Nuclear Power Plants or Windmills, for commercial transportation power
- Thread starter TomEric4756
- Start date
Details on how Musk describes actually implementing his blue square program, which would really be a combo of multiple dispersed solar farms and rooftop solar. His vision includes a nuclear component, since (in his words) "we cannot instantaneously change to a sustainable situation".
www.inverse.com
Here's Elon Musk's Plan to Power the U.S. on Solar Energy
"The sun is a giant fusion reactor in the sky."
www.inverse.com
I have to believe this is Putin flexing his muscles by withholding the gas flow, while he consolidates troops along the Ukrainian border. It probably explains Biden’s diplomatic concession to Putin in your post in the other thread. Europe’s dependence on energy from Russia is a problem considering Putin’s goal of disrupting NATO.
You’re probably right…I’m trying to figure out how I can make a buck on this info
Here's an interesting first step (in line with Musk's opinion above, he's involved on the battery/storage side as well).Details on how Musk describes actually implementing his blue square program, which would really be a combo of multiple dispersed solar farms and rooftop solar. His vision includes a nuclear component, since (in his words) "we cannot instantaneously change to a sustainable situation".
Here's Elon Musk's Plan to Power the U.S. on Solar Energy
"The sun is a giant fusion reactor in the sky."
The batteries that could make fossil fuels obsolete
The advent of "big battery" technology addresses a key challenge for green energy – the intermittency of wind and solar.
www.bbc.com
If only...
www.thedrive.com
Inside the Impossible Dream of the Nuclear-Powered 1958 Ford Nucleon
Driving more than 5,000 miles without stopping to refuel sounds like a '50s fever dream—because it was.
www.thedrive.com
Oliver dedicated one of his shows on the topic of our failing power grids, mainly because they are being serviced as they fail, particularly the clamps, and are now what ~70/80 years old?
I've seen it discussed other places (before people roll their eyes at Oliver's investigation) so I'll try to find more links.
Again the problem is not generating energy, it's transporting energy.
There is a link above for transmission line / power distribution losses … the farther away you are … the more the power gets lost. I modeled 7%. Iowa to NYC would be more
http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/...sappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/
10 000 sq. miles. That’s 6 400 000 acres x 20 000 $ / acre = 128 000 000 000 or 128T dollars just for the land.This checks Elon Musk's claim that a 100 mile by 100 mile solar farm grid in a deserted corner of Arizona, Texas or Utah (or anywhere else for that matter) using exisiting technology would be capable (even in THEORY) of powering the entire USA's electrical grid. It checks out. How to distribute that energy would indeed still be a problem.
Fact checking Elon Musk’s Blue Square: How much solar to power the US? | UCL UCL Energy Institute Blog
UCL Homepageblogs.ucl.ac.uk
I think Solar will be distributed to minimize the real estate investment.
Last edited:
Or a fraction of federal land out west that we, the taxpayers, already own. Area 51 alone is 23 by 25 miles, and it is dwarfed by many much bigger Federal tracts.
But yes, the rooftop option would minimize distribution loss and land use costs
Details on how Musk describes actually implementing his blue square program, which would really be a combo of multiple dispersed solar farms and rooftop solar. His vision includes a nuclear component, since (in his words) "we cannot instantaneously change to a sustainable situation".
Here's Elon Musk's Plan to Power the U.S. on Solar Energy
"The sun is a giant fusion reactor in the sky."
I’m well aware of the losses in electrical transmission and distribution systems. The issue I asked about is how renewables can fulfill baseload demands. That is well beyond anything I have seen.
The energy density of uranium is the best thing going now. It produces heat without fire. Imagine that! That’s a perfect solution given our present demands and capabilities. There are no super batteries in the reasonably foreseeable future. The capital investment and consumption of raw materials to build renewables is much greater than nukes per unit of energy produced. The world‘s navies have been running subs and big ships on nukes for decades. It isn’t a big deal providing we can stop all the scare tactics special interests and their captive politicians foist on all of us.
The beauty of mini nukes is that we can put them where needed. And we can use them to run energy hungry desalination plants which we also need now.
That's exactly the thing, and the only thing, that the science blog post that I linked discussed.
Q: It it possible that a single 100 mile x 100 mile solar farm could produce all of the energy demand of the electrical grid in the USA, with tech that we have now.
The answer was yes.
Left unanalyzed were the practical (and, yes, important) issues of costs, distribution, storage, and accounting for peaks and troughs in demand.
But the total energy capacity question of the proposed solar farm was asked and answered.
In my opinion, could nuclear do it more cheaply and simply? Yes.
Sure it’s possible. But lack of feasibility is the issue. .lots of shit is possible. Nukes are feasible today. If we start now, we might have enough juice available to fulfill all the demand federal, state, and local government + business has planned at the end of the decade.
