Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > basic engineering      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 37
view profile
History
basic engineering Page 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
Yes, fuel must be obtained, from ground or sea, but such fuel is more concentrated, meaning lower volume extracted AND lower volume of waste residue.

Terrestrial reserves of nuclear fuel are VAST, thousands of years worth, conservatively.

We can even mine coal waste to get it, already dug up.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Impractical? I think not- it would be imprudent NOT to extract these valuable elements for the greater good.
 Coyotefeller
Joined: 8/1/2005
Msg: 38
basic engineering
Posted: 8/25/2011 3:11:48 PM
Yes, if it's not a question Morals or Religious
or even anybody's security, I say go for it and
give every goat herder and Pirate a nuke plant
to play with !
Obviously sitting in your air conditioned house
and cooling the local nuke plant with your wast water
doesn't seem to help your forward thinking when
it comes to better the lives of people in deep dark
Africa.
I drove through Africa once back in the 70s so
I have seen a few things....life is hard and then
you die really means something in the more
arid parts believe me !
Since the creation of the UN and the push
for white man to get the hell out of Africa
and let those people be free or die ......everybody
there seems to be exploited and dying by their
own hand.
Nobody can do anything for the people there
in the horn of Africa because whatever you do
or try to do for them, it will be destroyed and seized
by the local War Lords !
Is amazing how the powerful can bleed the poor
people even when they have nothing left....but we
are learning what it feels like here too lately :)
 Adam228
Joined: 8/19/2011
Msg: 39
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/25/2011 6:54:52 PM
A noble idea, but in Africa access to water means access to power. Making water available to everyone in Africa would cause a diffusion of power and a political destabilization of the continent, with the areas of the country that had things like desalination plants ending up as the next wave of colonizers.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 40
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/25/2011 11:07:05 PM
"A noble idea, but in Africa access to water means access to power. Making water available to everyone in Africa would cause a diffusion of power and a political destabilization of the continent, with the areas of the country that had things like desalination plants ending up as the next wave of colonizers."-Adam228

Good GOD, man, how much more "destabilized" can Africa get? Abundant water and food should have the opposite effect, fewer squabbles over scarce necessities would develop. Would you care to explain your reasoning further, or re-evaluate it altogether?

We should let people perish of hunger and thirst to spare them the evils of colonialism?

Back before you were born, we tried to save villages by destroying them, in a little corner of Asia- it did not work out too well, as I recall.<img src=http://www.plentyoffish.com/smiles/icon_201.gif border=0>

Nice post, Paul.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/25/2011 11:44:01 PM
King Leopold of Belgium sent nothing but guns to Africa in return for a fortune in rubber- THAT was colonialism, and if you think that Europeans and other outsiders have abandoned that game you are mistaken.

This is a huge story with engineering components, many involve mining in particular.

Take care all, and goodnight.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/26/2011 6:09:47 AM


Aydin concluded the drop coincided with rapid natural gas production as the fuel became increasingly price competitive with oil and other fossil fuel, instead of flaring it off. The gains came even though overall fossil fuel use increased as cleaner burning technologies helped keep methane emissions in check, he said.
"We speculate that the rising economic value of natural gas during the late 20th Century and the deployment of cleaner technologies led to sharp reductions in the release of light hydrocarbons into the atmosphere," the study says.
Hey pup...... lets see if you can pick out the salient points...........Yes, technology IS your friend. Paul K


Got the salient points paulk. Natural gas production is good. Cow poop bad.

A bit ironic that you tout natural gas production as our salvation in a thread having to do with how to get water out of the ground and irrigate a dry continent. If Africans followed the US model of food production across their continent, they would drain their aquifers quickly, overload rivers and bays with nitrogen and phosphorus, kill their coastal fisheries with dead zones, pump billions of gallons into groundwater in desperation to get the declining natural gas deposits, and ramp up greenhouse gases, particularly more potent nitrogen oxides, 296 times more potent ghg than Co2, that stay in the atmosphere for 114 years compared to the 12 before methane breaks down into Co2.

