Solar and wind is baseload power.

Eric, seriously, dude, stop. You don't even know what that word means.

Green Tech reports that GE has wind turbine systems that store and regulate electricity output for the grid:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...t-Wind-Turbine



New green energy storage breakthrough:

http://www.livescience.com/43034-flo...en-energy.html

Scientific American reports on how solar energy is stored at solar power plants:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ergy-at-night/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why don't you move to Fukushima and let us know how that works out for you.

Bad locale. Now, I'm perfectly fine if one was built in my back yard. I mean really, I am. I'm downwind from an oil refinery and and coal plant now. I"d rather have a nuke plant than a coal plant any day. And... I'd really prefer the power grid where I live stay up so I don't get cholera because there's no power to treat sewage.

Nuclear power is entirely subsidized by the state. It takes a long time to build, and needs a lot to get past the needed regulation, since it is so inherently dangerous. And there's not even enough regulation as it is. Many existing nuclear plants are no more safe than Fukushima was.

Oklahoma does have minor earthquakes, but we don't get tsunamis. Tornados? Yup. OK, yes. So, build 'em underground. The costs of digging a rectangular ditch is a lot chaper than the cement containment chambers. Next, use the newer thorium tech. The US has loads of thorium.

It is immoral to impose deadly-dangerous risks from waste, spent fuel rods, radiation and terrorist ammunition on the people and species of Earth for thousands of years, just so we might have a few less power outages now. Solar and wind is baseload power. Do not believe the false propaganda.

We have the windmills now, but if the wind ain't blowing, no power.

PS

btw, you might want to have a look around before shooting yourself in the foot.

Some here apparently wouldn't mind a nuclear plant in their town. Really?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Some here apparently wouldn't mind a nuclear plant in their town. Really?

A Greenpeace infographic eh?

When you first saw that Deb, did several questions immediately leap to mind along with significant skepticism? Perhaps most important, would you first be able to identify how much radiation exposure there was in specific areas surrounding Fukushima, which radioactive materials were released as contaminants and how much of each?

That data is all freely available. You should start there.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

A Greenpeace infographic eh?

When you first saw that Deb, did several questions immediately leap to mind along with significant skepticism? Perhaps most important, would you first be able to identify how much radiation exposure there was in specific areas surrounding Fukushima, which radioactive materials were released as contaminants and how much of each?

That data is all freely available. You should start there.

And always remember and never forget, when the lights go out, the raw sewage shall flow. I just love it when NIMBY's think electricity comes from light switches and electric sockets. [I wonder if Deb took the time and effort to see where LA gets a lot of its electricity? ]

Should I make a poll?

Where should we get our electricity from.

A. Frakked natural gas.
B. Imported oil.
C. Coal.
D. Nuclear power
E. Renewables which at this time aren't reliable , thus causing those occasional sewage overflows?


http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?id=8755384

Eric,

Apparently you don't even read your own articles. From the first one,

“We are not working on large-scale storage for arbitraging or moving power from night to day,” Longtin said. “Batteries would have to come down to a cost point to us on the order of $200 per kilowatt-hour. It is on the order of $800 per kilowatt-hour to $1,000 per kilowatt-hour today.”

Also, you do know there's a thousand-fold difference between a kilowatt and a megawatt, right?

The second link is a picture.

The third link references the same development I just linked to for M & L here. I don't know about you, but I read technology blogs every day, have for years, and most of the stuff I see articles for just doesn't seem to end up on the shelves a few years later, at least not within the timeframe their boosters claim. There is a powerful difference between something that can be demonstrated in a lab and something getting rolled out worldwide. I'm still hopeful, and think things like that will be the way forward (as I said above), but we're a long way from being there. More work is needed.

For the fourth link, yeah, I think solar thermal is a better way forward than PV for grid electricity, precisely because it can have that built-in storage. A little caution, though. That article you cited listed how expensive and experimental this stuff is, and the entire solar industry in Spain is not in that great of shape.

It's good to see some progress is being made, though.