10 000 sq. Mi = 2.7878e+11 sq. ft
2.7878e+11 / 10 sq ft panel = 27 878 000 000 or 28 Trillion Solar panels
at 7,000,000 panels a year it will take 4 centuries to build at say 7T per year (1000$ / Panel installed cost)
2.7878e+11 / 10 sq ft panel = 27 878 000 000 or 28 Trillion Solar panels
at 7,000,000 panels a year it will take 4 centuries to build at say 7T per year (1000$ / Panel installed cost)
God damn! No wonder you have such a high Reaction Score
@mcmurtry66
I did pass 10 hrs of chem and 10 hrs of physics before changing majors.
I did pass 10 hrs of chem and 10 hrs of physics before changing majors.
If you don’t believe the above answers … This is a good place to start … 10 000 sq. Mi can found there too.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-squa...s-would-it-take-to-provide-global-power-needs
https://www.quora.com/How-many-squa...s-would-it-take-to-provide-global-power-needs
It’s said industrial ag is the process of turning petroleum into food. It’s an energy dependent enterprise— everything from the obvious need for fuel for tractors & transportation, but also for fertilizer & chemical production.
In 1980, world petroleum reserves were estimated to be only adequate for 50-100 yrs of demand…But then about 20 y/a, Fracking was developed to save the day. Reserves should now last a couple centuries….How far into the future are we obligated to worry? Our great grand childrens’ great grandchildren will have to figure out what to do then.
In 1980, world petroleum reserves were estimated to be only adequate for 50-100 yrs of demand…But then about 20 y/a, Fracking was developed to save the day. Reserves should now last a couple centuries….How far into the future are we obligated to worry? Our great grand childrens’ great grandchildren will have to figure out what to do then.
Industrial Solar is sweeping the midwest right now at a faster pace than the oil and gas boom in Colorado I was a part of around 2010. The amount of money being invested into large scale renewable projects across the US is astronomical. Every county in Indiana has multiple sites being prospected for thousands of acre projects.
Dumb.
More and more places are banning NG and heating oil while demanding electric heat. In the northern latitudes where temps are the coldest and hours of sunlight are the lowest, no sane person should think solar is worth even a casual look. In frigid weather the heavy mechanisms of windmills will require electricity to heat them so they can even operate. This is nuts. We need nukes.
This conversation is above your pay grade, it's not like I do this for a living or anything, I'll see myself out.
Why are renewables better than nukes? Pay grade and Holiday Inn arguments are good for rubes which is where you fit.
After years of doubts, hopes grow that nuclear fusion is finally for real and could help address climate change - The Boston Globe
After breakthroughs this year at MIT and elsewhere, scientists — and a growing number of deep-pocketed investors — insist that fusion is for real and could start sending power to electricity grids in about a decade.
www.bostonglobe.com
Could be it is surpassing the usage of electricity but the conversation is about replacing the internal combustion engines. Not likely existing renewables are even close to that possibility.
Think smaller, localized solutions rather than larger…a battery or super capacitor combination charged by renewables at the
point of use…at the end of the grid. You will not have near the transmission losses.
I think the answer is a theoretical “yes” to the 100 x 100 sq miles of solar panels supplying the energy needs of the country….but where do we acquire the capability to manufacture these very many solar panels and if we had that capacity…then where do we get the rare earths, molybdenum and so forth to make that scale of manufacturing happen? We happily gave away our possibilities in Afghanistan of using their deposits.
Optimal angles of incidence are +/- 60 degrees to the perpendicular of the face (z-axis) of the solar panel, assuming a high efficiency reflector on the back of panel. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6611928/
Lower efficiencies from say 6-8:30am and 4:30-6pm (local solar time during an equinox) will require a supplemental power supply. https://energyfollower.com/solar-panel-angle/
Tuning panel placement (especially in Northern latitudes) to optimize winter (solstice) performance this time of year will compromise summer (solstice) performance… http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ep.20160602.01.html#Sec1
which brings in the question of panel followers.
https://news.energysage.com/solar-trackers-everything-need-know/
How much personal investment do you wish to expose on your roof to an Indiana thunderstorm.
In the meantime, new environmental standards will kick some existing power plants to the curb before they wear out. (likely before you get your panels installed). https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-wastewater-rule-coal-fired-power-plants-shut-down
Rate payers will get to pay for impairment expenses in these plant closures, as utilities are permitted to recoup all generation and distribution expenses in rates.
Lower efficiencies from say 6-8:30am and 4:30-6pm (local solar time during an equinox) will require a supplemental power supply. https://energyfollower.com/solar-panel-angle/
Tuning panel placement (especially in Northern latitudes) to optimize winter (solstice) performance this time of year will compromise summer (solstice) performance… http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ep.20160602.01.html#Sec1
which brings in the question of panel followers.
https://news.energysage.com/solar-trackers-everything-need-know/
How much personal investment do you wish to expose on your roof to an Indiana thunderstorm.
In the meantime, new environmental standards will kick some existing power plants to the curb before they wear out. (likely before you get your panels installed). https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-wastewater-rule-coal-fired-power-plants-shut-down
Rate payers will get to pay for impairment expenses in these plant closures, as utilities are permitted to recoup all generation and distribution expenses in rates.
