Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.European gas prices went up by almost 25% just today.
You’re probably right…I’m trying to figure out how I can make a buck on this infoI 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.
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."www.inverse.com
Don’t forget Clinton was somewhat forced to pivot.Yes as Clinton pivoted. I believe that too re Biden. He could easily salvage his presidency, but I believe he's been hijacked and is too old to fight. Biden ten years ago yes. Biden today no.
My guess is the pubs will take over the house next year and we will be mired in stupid retaliatory investigations over the next three years and not much will get done until the next election, which is fine. Infrastructure passed. That's enough
For sure. And it worked for him, obviouslyDon’t forget Clinton was somewhat forced to pivot.
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 never seen that. Do you have a link. I'd be surprised if this were true.
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 moreI've never seen that. Do you have a link. I'd be surprised if this were true.
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
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.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.
I think Solar will be distributed to minimize the real estate investment.
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."www.inverse.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.
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.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/
That's exactly the thing, and the only thing, that the science blog post that I linked discussed.The issue I asked about is how renewables can fulfill baseload demands. That is well beyond anything I have seen.
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.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.
God damn! No wonder you have such a high Reaction Score10 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)
Dumb.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.
This conversation is above your pay grade, it's not like I do this for a living or anything, I'll see myself out.Dumb.
More and more places are banning NG heating oil and 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.
Stovepipe thinking has never been a good substitute for actual thinking.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.He slept at a holiday inn.
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.I've never seen that. Do you have a link. I'd be surprised if this were true.
This conversation is above your pay grade, it's not like I do this for a living or anything, I'll see myself out.
Think smaller, localized solutions rather than larger…a battery or super capacitor combination charged by renewables at theOliver 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.
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.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.
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.I think the US being as large as it is there will be different solutions for different areas. The Southwest and it's 7-8 hours of continuous sun and warmer temps is an excellent area for solar power creation. MIchigan in the winter? Maybe not so much.
Even as a supplement, renewables will allow us to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels and extend the life/supply of those as well. I don't think it needs to be binary choice.
Nuclear is probably the #1 overall option but it's SCARY!!!! to so many and requires a heavy capital expenditure. To be fair, most of these options would require a massive capital expenditure including hydro (obviously) and solar.
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?Solar seems to be the hot ticket at the moment among green energy advocates.
I was hoping for some GOOG news!!!! LOLI 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.
It is: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?
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.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)
If society can’t use Diesel Fuel, what do want to use?
Pick your poison, Nuclear Power Plants or Windmills to Provide an All-electric Commercial Transportation System.
15 nuclear power plants rated at 1 GW each, or 5653 windmills. (Assuming the wind blows strong enough to produce rated power).
Not sure we can really afford either.
(1) 44610000000Gallons Diesel Sold Annually https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/use-of-diesel.php (2) 137,381BTUs per gallon https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and-calculators/british-thermal-units.php (3) = (1) * (2) 6.12857E+15BTUs annually consumed as diesel fuel (4) 40%Thermal Efficiency of Diesel Engines (5) = (3) * (4) 2.45143E+15BTUs needed as Electricity for Transportation (net) (6) 15%Charging Efficiency (loss) 1-85% https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36062942/evs-explained-charging-losses/ (7) = (5) * (6) 3.67714E+14BTUs needed to offset charging efficiency loss (8) = (5) + (7) 2.81914E+15BTUs needed to Charge vehicles (gross) (9) 7%Electrical Transmission Line Loss http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/...sappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ (10) = (8) * (9) 1.9734E+14BTUs lost getting power to the charging station (11) = (7) + (10) 3.01648E+15Net BTUs delivered as electrical power to charge vehicles (12) 0.000293kWh per BTU https://www.inchcalculator.com/convert/british-thermal-unit-to-kilowatt-hour/ (13) = (11) * (12) 8.83829E+11Net kWh needed from Power Generation Sources (14) 61320Hours per year (15) = (13) / (14) 14413384.76Net Average Power per HR, kW (16) 10001000 kW per MW (17) = (15) / (16) 14413.38476Net Average Power per HR, MW (18) 1000Generating capacity of a nuclear reactor, MW https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3 (19) = (17) / (18) 14.41338476Number of Nuclear Reactors needed to provide average hourly demand (20) 2.55Generating Capacity of 1 wind farm windmill, MW https://windexchange.energy.gov/markets/utility-scale (21) = (17) / (20) 5652.307748Number of windmills (22) $3,000,000Cost per Windmill, USD https://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost https://www.windustry.org/community_wind_toolbox_8_costs (23) = (17) * (22) $16,959,000,000Installation investment USD, rounded up