Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

If that's what you think, then good for you.
Go in peace.

Naturally

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Windguy

Instead of just electrical storage, electrical usage can be enhanced. How you would do that is certain plug outlets in peoples houses only switch on when there is plenty of electricity from windy or sunny day.

OK you go first ,plug your PC into a wind powered socket and lets see how you get along.

An idea is for electric cars to be plugged into these sockets until one hour before they are needed are transfered to the base loading power. Everything can be done electronically so you don't need two positive and two negative lines to each house.

So do I pin up a notice " all emergency use of the car requires one hours notice,heart attacks must be planned in advance"

how about a battery backup refridgerator where if it drops below a certain temperature it may use base power, otherwise it uses excess power,

why no to the job properly? I use a small fridge for milk etc, a small freezer for weekly use and a whopper with extra insulating panels stuck on the outside for longer term storage of my home produced stuff.This big one ,along with the dishwasher,washing machine and dryer plus chargers for various tools,uses night rate power for which we pay 1/3 the price of peak time power.Beats sodding windmills hands down.No, I dont want a wind powered freezer thank you so much.you want that i should get food-poisoning?

What I would like is a walk in freezer and handling room and maybe a nice biodiesel genny

[Windguy]

You shitting on my veranda nun!!, I've just cleaned your last mess.

[screener]

One of the former leaders of greenpeace, mr patrick moore has bestowed upon BC the effluviant of his opinions again, a couple of months ago he was here promoting coal fired generation at a coal company meeting, most recently, since his advocacy of nuclear in California, he has been pushing for the flood destruction of the Peace River Valley here in BC by hydroelectric dam. There must be no end to the people who want to hear him say what they want him to say.

This same section of the Peace River was studied relatively thoroughly in the seventies and went through a year long environmental, socio-economic, financial, supply/demand analysis Hearing, and was found to be not in the public interest in the early eighties.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Windguy

You shitting on my veranda nun!!, I've just cleaned your last mess.

Come on Windy,even a direct descendant of Irish sheep rustlers can see that a big freezer on the night tarriff is better than a windmill lurking in the shadows

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by prashamk

@ Wobs - While I fully agree on your point that Nuclear is almost Zero Emisson (conditions applied) & reliable energy source, main problem here is waste treatment and safety.

This technology is successfully being used by few countries around the world but I can't imagine enough possibilities if uranium/thorium falls into hands of some of "terrorists countries"

In india few decades ago in a city named bhopal, a Union Carbide subsidiary pesticide plant released / leaked 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, killing approximately 3,800 people (many more people are still affected by the same) More at..Bhopal disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the same happens with nuclear power plant results might be much more far reaching.

Hi prashank.
I remember the Bhopal incident, and its since been one of the standard incidents that are discussed when looking at major industrial incidents. A truly horrific incident that, just like most other accident of its type, was avoidable.

We've seen with Chernobyl that a nuclear accident could be bad, although less people died from that than died from Bhopal. However, the likelyhood of it actually happening is so low as to be insignificent. The consequences projected by anti-nuclear protestors is always greatly exaggerated, and modern designs are simplar, and with passive safety systems.

I've seen first hand how major industrial installations can clean up their act, and with the right combination on market incentives, and legislation, such installations can be run extremely safely.

The disposal of nuclear waste is not really an issue these days, as the ability to safely dispose of it has been worked out, and the volumes are easily managed. Some countries may have issues with their own management of, but this is where a global authority on the issue would have greater use.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Hi prashank.
I remember the Bhopal incident, and its since been one of the standard incidents that are discussed when looking at major industrial incidents. A truly horrific incident that, just like most other accident of its type, was avoidable.

We've seen with Chernobyl that a nuclear accident could be bad, although less people died from that than died from Bhopal. However, the likelyhood of it actually happening is so low as to be insignificent. The consequences projected by anti-nuclear protestors is always greatly exaggerated, and modern designs are simplar, and with passive safety systems.

I've seen first hand how major industrial installations can clean up their act, and with the right combination on market incentives, and legislation, such installations can be run extremely safely.

The disposal of nuclear waste is not really an issue these days, as the ability to safely dispose of it has been worked out, and the volumes are easily managed. Some countries may have issues with their own management of, but this is where a global authority on the issue would have greater use.

prashank, you seem like an educated and reasonable man and I suspect you fully appreciate that the likelihood of error of anything also needs to be viewed in context of the significance of error when it occurs and when someone uses the word "always" when describing something subjective, one has to interpret that for what it is. i.e. likely improbable.

