Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Any given system does not have to work everywhere, merely in most areas -- and renewables do that. btw, Shading for a house is good thing, energy wise. Tends to cut down summer cooling loads.
Most of the systems we design and build do not go on house roofs, like you may be thinking. Most shingled roofs are only warranted 15 to 25 years, and have been on the building for at least a few years before we arrive. Our solar PV modules/panels have warranties of 25 years, and last years beyond that, so it does not make sense to put them over old shingle roofs.
There are also issues of potential leaks, wind loads and grounding that make it much more attractive to place ground mount systems.
By doing ground mounts we can optimize land use, avoid shadows, and get perfect Southern orientation. Some of the ground mounts wind up as elevated structures and folks use the windload rated structure underneath as the framework for carports, barns, and picnic structures.
But for areas where we do roof mounts -- like in cities, like San Antonio where land use it tight, we study the layouts and optimize for what is. Nice thing about further North in the Snow Belt, the higher tilt of the panels (higher latitude and all) helps keep snow a lesser issue.
If US Big Industrial bodes the future of US Central Plant Modeling . . . Central Plant Model is in more trouble and even quicker that I would have said.
As far as "here to stay," Sure, Sure. Sort of like landline phones, horses, VCRs, 8-track tapes . . . All of those are still around.
Not saying that the existing Central Plants do not have a purpose, especially for carrying the Base Load as they are slowly displaced across the next 20 to 40 years.
Just does not make any sense to build any more Central Plants -- whether Coal or Nukes. Central Plant had its day, and that day is passing. Just let it die and be gone. No real loss there, at all.
Want to take bets on whether Centralized Power plants are displaced by point sources within even 50 years?
I predict never.....especially with Fusion Power beginning to "mature".
I live in Florida, believe me I appreciate shade trees, however along the West Coast it is very dry and getting drier each year.
Trees here seem far and few between with municipalities continually cutting them down and replacing them with Palm "trees"....i.e........."Q-Tips" as I lovingly call them.
Want to take bets on whether Centralized Power plants are displaced by point sources within even 50 years?
That might be a bet you would live to regret. But no so much for me. Already 50 and may not see the next 50. Just hoping to leave Planet Dumb a little bit better than we found it.
Quote:
I predict never.....especially with Fusion Power beginning to "mature".
LOL. Beam Me Up, Scotty! Beginning to mature? There is not even a fully working model, yet. btw, Fusion has been already working for us for some billion years. It is called the Sun and it comes up every morning.
It is really just a money thing. IF Central Plants could make power for free (they cannot, but even if), but by the time the transmission and distribution costs get added in, local renewables are heading towards being able to beat them. How can you go less than zero?
Quote:
I live in Florida, believe me I appreciate shade trees, however along the West Coast it is very dry and getting drier each year.
Trees here seem far and few between with municipalities continually cutting them down and replacing them with Palm "trees"....i.e........."Q-Tips" as I lovingly call them.
Lived down closer to the Keys, myself. That was some long years ago. I recall plenty of trees, but mostly lots of flat, flat area, and water. Pretty good Solar turf, thinking back.
Yunno Solar Distillation is sort of a natural for most of Florida. You speaking of water gets me thinking -- why the obsession with Industrial High Energy Reverse Osmosis for water on the Gulf Coast?
No one ever answered the question of using clean 'microwave' energy to heat water, instead of platonium or uranium...
Can it be done??
Ok. Yes. Microwaves (and other frequency waves) can heat water.
This is not generally used as it takes energy to produce the microwaves. The energy consumed in generating the microwaves is more than the energy produced in heating the water (and guessing you propose it to become steam to turn a turbine?).
Every step has a loss in the conversion.
By the time the cycle is done -- there will be a significant net loss in energy out v. energy in.
In some circles this is called entropy, in others, the second law of thermodynamics. If it were a business, we would say it was money loser and not profitable.
But anyway you look at it, such a system comes out with less than put in to it.
I don't know whether that already exists but, what about a "in-ground buried sensor" located near Nuclear plants in order to detect earthquakes and automatically turn the plant off?
Other question(more complicated) I have. Does anyone has a comparative measure among all kinds of energy making plants? Which one worths more(considering it as amount of energy produced per hour)?