The methane bomb that showed a temporary decline as conventional gas wells peaked, resumed again with the increased reliance on hydro-fracking. The Cornell study on the subject noted that up to 8% of the methane escapes into the atmosphere from hydro-fracking operations and groundwater contains 17 times the methane than non-fracked areas. The deep well injection of brine and fracking chemicals will ultimately migrate upwards to contaminate higher aquifers over time. Flaming tapwater is a warning that our desperation for natural gas is leading to extremely dirty energy production. Natural gas from fracking practices is even dirtier than coal, oil and nukes from an atmospheric standpoint.

The "green revolution" involves a dependence on natural gas, and by extension, fracking to make nitrogen fertilizers. As soils are abused by nutrient sucking crops, fertilization has to increase to maintian the delusion of abundance. The combination of saturating land with natural gas based chemical and mined fertizers and the water dependency of certain crops leads to that nitrogen and phosphorus overload of waters. The Gulf of Mexico dead zone is anticipated to reach record levels again as the massive nutrient flush from Missouri River flooding adds to the growing annual nutrient flush. There are 405 growing hypoxic zones around the world thus far.

While the ghg shell game is played out by various scientists, while methane levels in the atmosphere are at a 400,000 year peak, the worst is potentially yet to come as the melting permafrost carbon bomb is poised to go off along with seabed methane chimneys from receding ice cover in Siberia, the North American Artic, and western Anarctica, places warming faster than the rest of the earth.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2081
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/26/2011 4:48:26 PM
You are SURPRISED at such obtuseness?

Maybe you would enjoy this one, Paul:

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php

It is possible that the long-term strategy of the environmentalists is to get the world into such a state that ANY change, of climate or anything else, would constitute an improvement. Is the example set by USA agriculture being followed in Africa?

It would appear the reverse is true, with poor harvests from drought this year on the way.

Maybe we should clean up our own side of the street first.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/26/2011 5:34:14 PM
Agreed, but as with agricultural policy, general political corruption is an area we'd do better to clean up domestically first as well.

Regarding "biofuels" I think this is at least one subject that Mudpuppy, you, and I can all agree upon- monster subsidies to the agribusiness cartel because of government corruption at the expense of the taxpayers and end consumers is a poorly engineered idea at best.

If the drought is cyclical, it is in our interest and indeed our responsibility to recognize the pattern of the cycle and plan/act accordingly. As thinking beings we must NOT rely upon natural phenomena any more than necessary.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 45
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/26/2011 5:37:59 PM
"Natural gas from fracking practices is even dirtier than coal, oil and nukes from an atmospheric standpoint."-Mudpuppy

Then the answer, as Count Ibli and I have been pointing out, is nuclear power. Simple. Even YOU should be able to get it by now...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 46
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/27/2011 7:26:14 AM
Finally..a point of agreement Hibernian. An exceedingly small portion of our agricultural subsidies have ever gone to help the small farmer. Most of Ag policy was designed to winnow out the smaller operations and consolidate farming into Monsanto/Cargill/ADM dependent giant serfdoms. The corn supports were first put into place for the high fructose corn syrup scammers, then ethanol became popular again, and the Ag support money further consolidated money upward so that the food chain gang and the largest of farms got the lions share of our federal giveaway.

The entire biofuels/ethanol scheme is a sign of how corrupt the ag business has become in the US. It is exceedingly difficult to find an honest politician on the issues surrounding the biofuels scams. Part of the problem is that politicos MUST come up with some sort of "answer", some miracle, to get us out of the peak oil panick. Despite the billions thrown at the supremely rediculous and wasteful ethanol scheme, it has only served to make farming practices worse, driven fertilizer and farmland costs to soar in response, winnowed out yet more small farmers, driven food prices high,reduced car mileage, trashed out 2 cycle engines, and is depleting aquifers and increasing hypoxia in the Gulf, while oil imports have increased. These "solutions" are killing us financially, and literally killing those in the corn belt suffering from contaminated wells and pesticide drift.

The Western rootworm beetle is now resistent to GMO bt corn, wiping out vast areas of cropland, and Roundup Ready corn and soy are breeding superweeds further threatening crop productivity. Another major engineering fail.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/monsantos-superweeds-come-home-to-roost-11-mn-us-acres-infested/

There is evidence that the next generation of biofuels via switchgrass and miscanthus also threatens future food crop productivity as those grasses harbor viruses and pestilence that move on to affect other crops.

