap -- for somebody, somebody, somebody ELSE to clean up.

If that is not a dirtbag, what is?

The amount of electricity used will sky rocket if we all switched to electric cars and we will need to generate massive amounts of electricity to charge them.

OK. You are either in PR from the industry, OR do not actually know anything about the industry -- I have got that correct?

An electric ground vehicle "switch out" will take about 20 to 40 years to transition fully, and if our starting point is about now . . . the US is already awash in surplus generation capacity. We would not have to build ANY new plants for a couple years or more, just taking up the surplus. Beyond that just bringing on new Renewables can handle all the new load, as well as picking up the existing.

The average American driver drives over 13,000 mies a year, a Nissan Leaf uses 34kwh for every 100 miles driven, of course you realize it takes more than 34KWH from the grid to put that 34KWH of power in the batteries.

Really stuck on that battery thing, huh? But still on load estimates we tend to use some bigger numbers than that.

Most people will want to charge their cars at night,

Where do you get that from? Most folks we talk to (actually in the biz, yunno) want to be able to charge them at work. One of the more common questions we get from businesses is if a Solar PV parking canopy could carry the load of their vehicles (see, again -- America really, Really, REALLY does not want more Nukes).

But again with the charging and battery thing. Do not know where all this is heading, do you? Batteries and Park-and-Charge are not it. I can go over those details, if you want, but my impression is you do not actually want to learn this topic?

while Solar thermal power plants can store some energy for after the sun goes down, they can't deliver full power all night long.

They do not need to. Again, with the actually knowing the industry and the use patterns, and overall grid loading . . . the grid is already very surplus -- all night, every night -- we really really really do not need any more night time power for some years to come. All the serious demand is in the day, and by all accounts likely to stay that way.

In the winter the solar plants make less power and you can't depend on wind to always be blowing either.

In the winter, Solar PV plants make more. A lot more. It is a colder temperature thing with the physics thingy stuffy such. Turns out to be a really good balance.

The current Nuclear power plants we are using don't use up the fuel and the waste from the current power plants can be used in fast breeder reactors, the volume of waste will get smaller if we use the fuel in more efficient power plants.

The more that is built, the bigger the mess becomes. Every downstream component, part and site all becomes an additional risk and additional source of various level of waste.

We were working on building these designs but the reserch plants were shut down even though they worked great.

The Truth About Energy

That is not you, is it? Just asking.

We have some very bright people working on better power pant designs to deliver the massive amounts of power we will need and all you can do is make childish insults.

There are already plenty of Massive Central Power plants and are way surplus in the baseload power they deliver. More Nukes is just massive redundancy.

But when I see you say "we" do mean that is you? I know it does not include me. So if that we is you . . . let me ask a direct question about all that --

Why do you really want to make a mess that you can know in advance you have no way to clean up and do not intend to?