Yes.....to your first question. It was the tsunami's wave height that damaged the Japanese reactors; there was essentially no direct earthquake damage to the reactors.
It depends on the type or generation of reactor. New United States reactors will be Generation III+ and some Chinese reactors are supposedly going to use Generation IV Technology.
Hydroelectric Power is the "cheapest" form of power generation, followed by Nuclear Power.......however most sources of hydro power are already utilized.
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 05-23-2011 at 02:27 AM..
But, in response to your answer, could indeed large microves be used to boil water, and achieve the same affect as nuclear plants with no 'waste'...
Is that a break through idea?, or just way off the mark??
It would be difficult to scale up a Microwave emitter to the power levels necessary to boil that amount of water to produce the "average" 1,000 megawatts electrical output of a centralized power plant.
The process of generating steam to run turbines to produce electricity is at best approximately 33% efficient.....most of the inherent energy is "lost" as excess heat production.
That is why we "burn" coal/oil/natural gas/nuclear fuel etc..... to generate the necessary heat to boil the water.
It would take more electricity to power the microwave emitter than you would get back from the process; since at least 66% of the power would be lost as unusable heat energy as you ran the turbines......and you are using electricity to run the emitter which already had a 66% net heat energy loss to produce in the first place.
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 05-23-2011 at 06:30 AM..
That might be a bet you would live to regret. But no so much for me. Already 50 and may not see the next 50. Just hoping to leave Planet Dumb a little bit better than we found it.
LOL. Beam Me Up, Scotty! Beginning to mature? There is not even a fully working model, yet. btw, Fusion has been already working for us for some billion years. It is called the Sun and it comes up every morning.
It is really just a money thing. IF Central Plants could make power for free (they cannot, but even if), but by the time the transmission and distribution costs get added in, local renewables are heading towards being able to beat them. How can you go less than zero?
Lived down closer to the Keys, myself. That was some long years ago. I recall plenty of trees, but mostly lots of flat, flat area, and water. Pretty good Solar turf, thinking back.
Yunno Solar Distillation is sort of a natural for most of Florida. You speaking of water gets me thinking -- why the obsession with Industrial High Energy Reverse Osmosis for water on the Gulf Coast?
Really I never knew the Sun was in essence a "balanced" thermonuclear explosion......oh please educate me more....I'm dumfounded.
Perhaps If you took the time to read the Fusion links you'd "think" a little differently....ITER will be finished soon and we do have "working models" of the process...I never said they were commercially viable YET!
Since you have a vested economic interest in decentralized power and specifically solar power I find it difficult to believe that your posts are not biased for monetary gain.
It's a desert here.....desertification is accelerating in the years I've lived in Florida. There is not enough above ground fresh water for the excessive population growth recently experienced.
Underground Aquifers are nearly maxed out since they are not recharged with rainwater and salt water intrusion is rampant. But you'd already know that living in Florida?????
Radioactive brine contaminates what aquifers are still viable and reverse osmosis is the best and most economical way to eliminate these contaminants.
Solar distillallation.......ROFL>>>>>> You'll be "glowing in the dark."
And may I remind YOU......the thread is about Nuclear Reactors....how they function and may fail........NOT solar power infomercial plugs.
Feel free to start your own thread on the subject but cease trying to derail my thread!
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 05-23-2011 at 06:34 AM..
That might be a bet you would live to regret. But no so much for me. Already 50 and may not see the next 50. Just hoping to leave Planet Dumb a little bit better than we found it.
LOL. Beam Me Up, Scotty! Beginning to mature? There is not even a fully working model, yet. btw, Fusion has been already working for us for some billion years. It is called the Sun and it comes up every morning.
It is really just a money thing. IF Central Plants could make power for free (they cannot, but even if), but by the time the transmission and distribution costs get added in, local renewables are heading towards being able to beat them. How can you go less than zero?
Lived down closer to the Keys, myself. That was some long years ago. I recall plenty of trees, but mostly lots of flat, flat area, and water. Pretty good Solar turf, thinking back.