Still haven't see any indication you know what the term "baseload" means. It would also be nice if you actually read your articles and not just pick the first 3 or 4 off of a google search.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Green Tech reports that GE has wind turbine systems that store and regulate electricity output for the grid:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...t-Wind-Turbine



New green energy storage breakthrough:

http://www.livescience.com/43034-flo...en-energy.html

Scientific American reports on how solar energy is stored at solar power plants:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ergy-at-night/

Originally Posted by article

The salts—a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate, otherwise used as fertilizers—allow enough of the sun's heat to be stored that the power plant can pump out electricity for nearly eight hours after the sun starts to set. "It's enough for 7.5 hours to produce energy with full capacity of 50 megawatts," says Sven Moormann, a spokesman for Solar Millennium, AG, the German solar company that developed the Andasol plant. "The hours of production are nearly double [those of a solar-thermal] power plant without storage and we have the possibility to plan our electricity production

Hey Eric! Why does this have to use strong oxidizers? What accident controls are in place for hot oxidizers like sodium nitrate? If you have a leak of molten sodium nitrate, lots of stuff is gonna go ..........................................

Long Stick goes BOOM!




Boom Black Cat Firecrackers have potassium nitrate.





Gunpowder = potassium nitrate + charcoal + sulfur

PS

Black and red baby

Mineral collection starter for Eric.



A fine specimen if I may say so. The yellow curite makes a fine color addon for any mineral collection.

The Shinkolobwe Mine is best known for its’ production of Uranium-bearing minerals, with a total of 34 new minerals having been described from the deposit, and a total of 123 valid mineral species having been identified from the locality since it was first worked circa 1915. The Shinkolobwe Mine was closed about 2004, however, small amounts of the minerals occasionally become available through the redistribution of older mineral collections. A small amount of material also seems to continue to trickle onto the mineral specimen market from “black market” operations in the district around the mine site. The specimens listed below are from collections – not recently mined material. In addition to the black massive Uraninite, other minerals identified on these specimens include orange massive Curite, and massive yellow Kasolite. Item 2093 has small veinlets of orange massive Curite present, along with minor micro crystalline / platy, very pale green Metatorbernite.





MARTHOZITE
Musonoi Mine, near Kolwezi, Shaba Province (Katanga), Zaire (Democratic Republic of the Congo) (type locality)
A very rare uranium-bearing mineral, Marthozite was identified from the Musonoi Mine in the zone where the Selenian Digenite was found. If you have a copy of the Katanga! special issue of the “Mineralogical Record” magazine, Vol. 20, No. 4 (July-Aug 1989), see page 274 where this unique, selenium-rich zone of mineralization is mentioned. Chemical composition of Marthozite is: Cu(UO₂)₃(SeO₃)₃(OH)₂^.7H₂O. Items MI-1967, 1968, and 1969 have very small masses of platy, yellow-green Marthozite “frozen” within the matrix. Items MI-1970 and 1971 have crystallized Marthozite in open vuggy areas in the matrix. Magnification of 10-20X is required for best appreciation of the crystallization. In addition to Selenian Digenite, the other minerals present on the specimens listed below are massive Malachite and Guilleminite.

This awsome specimen features uranium + selenium. The colors speak for themselves. Again, a fine addition for the most discerning rock hound/mineral collector.



Last, but certainly not least, let's go local to the US.

Happy Jack Mine, White Canyon, San Juan County, Utah

The Happy Jack Mine was a sedimentary type deposit where the Uraninite and other minerals were formed in a sandstone matrix. In the 1950’s the Happy Jack Mine proved to be the second richest deposit of high grade Uranium ores in the nation, the first being the Mi Vida Mine, also in San Juan County. The San Juan County area experienced significant growth during the Uranium boom of the 1950’s. The specimens listed below were collected by Dr. Eugene B. Gross, who worked for the Atomic Energy Commission during the period of development of the Uranium-bearing mines in Utah for strategic use by the government. Demand for Uranium subsided in the early 1960’s. On Jan. 1, 1960, the mill at the Happy Jack Mine was closed permanently by the AEC. The mill tailings were stabilized by 1962, and the mill was dismantled in 1964. Luckily, Dr. Gross had the foresight to collect quite a few specimens from this extraordinary deposit during its heyday of production.
Note that in some of the sedimentary deposits of minerals in the Colorado Plateau uranium mines, such as the Happy Jack Mine and the Mi Vida Mine, the sandstone was enriched by irregular replacement of Calcite cement by the ore minerals. Portions of the ore zones contained elongated, black pods measuring from several inches to several feet long. These pods were found to be replacements of wood by Uraninite and Calcite. In some areas where replacements of wood were found, large logs were replaced by mineralization of Uraninite and Calcite. Pyrite and Galena were sometimes noted in the carbonaceous material. Dr. Gross reported, in his study of the mineralogy of the Mi Vida Mine, that “nearly all of the Uraninite occurs as replacement of wood, but it also occurs as cementing mineral in sandstone, generally adjacent to carbonaceous material.” ^1. Unlike the Mi Vida Mine, the Happy Jack Mine ores also contained Copper, which ultimately provided a much greater diversity of secondary minerals.
From a 1954 USGS publication, “The best development of relatively unoxidized nonvanadiferous ore is the Pitchblende-Copper sulfide deposit in which the Happy Jack Mine is located at White Canyon, Utah. The ore contains both sooty Pitchblende and massive Pitchblende that is so pure and of such high specific gravity (9.0) as to justify calling it Uraninite. Some of the Pitchblende replaces fossil wood and some, in tabular masses, does not show wood structure. It is closely associated with Chalcopyrite, Pyrite, Bornite, Chalcocite, Sphalerite, and Galena, and traces of Cobalt, Nickel, Molybdenum, and Silver.” ^2.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Some here apparently wouldn't mind a nuclear plant in their town. Really?