Another part of the "next gen" of biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, will come from massive rapid deforestation to make fuels out of forests. What remains of native forests are to be replaced with yet more unsustainable plantations, including GMO eucalyptus varieties that are giant water sucking sticks that will further exacerbate water issues.

With flooding and drought cycles becoming the new normal these days, it is going to be difficult to "grow" our way of of our food and fuel dilemmas.

While we have to disagree on your beloved dirty deadly nukes, and you can hate my warm and fuzzy luddite solar panels, maybe we can all lobby to end the rediculous, absurd non-solution of liquid fuels from biomass.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 47
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/27/2011 7:27:46 AM
Finally..a point of agreement Hibernian. An exceedingly small portion of our agricultural subsidies have ever gone to help the small farmer. Most of Ag policy was designed to winnow out the smaller operations and consolidate farming into Monsanto/Cargill/ADM dependent giant serfdoms. The corn supports were first put into place for the high fructose corn syrup scammers, then ethanol became popular again, and the Ag support money further consolidated money upward so that the food chain gang and the largest of farms got the lions share of our federal giveaway.

The entire biofuels/ethanol scheme is a sign of how corrupt the ag business has become in the US. It is exceedingly difficult to find an honest politician on the issues surrounding the biofuels scams. Part of the problem is that politicos MUST come up with some sort of "answer", some miracle, to get us out of the peak oil panick. Despite the billions thrown at the supremely rediculous and wasteful ethanol scheme, it has only served to make farming practices worse, driven fertilizer and farmland costs to soar in response, winnowed out yet more small farmers, driven food prices high,reduced car mileage, trashed out 2 cycle engines, and is depleting aquifers and increasing hypoxia in the Gulf, while oil imports have increased. These "solutions" are killing us financially, and literally killing those in the corn belt suffering from contaminated wells and pesticide drift.

The Western rootworm beetle is now resistent to GMO bt corn, wiping out vast areas of cropland, and Roundup Ready corn and soy are breeding superweeds further threatening crop productivity. Another major engineering fail.
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/10/27/monsantos-superweeds-come-home-to-roost-11-mn-us-acres-infested/

There is evidence that the next generation of biofuels via switchgrass and miscanthus also threatens future food crop productivity as those grasses harbor viruses and pestilence that move on to affect other crops.

Another part of the "next gen" of biofuels, cellulosic ethanol, will come from massive rapid deforestation to make fuels out of forests. What remains of native forests are to be replaced with yet more unsustainable plantations, including GMO eucalyptus varieties that are giant water sucking sticks that will further exacerbate water issues.

With flooding and drought cycles becoming the new normal these days, it is going to be difficult to "grow" our way of of our food and fuel dilemmas.

While we have to disagree on your beloved dirty deadly nukes, and you can hate my warm and fuzzy luddite solar panels, maybe we can all lobby to end the rediculous, absurd non-solution of liquid fuels from biomass.
 RichenLosAngeles
Joined: 11/14/2010
Msg: 48
basic engineering
Posted: 8/27/2011 10:05:24 AM
Puppy, doesn't our planet "make" carbon-based liquid and gaseous fuels? If nobody sucked them out and burned them, what would happen to all that "fuel"? it would be there, growing and collecting. Wouldn't there be massive explosions and fires as something sparks a tar pool and catches the feeding tributaries?
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 49
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 8/27/2011 10:39:40 PM
Yes and no, I think.

It is true that petroleum does become exposed to the planet's surface by natural means, geological faults and so on, some well-known examples are the bitumen pitch deposits found near the Dead Sea and the famous La Brea Tar Pits in southern California.

As far as I know, these rarely become ignited, but it is possible. Forest fires burn underground and there is some mining town in Pennsylvania, Centralia, where a coal bed fire is lingering now for decades. While this appears to be from an artificial source of ignition, it is perfectly plausible that a fire set by lightning in the woods above such a deposit of coal could have similar results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

Your inquiry reminds me of the Oklo Incident about 2 billion years ago in what is now Gabon, Africa, where a critical mass of uranium ore fissioned for about another billion years, producing radioactive geysers. This happened because a.)the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere allowed oxidation to more soluble uranyl ions, allowong them to collect in bodies of water, and b.)the ratio of U235 to U238 was higher, maybe 3%.