Last edited:
Nuclear is the clear best option for a bridge technology. We already know how to do it, and there's a crap ton of fuel available in the earth's crust. With the proper effort, we could power the world with nothing but nukes.
But, even that will eventually fail. It may take many thousands of years, but fuel will run out. We should use nuclear power to keep society up and running while we move to solar-powered microwave transmission - solar collectors orbiting the sun at the Earth's Lagrangian points which beam the energy back to the surface in the form of microwaves. The technology is almost there; we just have to iron out a few details. And once we do that, it's basically free energy for a couple billion years.
I bought a pizza last night. The webpage where I placed my pick-up order said that the place was “Proud to be Denver’s first 100% Wind-Powered Pizza Company”. Let that sink in for a minute.
Why would the company think wind power is so important to pizza consumers? Can you imagine a similar reference to nuclear power? Neither can I.
This in a nutshell is why the energy supply in the US is so screwed up. Our energy decisions are powered by feelings. They are not powered by science and engineering. Wind and other renewable power simply makes some people feel good. But it makes no sense. For them, (mostly liberals ) feelings are important. Feelings power most all their policy choices.
In the U S, permitting a new nuke plant takes five years. This is for previously approved reactor designs. New designs and litigation will probably at least double the time. Add in construction time and we are likely looking at a 10-15 year time line to get a new nuke to operating level.
We have very few nukes under construction and one in the pipeline. With decommissioning nukes underway, projections are that we will have less nuclear power in 2050 than we do now. Meanwhile, increased demand is legislatively required.
What is Asia doing? China has 46 new ones being planned or building, and plans for a total of 150 more in 15 years. India will have 15 more online by the end of 2024. Japan has shaken-off its Fukushima hangover and is planning new ones.
These countries will all have more and cheaper power than the United Sates. The trainwreck will only get worse.
Why would the company think wind power is so important to pizza consumers? Can you imagine a similar reference to nuclear power? Neither can I.
This in a nutshell is why the energy supply in the US is so screwed up. Our energy decisions are powered by feelings. They are not powered by science and engineering. Wind and other renewable power simply makes some people feel good. But it makes no sense. For them, (mostly liberals ) feelings are important. Feelings power most all their policy choices.
In the U S, permitting a new nuke plant takes five years. This is for previously approved reactor designs. New designs and litigation will probably at least double the time. Add in construction time and we are likely looking at a 10-15 year time line to get a new nuke to operating level.
We have very few nukes under construction and one in the pipeline. With decommissioning nukes underway, projections are that we will have less nuclear power in 2050 than we do now. Meanwhile, increased demand is legislatively required.
What is Asia doing? China has 46 new ones being planned or building, and plans for a total of 150 more in 15 years. India will have 15 more online by the end of 2024. Japan has shaken-off its Fukushima hangover and is planning new ones.
These countries will all have more and cheaper power than the United Sates. The trainwreck will only get worse.
I read that the sixe of the solar farm that would be needed to replace one nuclear plant would be huge. Has anyone else read this?
Will Nuclear Fusion Ever Power the World?
"The running joke in fusion is that, every year for the last 50 years, it’s been 50 years away. But this time, I think we’re really getting close."
gizmodo.com
It is:
(18) 1000 MW, Generating capacity of a nuclear reactor (from above)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3
1000 MW * 24 Hours = 24,000 MWh per day
1,295 watt-hours /1,000 = 1.3 kWh per day per 370 watt solar panel (for New York)
https://www.solarreviews.com/blog/how-much-electricity-does-a-solar-panel-produce
24,000 MWh * 1000 kWh / MWh = 24,000,000 kWh per day
24,000,000 kWhr / 1.3 kWh per panel = 18,461,539 panels
at about 6 200 000 panels a year… it would take about 3 years to replace one nuclear power plant.
70“ x 40” = 2800 sq. in., Size of 370 watt solar panel. https://sunwatts.com/370-watt-lg-mono-solar-panel/
18,461,539 panels * 2800 sq. in. per panel / 144 sq. in per sq. ft. = 358 974 370 sq. ft.
358 974 370 sq. ft. / 2.788e+7 sq. ft. per sq. mi. = 12.876 sq. mi. (In New York)
I have not tried the math but solar and wind power do offer proximity to the customers so it will probably be harder to take down the power grid at least locally to where they exist. I believe there may be no one right answer.
nuke is long term insanity, and pushed by those who care only about short time frames. (such as any business interest).
strange how hydro is totally ignored from the conversation, despite us having more than enough rivers and streams, each likely capable of supporting multiple damns, and hydro already being proven and controllable, and not having the same storage snafu that wind and solar have..
sometimes hybrid is best.
solar on/at every home and commercial bldg, with hydro backup for when the home/business solar is insufficient, and to feed vehicle charging stations.
save oil/gas for aviation, and the other few uses electric can't handle.
problem solved.
that wasn't so hard, was it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