Yunno Solar Distillation is sort of a natural for most of Florida. You speaking of water gets me thinking -- why the obsession with Industrial High Energy Reverse Osmosis for water on the Gulf Coast?
I'm 50 also..........So I expect my designee to collect the bet.
As for the rest of your snarky post....."So much to learn; so little time"!
Really I never knew the Sun was in essence a "balanced" thermonuclear explosion......oh please educate me more....I'm dumfounded.
Perhaps If you took the time to read the Fusion links you'd "think" a little differently....ITER will be finished soon and we do have "working models" of the process...I never said they were commercially viable YET!
I did read it. And reality being what it is, it is not likely to be practical in our lifetime. That is why I am calling it pie-in-the-sky, by-and-by. Not a big deal, but that is just the way things are.
Like flying cars, and flying jet packs to work -- we know they they exist -- we all watched the James Bond movies -- but as far as "being reduced to common practice," the basis of practical, they are not.
Quote:
Since you have a vested economic interest in decentralized power and specifically solar power I find it difficult to believe that your posts are not biased for monetary gain.
Not so much as one may think. Solar is the poor payer of the mix -- from my side of things. Petrochem and Nukes pay about double and Coal and Gas pay about 1 and 1/2 times as much as Solar tends to.
Presently I have a Nuke company wanting a sensor array system. I have actively avoided Nukes, but may do the sensor array as it is more about containment than creation of more mess.
I have worked most of the energy field, and I selected Solar and Renewables as there is actually a future in them -- that does not involve Home Invasion Robbery of other lands, or leaving toxic piles of crap for other folks to clean up.
It is mostly an "I have kids" things, and more an interest in legacy rather turning a quick buck. Dunno if that makes sense to folks that have not looked at things in other than Dollar and Cents?
But under the Dollars and Cents heading? No answer as to how to cover the higher cost of Transmission and Distribution (from Central) v. Distributed Generation?
Quote:
It's a desert here.....desertification is accelerating in the years I've lived in Florida. There is not enough above ground fresh water for the excessive population growth recently experienced.
Underground Aquifers are nearly maxed out since they are not recharged with rainwater and salt water intrusion is rampant. But you'd already know that living in Florida?????
I have been out of Florida for over 20 years. Just sort of fond memories at this point. But, yes I have tracked that. And dealt some with Daewoo on the related equipment. That was why I was wondering why Tampa was heading down the heavy energy consumption path of reverse osmosis.
Quote:
Radioactive brine contaminates what aquifers are still viable and reverse osmosis is the best and most economical way to eliminate these contaminants.
Does this pattern you are describing not seem like a path to failure? Pump and pump the viable ones until they are destroyed, as well? You are a smart guy, consider for just a second in the light of that legacy thingy I was talking about, above. This cannot seem like a sensible plan or path, does it?
Quote:
Solar distillallation.......ROFL>>>>>> You'll be "glowing in the dark."
Are you actually knowledgeable about the topic? Asking because we have been tasked with some remote island applications for possible Solar Distillation. Their present leading methods are shipping in fresh water and Diesel driven Reverse Osmosis. Both pretty ugly on the energy and money side of things.
For the Solar Distillation, we are looking at a two pass system of low temp and high temp thresholds pick-off points -- sort of the model from refinery land. That appears to pick off and clear most everything other than fully formed H2O molecules -- but if you have any insights or considerations along those lines it would be VERY welcome. Thanks in Advance on that.
You know, thinking back to the Keys and those years ago, some folks had some serious rainwater collection systems. But I suppose that would have radioactive risk, as well now, what with Fuku and all. Are you sure you are on the right side of the legacy thingy?
Quote:
And may I remind YOU......the thread is about Nuclear Reactors....how they function and may fail........NOT solar power infomercial plugs.
Feel free to start your own thread on the subject but cease trying to derail my thread!
Sure, sure. I had followed "your" thread with some interest. Along with Arnie Gunderson (you are familiar?) in the wake of the Fuku Meltdown(s).
I only entered after I read what appeared to directly false information in the thread -- which I do note was not by you, but others. But focusing back on Nukes, per your request -- If they are so great -- Why are they always presented with false sales (dis) information?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sort of like landline phones, horses, VCRs, 8-track tapes . . . 
