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  > Gone With The Wind      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Gone With The WindPage 3 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
meje,

Here is link for you

http://greenedmonton.ca/gshp

Don't think I'm against progress or better efficiency cause I challenge you. One should not assume all good companies or good people wear green label or ride white horses.

I sent Tom an email. seems he has no info on the web
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 5:35:55 AM

Let them find a way to neutralize radioactive waste, I'd be happier with that prospect but burying stuff in the ground in containers that might go 1,000 years with stuff that has half-lives of 10,000 years ain't going to cut it.


Another thing that ha improved with Thorium power. People really need to lose their perception of the dangers of Nuclear Energy, because all the same old arguments are growing more and more invalid.

Some benefits:
Weapons-grade fissionable material (233U) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor;
Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
The fissionable thorium cycle uses 100% of the isotope as coming out of the ground, which does not require enrichment, whereas the fissile uranium cycle depends on only the 0.7% fissile U-235 of the natural uranium. The same cycle could also use the fissionable U-238 component of the natural uranium, and also contained in the depleted reactor fuel;
Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming[24] so fission stops by default.

If you read the PDF it even goes into the storing method of the waste that is remaining. And how safe it really is. The only real concern is water dissolving the shipping casque. The Shipping casque is pretty protective to the point where it can be handled with your bare hands without danger. As long as it is away from ground water. Which is incredibly easy. There is no danger. Safer than batteries for Solar panels and wind farms. And its recyclable. Solar and Wind cannot at this time be the worlds sole energy producers, and be as environmentally beneficial as Nuclear. Hard to believe but true.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 40
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 7:20:19 AM
The most effective thing they've found for nuclear waste is to form it into large bullets and hurl them at the enemy du jour .
There is no solution for nuclear waste besides making it some one else's problem, every solution winds up contaminating the planet somehow.
Really there is a solution for energy shortfalls but you wont like it.....

Go back to an agrarian society, stop pursuing longevity, and piss off the neighbors to scrub off all the extra's every so often.

Any other solution demands unlimited expansion, and we have to get the common bloke out of the gravity well and pulling a living from space to pursue unlimited expansion.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 7:26:43 AM

There is no solution for nuclear waste besides making it some one else's problem, every solution winds up contaminating the planet somehow.
Really there is a solution for energy shortfalls but you wont like it.....


Another comment from someone who would rather be against something, than learn about how big of a danger it really ISN'T. If Nuclear Radiation really contaminated at the scale you are suggesting, as I stated earlier, Japan would be a desolate wasteland occupied by cancerous Lizard people. However they are one of the healthiest countries on the ENTIRE PLANET. The Facts just don't add up to your preconceived conclusion.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 10:38:00 AM
Meje,

Gee, just for providing information you are getting upset. Are you not a student of learning ?

From your own government link

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/equipment/heating/2371

Notice at bottom of page it lists typical average use for heating energy in different structures in different cities. Notice one marked Edmonton for new townhome built after 1990 lists at 55 Gigajoules per year. In the foot note it reference it as an internal unit 93 meter sq or 1000 sq-ft. This value posted is for average well insulated weather tight construction.

The conversion unit for GigaJoule to KWH is 1 Gigajoule = 277.8 KWH (rounded).
So 55 x 277.8 = 15279 KWH per year or 1273 KWH / month (average).

Look over the link, it gives some good information on energy from different sources.

PS Notice under electricity as the source of energy the terms air source and ground source heat pump. No mention of Geothermal.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 43
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 2:31:58 PM
Jay...start another nuke thread. We can go in circles all day long, you with your fantasies, myths and well honed denial skills, vs. others in the real world.
http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/05/one-year-after-fukushima-defining-and-classifying-a-disaster/
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/09/the-dangerous-myths-of-fukushima/
http://ecowatch.org/2012/the-fukushima-story-you-didnt-hear-on-cnn/
http://www.economist.com/node/21549936

The beauty of nukes is that most of the death toll takes years and decades and it's easy for the industry and it's advocates to distance the cause from the effect.

March winds...lots of unharvested energy.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 44
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/9/2012 8:12:55 PM

Another comment from someone who would rather be against something, than learn about how big of a danger it really ISN'T.


No I've worked on the nukes and earnestly there is nothing safe about them. The illusion of safety comes from constant human input and humans have a 100% track record of eventual failure.
Thorium I could probably support, pending nothing worse comes out of practical usage, but nuclear power as we know it is already a smoking disaster.