There is little danger of this sort of thing happening today, but it may reinforce my view that radioactive decay, like fire, can be dangerous but also can be usefully applied to improve the lot of human beings.
 Playing with Madness
Joined: 8/1/2010
Msg: 50
basic engineering
Posted: 9/2/2011 7:47:37 PM
Money, money, money. That's the answer.

Look, the technology is there just the interest has to be there. All we hear these days is the Keystone Pipe line that is going to extend 1700 miles and ship Oil from one side of North America to the other.

This is no different, all that has to be done is create a pipeline that is going to funnel water out of the ocean to water treatment plants, have the salt water purified and converted over to potable water and then piped to arid countries. It's simple on paper and expensive.

This will never happen though as too much infighting between countries and people. Until the world comes together like one big Beneton commercial, it is not feasible. Just a "pipe" dream.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 7:03:20 AM
"It's a political problem, not an engineering one. When your government is corrupt and more interested in grabbing as much wealth and power for themselves and their families as possible, it's kind of hard to find the funding for major engineering projects.

Why should they fund a project to feed 10,000 of their own people when they can add a 20th solid gold toilet to their palace?"- Alan1212

Funny, for some reason I was thinking about the trouble we are having funding NASA, but I understand Obama was able to put a basketball court in the White House- hmmmm, "our side of the street", again?

Could it be that these sorts of problems are NOT limited to Africa?
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 7:09:19 AM
"-abundant energy."-Wily Fox

Really?

How "abundant" is it at noon in January in Minnesota? How about midnight, anywhere?

Call me crazy, but I tend to need illumination and power when sunlight is LESS abundant, and like WOW, even when there is plenty sunlight here in Arizona, my electric bill goes UP.

OBVIOUSLY, I am missing something, can you explain, please?
 mountaindog65
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 53
basic engineering
Posted: 9/8/2011 11:39:31 PM
Part of the answer has been under construction for quite some time...

Although made unpopular by mainstream media and our inability or unwillingness to go investigate for ourselves and place reliance on the talkng heads of what today is entertaining journalism, Gaddafi of Libya, used large sums from the proceeds of Libya's oil to build what is considered the largest irrigation project on earth. If it weren't for certain elements in high places currently involved in all-out destruction of a noble attempt to free Libya from the desert and "western" dependance on imported goods, perhaps there would indeed be water enough for all of Libya's people and excess left over for further piping to its neighboring countries to enjoy as Gaddafi envisioned.

This video tells just one but one of several very significant untold stories and a whole lot more than FAUX NEWS et. al., don't want, and never will tell us about what's really going on over there.

http://youtu.be/TH9Oyc3QV00
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 54
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/10/2011 9:29:27 PM
Yeah, I know about the project in Spain, 13 hours worth of heat- so what? I am not impressed. "Renewable" energy is getting a lot of free publicity and funding and there are sound ENGINEERING reasons it will never catch up to the promise of nuclear energy for a variety of applications.

MAXIMUM CONCEIVABLE WATTS PER METER SQUARED is 300, at equator, clear skies, equinoxes, no clouds, 24-hr average. Multiply this by 12 to 20% to get maximum usable power extracted.

Then multiply times square meters needed to come up with needed land area to devote to this- NOTHING CAN INCREASE THIS, but clouds, dust, bird droppings, etc. can and WILL decrease output.

Think about THAT, read THIS:

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/thorium_electricity_for_developing_countries.htm
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 1:17:57 PM
FYI, my gift to those with open minds:

http://www.coal2nuclear.com/energy_facts.htm
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 1:42:26 PM

Its not just sunlight we get from the sun. We also get heat. There several successful projects running in Europe, where water is heated from heat stored in the ground. In Spain there is project where sunlight is super-heated through a series of parabolic mirrors and can produce electricity easily even on a cloudy day. Photosynthesis seems to works just fine during inclement weather. Just because the technology cannot produce the '24/7' demand yet, doesn't mean it never will. Politics, economics and the big business in fossil and nuclear fuels means wwon't be adopting any other solutions any time soon.