A one of a kind event certainly is the standard to measure the threat of nuclear power. Never mind that the number affected by the extraction, transport, burning and disposal of coal and its byproducts creates the equivalent of one of these every year. That oil is also dangerous and polluting. That fossil fuels also promote extortion and war. Yet we decide this is the standard of bad.

FWIW, the Japanese government has been grossly remiss in addressing the losses suffered by the Fukushima victims, and earlier governments were monumentally irresponsible for allowing these reactors to be built in a tsunami zone in the first place. We even have one that's probably as exposed on the West Coast - the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (AKA SONGS). But we didn't site it in a population zone. It sits adjacent to Camp Pendleton. Our big accident was Three Mile Island (TMI), which harmed no one.

...and btw, the tub-thumping here is homelessness, not sickness and death ... for good reason.

Another dangerous source of radiation is classic Fiesta Ware

... especially the reds and oranges.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

A one of a kind event certainly is the standard to measure the threat of nuclear power. Never mind that the number affected by the extraction, transport, burning and disposal of coal and its byproducts creates the equivalent of one of these every year. That oil is also dangerous and polluting. That fossil fuels also promote extortion and war. Yet we decide this is the standard of bad.

FWIW, the Japanese government has been grossly remiss in addressing the losses suffered by the Fukushima victims, and earlier governments were monumentally irresponsible for allowing these reactors to be built in a tsunami zone in the first place. We even have one that's probably as exposed on the West Coast - the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (AKA SONGS). But we didn't site it in a population zone. It sits adjacent to Camp Pendleton. Our big accident was Three Mile Island (TMI), which harmed no one.

...and btw, the tub-thumping here is homelessness, not sickness and death ... for good reason.

It seems to me that your just comparing dangerous fuel to another dangerous fuel. That doesn't make much sense, considering there are much safer alternatives.

And what about all of that nuclear waste? Where do you store it? How do you safely transport it? Want a disposal near your city?

Originally Posted by Deb C

It seems to me that your just comparing dangerous fuel to another dangerous fuel. That doesn't make much sense, considering there are much safer alternatives.

And what about all of that nuclear waste? Where do you store it? How do you safely transport it? Want a disposal near your city?

Are there? Go on.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It seems to me that your just comparing dangerous fuel to another dangerous fuel. That doesn't make much sense, considering there are much safer alternatives.

OK, then find a curently available and viable alternative ... viable being the operative word.

Originally Posted by Deb C ...

And what about all of that nuclear waste? Where do you store it? How do you safely transport it? Want a disposal near your city?

Spent fuel is already stored near people. First, it goes in the on-site pool, and the pool fills over time. The oldest fuel rods are then removed to casks. The pools and casks stay in place, because we can't agree to store the stuff anywhere. The French glassify their waste and store it in a mountain, so it can be done. Since we can't seem to agree on a place in the vast barren areas of Nevada, we're doing nothing. New Mexico seems more than wiling, though. It'll go into deep saltdomes, and be subsumed ... unless we disallow that too. Saltdomes are good for tens of thousands of years.