One atmosphere poisoning accident was too much and we're up to five ((that we've been told about God only knows how many cover ups have occurred) Three Mile, Chernobyl, Fukushima )

The only thing we are conclusively proving with nuclear energy is that we learn nothing from history.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/11/2012 7:12:09 AM
Judging from your response I am tempted to call shenanigans. Three mile island released radiation 1/6th of a chest X-Ray. Meanwhile Fukishima only killed one person, and Japan isn't all that concerned.

I'm just looking at the aftermath. The Chernobyl disaster was blown way out of proportion, and those who are still against nuclear are crawling to find more problems that aren't there in order to keep Nuclear down. I wouldn't eat there, but I'd have no problem taking a walk in the area.

Human error is always possible. I'm glad to hear that you may support Thorium. Its a Canadian design, and addresses a lot of issues with a clean abundant energy source, that already has the best safety track record to date. A lot of small wind farm accidents, or a guy falling off of his roof installing solar panels doesn't exactly make headline news. Not like a Nuclear Meltdown, But they add up.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 46
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/11/2012 11:18:12 PM
I note that your an optimist, (time will cure you of that malady)!

And your smart,
too smart to believe your fellow simians won't scr3w something up.

Human error is not only possible, its the most likely consequence.
And noting how fortunate we've been, we should quit while we're ahead.

Thorium does have potential, build one large scale plant, (Lets put it in Canada!!) adequate to power Montreal, lets run it for twenty years and and then we'll know if its worth pursuing further.

Again nuclear power at its current state of the art, is inherently unstable and a disaster in progress.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 47
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 5:27:29 AM
I would strongly, respectfully disagree. Especially given all the other alternatives. It does have to be handled carefully. But in comparison to the damage Coal, and Oil cause. In comparison to the lives the rest claim? I would think that Fukishima is a testament to how stable and safe Nuclear power is. Hit it with a 9 on the Richter scale Earthquake. And only kill 1 person. Am I the only one who finds that incredibly impressive? We will have to wait about 10-20 years to see what the cancer increase rates are. But using Chernobyl as a measuring stick. Radiation only killed 64. In comparison to other power sources, and compared to the Earthquake and Tsunami that triggered it. Its hard to argue it. I don't know. But we sure as shit aren't going to build a global power grid on Solar, or wind. Way more real estate, and way more dangerous.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 7:06:13 AM
Yes, Nuclear power appears to be amazingly safe....if mining and processing deaths are not accounted for, or the actual death toll from the event is ignored.
2,000,000 in this conservative estimate.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50890761/Nuclear-s-Endless-Nightmare-The-Real-Chernobyl-Death-Toll
Or just under a million in this conservative estimate.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20908

There were over 16,000-21,000 excessive deaths in the US alone in the weeks following as the plume deposited over this continent mostly from infant mortality.
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/25-4
Estimates already put Fukushima at 10 to 72,000 times worse than Chernobyl in radiation releases. It will take decades to know and to finally stop the leakage.
http://enenews.com/independent-why-fukushima-is-worse-than-chernobyl-now-the-truth-is-coming-out-72000-times-worse-than-hiroshima-1-million-cancer-deaths-says-professor

When a worker falls off a roof, or a technician charges at windmills with a screw driver and gets electrocuted, the death toll ends after that point. When accidents happen in nuclear power, the affect the globe, for decades to hundreds of years or more. Big difference. And the big death toll estimate differences between the denialists and the realists, equally vast, is still extremely deadly if the numbers are somewhere in the middle.
 cbbull21
Joined: 3/9/2009
Msg: 49
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 11:24:07 AM
Not all wind turbines call for a small number of huge pylons standing in open fields. One design calls for a large greenhouse.
If you think about it all energy is solar energy either directly or indirectly.
The upper theoretical limit to wind turbine efficiency is about 58% and in practice about 49%. Other sources: internal gas combustion 25%, diesel 35%,.....
Until recently solar panels were below 25% efficiency.
These figures can be misleading though. What's the efficiency of an electric car? If it's 50% efficient by the homeowner's reckoning and the electric generator is less than 100%, say 50%, then the net pathway is 25%.
Without an inexhaustible supply of energy dense petrol, we must adopt an independent infrastructure. If current technical and pragmatic problems are iron-clad then we must accept that in the future, there will be energy rationing, but who's to say how it's distributed...a small number of people with a high standard of living while that of others is lower or non-existent, or maybe fewer people altogether.