Agreed Wily Fox, that if we keep dumping most of our eggs into the toxic nuke and fossil hole, we may be hard pressed to have enough money to pour into innovation and development of safe, clean renewables. Japan is already doing the economic death dance in trying to make citizens bail out TEPCO. The Soviets never recovered from their duel debacles of Afghanistan and Chernobyl. When, not if, the US has it's own Fukushima, we will likewise be financially burdened, perhaps to a greater degree than those old empires due to our robust litigious culture.

The Soviets were adamant about hiding the horrific nature of the Chernobyl disaster from it's citizens, avoiding the worst of the financial consequences. Japan is a bit more open and stuck in an age where such Soviet style secrecy is no longer an option. Despite the best efforts to politically minimize the fallout of the disaster, TEPCO is in danger of bankruptcy and the citizens of Japan will be left holding the radioactive bag.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/tepco-slumps-to-record-low-on-radiation-spike.html

Interesting take on the Chernobyl contribution to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

Perhaps the US and other Nuke nations will learn the lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima and have an honest dialogue about the financial and social risks of nuclear power and adjust the course forward accordingly. Gotta have dreams...honesty could happen.

Efficiency and conservation already decreasing demand.
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/sep/11/homes-power-demand-falling/

Despite claims to the contray by Nuke industry trolls, solar is already cost effective, far cheaper and safer than nukes when all the subsidies and hidden costs are exposed, and with continued investments in R&D, quite capable of providing energy for the world.

The Spanish salt storage test was just the beginning of new storage tech. Panel and solar efficiency will continue to become more efficient.
http://buildaroo.com/news/article/technology-triple-efficiency-solar-panels/

And from the babes of the world, comes ingenuity and engineering solutions.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/10/05/malawi.wind.boy/index.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/william-yuan-invents-3d-nanotube-solar-cell.php
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 57
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 3:00:39 PM
Efficiency? Sure, up to theoretical maximum of 29%, unless at night or clouds, dust, bird droppings, etc. for PV cells, when output is ZERO.

You want to talk about heat and efficiency, WF? GOOD!

Equation for maximum thermodynamic efficiency is 1- low temp/high temp, so higher temps lead to higher efficiency. Pressurized water reactor core temps reach about 600 F, how does that compare to your Spanish example?
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 58
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/11/2011 5:03:55 PM


Despite claims to the contray by Nuke industry trolls, solar is already cost effective, far cheaper and safer than nukes when all the subsidies and hidden costs are exposed, and with continued investments in R&D, quite capable of providing energy for the world.


earthpuppy,
Back up your statement. Not with newspaper releases, but fact.

Your posts are truly false when you go to those extremes. I've said before solar has a place to trim peak demand, and could possibly cut the 1/3 top off the peak curve, buts its not gone to tap into the base 2/3 demand.

You are not speaking the truth at all, as solar energy is highly supported by tax dollars, from the research, to the manufacturing, and the tax credits to install it. If you don't think there are hidden costs then you only see through rose colored glasses. My neighbor didn't count on a big insurance bump when he installed his, and he would not have made that decision had it not been for the tax breaks. One of the reasons its working in California, is the law makes the electric feed back into the system come off the bill. You get no money if you feed more into the grid than you use, but you can store credit I think for three to six months. This type system allows you to draw back at night, but there would be no night lights without coal, gas, hydraulic, or nuclear.

As for payback its not gone to happen. Here in California we made big strides in water reduction, mostly forced upon the building industry. You would thing this would reduce operating costs. But the opposite effect, less demand brings less revenue, so they jack up the meter fees and water unit costs, in many cases 30% to 50% in last 7 years. If your building a new home and need to hook onto city water your basic fee for a 3/4" or 1" connection averages 5000 to 7000 dollars.