For example, man has worked out how to launch a vehicles into space, yet it's still an exacting process with potential significant consequence in the event of error, all be it a low likelihood of error. Risk of error and consequence of error have to be considered not only singularly, but also as a whole in the evaluation process of high value technology, especially if the consequence is significant.

For further example, one might say that the risk of nuclear war is low, but the consequence is extremely high. In evaluating which nations should hold nuclear weapons, this might be a consideration worth making, even by super powers, when international conflict emerges from time to time. Other technologies may have a higher risk of critical failure, but a lower consequential risk. Just something to bear in mind.

The reality is that the whole world can't be driven by nuclear energy for a whole range of reasons. It thus pointless having nuclear energy or any other single form of energy being seen as a complete answer to the worlds energy problems, because it clearly isn't. The reality is that the world will be dependant on a whole range of energy solutions well into the future. i.e. All technologies that we currently have and all that's being developed. All indications are, that renewable energy of varying forms will play an increasing role in this mix of global energy solutions.

Long term sustainability is a driving factor in the whole energy debate. We cant wait another 100 years and have nowhere to go when we get there. Thus aggressive development of renewable energy technology over the next 50 years seems likely to be critical to the sustainability of mans longer term future and it might take another 20 to 30 years to really evolve renewable energy to a point where its potential benefit can be more fully realized. However, we do have to make a start sooner rather than later, and fortunately I may add, that does now appear to be happening. Often be the case though, fast is never fast enough.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The reality is that the whole world can't be driven by nuclear energy for a whole range of reasons. It thus pointless having nuclear energy or any other single form of energy being seen as a complete answer to the worlds energy problems, because it clearly isn't.

Who said that we need to power the world purely by nuclear? You've said that before (and others have as well), with no one claiming that we should. I'm puzzled why someone would make such statements when they are not needed.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Who said that we need to power the world purely by nuclear? You've said that before (and others have as well), with no one claiming that we should. I'm puzzled why someone would make such statements when they are not needed.

I didn't realize I used the phrase "purely by nuclear" in this thread. I interpreted prashank's initial remarks about nuclear as generic in a global context, as I interpreted your remarks in that same context and thus as were my remarks in reference to the whole world in that same context. Conversely, one could form an analogous observation about peoples views expressed when discussing other forms of energy or other topics in general. I don't really see that as concerning issue, but if it is, I suspect it applies across the board.

[Besoeker]

[quote=LMagic007;241664]
The market for electric energy storage worth $2.6 billion in 2008 news on the Electrical news magazine

The electric energy storage (EES) core storage technologies of pumped hydro storage, compressed air energy storage, lead-acid batteries, sodium sulfur batteries, vanadium redox flow batteries, flywheels, superconducting magnetic energy storage and supercapacitors are positioned to make a significant impact over the next 5 years. These technologies can be deployed in various applications along the power chain including use in bulk generation, transmission and distribution, as well as providing enhanced services for the end user.

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I think the article is just a tad misleading.
The significant methods cited are not electrical energy storage.
Pumped hydro is the potential of mass at a height with the potential energy of force time distance (Nm) from which you can extract hydraulic power at a rate for which the system is designed.
Batteries store chemical energy of course, and flywheels kinetic energy: ½*I*ω^2
Capacitors, on the other hand, do store electrostatic energy. But that is somewhat limited in terms of practical output and, at this stage, not so good in terms of energy density.
A quick example from personal/professional experience. I'll try to keep it as non-technical as I can.
Energy storage/smoothing capacitors are for dc (aka polarised) and they have a limited life* so need to be replaced from time to time if the equipment in which they are installed is expected to be in operation for a longer period than the Lop of the capacitor.
Recently, we looked at one installation where the operational life of a bank of capacitors had been exceeded. The bank was rated at 44,000uF and 1,350Vdc. It might support the load without disruption for less than 0.01s.
Supercapacitors are typically less than
10uF and less than 3Vdc. Bulk generation capability would seem to be optimistic.

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I expect over the next few years, new standards might emerge for domestic electrical energy storage

Given that no standards currently exist and no practical means of electrical energy storage exists they'd have to be new.

*Cyclical life is one of the merits of supercapacitors. The other limitations would seem to negate that in terms of energy storage.