OP does point out something often overlooked, sometimes there is a price to pay, a trade-off, or a dirty underside....much like society itself.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 1:22:10 PM
Jay..I've never seen you NOT use an unbiased source. What you do cite is redicuously bias and ignores vast sectors of the uranium cycle, mining, processing and ultimate disposal problems. A large number of former nuclear scientists and physicists are now testifying about the dangers of, and consequences of the failed nuke experiment. The US government settlements on uranium miners health claims does indeed acknowlege the dangers of it. The mining is now still getting dirtier and exposing more people as with the open pits and huge tailings piles proposed in Australia that will blow radioactive dust around the globe in perpetuity.

The Japanese this year, are experiencing the first trade deficit in decades due to losses of productivity, hazardous food stuffs and imports to try to start fixing the mess. The government as a result of the Fukushima warning shot, it dedicated to phasing out all nuclear power as are the more sane, responsible and progressive nations. The vast majority of the Japanese people oppose nuclear power.
http://www.majiroxnews.com/2012/02/14/most-japanese-oppose-nuclear-power-support-consumption-tax-poll-finds/

In the links I provided there is an admission by the IAEA that they deliberately lowballed the death tolls from Chernobyl and now Fukushima. The government of Japan also recently acknowledged that they hid a "worst case scenario" report completed a year prior to the Fukushima meltdowns that came to pass, and described the ongoing disaster that will continue for decades.

And for all the fantasies, hype and lies about thorium reactors, they still have the same problems as this generation of nukes, and are still uranium reactors with added issues of proliferation of waste available for dirty bombs in unstable places.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
edit..jay...do you actually think that thorium only reactors are being proposed?
Takes uranium to set the thorium burning and the same disposal issues remain for radioactive byproducts.

If we diverted all subsidies, including the socialized costs of accidents, human health costs, deaths, cleanup and containment, nukes would die overnight, and wind and solar, storage tech, and other sustainable energy sources would quickly fill in the void.

I know hundreds of folks who have moved off grid, living quite comfy without nuke and coal power plants. It ain't rocket science, is affordable, and becoming mainstream.
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/03/09/imagine-no-electricity-bills-the-rise-of-net-zero-homes/?iid=pf-main-mostpop1
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 1:55:41 PM
cbbull,

You are being to generous with your efficiencies. Solar PV panels at best are 18-19% with optimum solar angle. You would need tracking panels for that. The average fixed panel with due south exposure about 12%.

Making electrical energy as in power generation is usually by three sources. Water, nuclear, and carbon based which are mostly coal. The newer coal generators are 40-42% peak efficiency, but most are closer to 38%. I would say the older nuclear are at 38%. Water as in dams are around 90% conversion.

Wind turbines absolute perfect conversion is 59%, but can't be achieved. A larger one tuned to certain wind velocity may achieve 40% mechanical but a small 3% loss in the conversion and 2% in transmission. The overall for different wind speeds and designs about 30%.

Auto gas engines used to have higher efficiencies but the meet NO2 standards they dropped the compression ratios. Now they are doing the same to diesel engines. Once their compression ratiors were 22:1 now down to 17:1 for at least light trucks. Compression ratio is related to temperature ratio which ultimately determine efficiency.
 robin-hood
Joined: 12/2/2008
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 3:00:14 PM
earthpuppy

I still see your spreading your puppy poo. Did you know your msg #63 has links that stay nothing. One is a sales pitch for shea homes here in california. It makes no mention of the expected solar generation, just sales pitch numbers, and the homes are not off grid.

The other is a political poll where the nuclear question asked is not listed, and mixed in with a political phone poll questions.

I'm calling you to task and I say you don't know 100's of people living off the grid. You may visit a web site where a group of people exchange ideas and thoughts about off grid living. But you hardly know these people or even visited or meet them once ?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/12/2012 4:54:48 PM
robin-hood. One has a tendency to accumulate like minded people over the course of a life, and indeed I know hundreds who have chosen the path, no matter how imperfect at the time and still works in process, that do indeed live without powerlines, quite comfortably I might add. I know around 50 just locally, andI have been disconnected from the power grid for nearly 10 years. Some I know have done so for 4 decades and we frequently meet at these places to show solidarity and consistency. And yes, I do KNOW these people. If you wish to include vicarious acquaintences met and interacted through friends of friends, the numbers increase an order of magnitude or more.