It basically boils down to this: I want to throw the kitchen sink at global warming, given the dire consequences that are projected. That means using all non-GHG energy sources available. That means a lot of solar, a lot of wind--and yes, nuclear as well. Others don't want to. That's the essence of the disagreement.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

It basically boils down to this: I want to throw the kitchen sink at global warming, given the dire consequences that are projected. That means using all non-GHG energy sources available. That means a lot of solar, a lot of wind--and yes, nuclear as well. Others don't want to. That's the essence of the disagreement.

I think that in the long run it will be a combination of of all those sources. I don't see it as an either/or proposition. My objection is that some seem to think that nuclear is a silver bullet. The other part of this issue is that we as individuals and communities start conserving energy.

I just don't want to solely trade fossil fuel for another hazardous fuel.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I think that in the long run it will be a combination of of all those sources. I don't see it as an either/or proposition. My objection is that some seem to think that nuclear is a silver bullet. The other part of this issue is that we as individuals and communities start conserving energy.

I just don't want to solely trade fossil fuel for another hazardous fuel.

Then we're largely in agreement. The only quibble may be that, as currently practiced, I consider many fossil fuel wastes to be more hazardous than nuclear waste.

Conserving energy, while very important, isn't a silver bullet either (not saying that you think it is, by any means). I'm struggling to find an article on this phenomenon right now, but there's a feedback trend in when energy conservation devices are invented, entities tend to not actually consume less energy, but to use the saved energy on some new feature. But what's far more alarming is that as more and more people on earth lead developed lifestyles, so too will energy consumption increase even in spite of conservation technologies. In the end, the fuel source is the main thing that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in the most minimal GHG way.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Then we're largely in agreement. The only quibble may be that, as currently practiced, I consider many fossil fuel wastes to be more hazardous than nuclear waste.

Conserving energy, while very important, isn't a silver bullet either (not saying that you think it is, by any means). I'm struggling to find an article on this phenomenon right now, but there's a feedback trend in when energy conservation devices are invented, entities tend to not actually consume less energy, but to use the saved energy on some new feature. But what's far more alarming is that as more and more people on earth lead developed lifestyles, so too will energy consumption increase even in spite of conservation technologies. In the end, the fuel source is the main thing that needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed in the most minimal GHG way.

You're talking about Jevon's paradox, first observed in the 19th century with coal.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

You're talking about Jevon's paradox, first observed in the 19th century with coal.

Yes, thank you. The rebound effect (cited in that article) was also on my mind as well.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It seems to me that your just comparing dangerous fuel to another dangerous fuel. That doesn't make much sense, considering there are much safer alternatives.

And what about all of that nuclear waste? Where do you store it? How do you safely transport it? Want a disposal near your city?

Deb, are you actually able to articulate this danger? I haven't seen you do so yet.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

It basically boils down to this: I want to throw the kitchen sink at global warming, given the dire consequences that are projected. That means using all non-GHG energy sources available. That means a lot of solar, a lot of wind--and yes, nuclear as well. Others don't want to. That's the essence of the disagreement.

Does "the kitchen sink" also include enormous sacrifices to your own lifestyle and livelihood?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Deb, are you actually able to articulate this danger? I haven't seen you do so yet.

I posted earlier about how dangerous just disposing of the nuclear waste is and could continue to be. And, transporting it is a whole other potential hazard.

Originally Posted by Deb C

I posted earlier about how dangerous just disposing of the nuclear waste is and could continue to be. And, transporting it is a whole other potential hazard.

And I posted how random power outages are a known hazard. Let's sing it. Cholera Uber Alles!

Originally Posted by Deb C

I posted earlier about how dangerous just disposing of the nuclear waste is and could continue to be. And, transporting it is a whole other potential hazard.

The article you posted was little more than an editorial and while it was an effective display of common radiation hysteria ("mini Chernobyl's" was an especially nice touch) it was lacking in facts. I'm asking you Deb, if you know how radiation works. I only ask because I get the impression that you don't. Not knowing something is perfectly fine however given your clear high level of fear over radiation boogeymen I am simply suggesting that you might want to research these things (that is actually learn the processes involved for yourself as opposed to repeatedly citing Greenpeace as an expert).

But let's start with Fukushima Deb. How many people are expected to die as a result of the meltdown? What was the average radiation exposure of citizens living in the surrounding prefecture from the incident? What are the expected impacts from that exposure? What chemicals were released and in what quantities?

All one needs to know is that Jack Lemon and Jane Fonda made a movie.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42