Here are two examples of a solar bankrupt companies with the USA on the hook for 1 billion. I have more, that I've been researching and filed away, where California energy commission has been bank rolling through the years.

http://patriotupdate.com/10948/evergreen-solar-bankrupt-after-getting-stimulus-cash-promising-800-jobs

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-08/us/fbi.solyndra.raid_1_fbi-searches-solar-panels-solyndra?_s=PM:US

----------------------------------------
If your gone to be so ultra bias toward renewable energy, then you have no credibility. I have nothing against solar in many forms, but even you rely on alternate energy to heat your home, fuel your transportation, water, and power for work beyond your basic electric needs.
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/12/2011 7:13:38 PM
I too, am curious to see what reply our friend will make, with 'bated breath I await his penetrating response...
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 60
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/14/2011 2:03:18 PM
Robin..
Highly bias nuke people take great pains to discount the true death toll of nukes through the whole life cycle, accidents, and lifetime exposure limits that are increasing.
They also tend to discount the whole plethora of subsidies through the entire nuclear lifecycle. The hidden costs, paid by citizens via taxes, far exceed the presented nuclear costs. Nukes also garnered over 95% of the public subsidies over the course of 50 years. In the 80s, tens of billions of bucks were wasted on nuke plants that were never completed. Likewise in the 90s, there was a giant sucking sound of money being sucked into the hole of nukes shut down because of high operating costs.

The recent solar industry washout in the US is not because of any sort of failure of the solar power industry as a whole, quite the contrary as record growth in the industry continues around the world. Solyndra, Evergreen and a few other US companies are in trouble because the Chinese are subsidizing their industry to crank out cheaper panels via mechanization of production. Where the US companies tried to tweak the tech and get more bang/kw per panel, the Chinese Mal-Wartized the industry. The industry is reaching for the holy grail of $1/watt panels. There will be winners and losers, and scammers as we have seen in the nuclear industry as well.

If all the subsidies are included, solar is already cheaper than nukes, particularly when you include human health costs, and averted Co2 emissions. (The Solar Co2 footprint is around half that of Nukes.)
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf

Your comparison of water to sunshine is a bit of a distraction. Riverside and other California communities water supplies and costs are a function of supply and demand. You also have infrastructure that needs maintenance and replacement, pumping costs, recycling and desalinization costs, and a tight, often diminishing supply.

Sun, on the other hand is abundant and capturing it for power is getting cheaper. The recent California blackout is no because of "greens", but because of reliance of the energy grid to suck energy like water from where it's cheapest du jour. The blackout should serve as a warning about how dependent our culture has become on a grid prone to human failure and natural disasters. The Browns Ferry E-5 tornado blackout also showed this dependency. Decentralizing power production/rooftop solar is a good investment to hedge against the uncertainties and vulnerabilities of grid power.
NOAA is warning of the possible consequences of a major global blackout event should a solar flare cycle overwhelm the systems.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194166/20110808/solar-storms-severe-solar-storms-earth-paralyse-carrington-event.htm
http://www.naturalnews.com/033564_solar_flares_nuclear_power_plants.html

Irregulator.. The nuke people always rely in unrealistic, lowballed figures for lifecycle nuclear induced mortality. Ja will go with zero while others estimate the death toll in the millions. The nuke people cite a couple of guys falling off a roof that had not been using personal fall arrest systems. The installation industry, going through it's own growing pains at that time has since gotten serious about PFASs.
Here is an analysis of nuke death studies.
http://www.euradcom.org/2011/chernhealthrept3.pdf
 Hibernian1960
Joined: 9/13/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
basic engineering
Posted: 9/14/2011 7:49:55 PM
China has been through quite a bit in the the XXth century and is more culturally diverse than one might readily expect, multilingual, etc., though Mandarin IS gaining ground as the national official language.

China is INDUSTRIALIZED, while most of Africa is not- it is mostly just a source of raw materials, as Paul K pointed out. This is the biggest and most significant difference. China has a large, well-educated and industrious population and this is a strength rather than a liability. It HAS MORE PEOPLE USING MORE ENERGY PER CAPITA than any African nation, not coincidentally, and the rate of energy usage is growing.

No industrialized country can be run on terrestrial solar energy, so it is not surprising China has plans to double its nuclear generating capacity by 2020, to double THAT figure by 2030, and to continue that policy to at least 2040.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Nuclear_power
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > basic engineering