More to the point however, as per your OP, yes, there are growing pains during the transition. Some folks I know still cling to big alt energy projects while most embrace de-centralized personal power. Some promote even more indious "solutions" like replacing coal with burning forests for energy. We do have our civil wars as to the "solution", but it does not take away from getting past these growing pains and pushing for something far more sustainable and clean than the current status quo...pun intended.

This film is coming out soon, and I am sure you will find it amusing to watch green on green infighting. Steph is a friend of mine as is Janet who succumbs to tears over mountain top removal. The trailer is pretty damned good with a great sound track.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stefanie-penn-spear/cape-spin_b_1334597.html

Now the question is...do YOU know anyone living off powerlines in a methodical, socially conscious way that feel remorse?

Sorry if the links were corrupted, but there are plenty out that that make the case. I have found that anti-alt energy folks have their own agenda and no amount of compelling evidence to the contrary will allow them to change, or even ponder that there is another way. Hope you are not one of them.

PS..comparing efficiencies between finite sources of energy and infinite sources is a great obfuscation tool, but hardly relevant.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/17/2012 7:57:51 AM
Looking at the growth curve, it appears that the "failure" of wind power is pretty amazing.
http://ecowatch.org/2012/world-wind-power-climbs-to-new-record-in-2011/
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/24/2012 1:54:44 PM
We just had another solar flare event, pretty minor by historical standards, but it should reminds us to get our ducks in a row for future significant geomagnetic disturbances that can decimate the power grid and quite possibly unleash 450 Chernobyls at once. A mere tornado put our Browns Ferry plant at risk last year as the power grid was shredded. A GMD event can knock out backup systems to nuke plants. While it would fry the wind and solar grids as well, the consequences would merely be troublesome, but not deadly.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400-chernobyls-solar-flares-electromagnetic-pulses-and-nuclear-armageddon
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 57
Gone With The Wind
Posted: 3/25/2012 4:26:50 PM
Large waterwheels are problematic in the States because the state owns all navigable water sources. IE if you can put a canoe or rubber raft in it it is navigable. Ergo you cannot build or manipulate the water without state approval.
But....
If its doable where you are, the the engineering is simple, water is roughly 8 lbs per gallon and the torque formula is:
In symbols:
T=rxF
T=rf sin θ
The magnitude of torque depends on three quantities: the force applied, the length of the lever arm[2] connecting the axis to the point of force application, and the angle between the force vector and the lever arm.
where
τ is the torque vector and τ is the magnitude of the torque,
r is the displacement vector (a vector from the point from which torque is measured to the point where force is applied), and r is the length (or magnitude) of the lever arm vector,
F is the force vector, and F is the magnitude of the force,
× denotes the cross product,
θ is the angle between the force vector and the lever arm vector.
(Wikipedia)

To find the volume of water measure the width x the depth x 1ft length at a given point to determine the static quantity of water at that point ( 1 gallon=7.48 cu ft (US)) then a simple float test will show how often that 1 ft length is replaced in 1 minute. (in the dog days of summer)

Walla you have flow rate in gallons per minute and can size the wheel appropriately. High flow = shorter wheel diameter and vice versa. (A gross oversimplification, diameter x width= overall weight to produce torque on the wheel for an average of 120 degrees duration)
keeping in mind the torque requirements for adequate gear reduction to drive your generator at rated speed +10%.
Oversize your wheel by 30% and control the speed via head-gates, or by loading your generator more heavily.
Its hard to find torque requirements for generators, usually there listed as horsepower requirements, simply take the hp ratings to a electric motor site (IE Baldor) and look up torque output for a given hp.
Unless you have a massive estate, 10KVA will comfortably run a house and outbuildings you can buy PTO driven 10KVA generators all day long for a few hundred dollars (US).
You will save thousands of dollars by buying raw aluminum components and putting a competent welder on the payroll for a few weeks rather than buying a prebuilt unit.
Aluminum, Brass, and Stainless, are ideal, wood will work for roughly ten years before serious repair is in order. Use high quality bearings as physically large as possible, (more mass spreads the wear over a greater area) shielded from spray

If you can cut your requirements rather than using a brute force model, true micro-generation (complete with prices) can be found at www.backwoodssolar.com/

For a Harris Hydro plant water fall is more important than volume if you have adequate volume to fill a two inch pipe and 20' of fall you can generate usable amounts of electricity.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Gone With The Wind