Dust down those orbital power plans

On 11/07/2011 11:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.


You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

On 12/07/2011 1:35 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11/07/2011 11:26 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
The other half is to be invested in
renewable energy.

With a carbon price capturing the external cost of carbon emissions,
renewable energy schemes should not require public funds other than for
research and, if it gets that far, proof of concept, neither of which
requires the expenditure of $billions.

Hot rocks may make it on its own given the carbon price, but any money
spent on capitalising solar and wind is, as I said, wasted.

Sylvia.


You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/


It's mostly propaganda.

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

There may be a clever piece of sleight of hand designed to appease the
Greens without actually spending money. Most of the money is for
"innovative" renewable energy schemes. As long as "innovative" is given
a reasonable meaning, the money won't be paid out to construct more of
the same solar and wind, and indeed may not be paid out at all in the
absence of some real innovation. The latter result may be the
government's intent.

Sylvia.

On 12/07/2011 11:01 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12/07/2011 1:35 AM, Alan Erskine wrote:



You might want to read this: http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/


It's mostly propaganda.

I agree with government spending on RE, but the tax income from the 'Big
500' will be spent on RE, so industry is paying for RE roll-out.

There may be a clever piece of sleight of hand designed to appease the
Greens without actually spending money. Most of the money is for
"innovative" renewable energy schemes. As long as "innovative" is given
a reasonable meaning, the money won't be paid out to construct more of
the same solar and wind, and indeed may not be paid out at all in the
absence of some real innovation. The latter result may be the
government's intent.

Sylvia.

Propaganda? Rubbish! Yes, the money will be spent on PV and wind
systems, as well as other systems. By using the word "innovative" they
mean "other than fossil". There is no abscense of innovation in
renewable energy, I can assure you. PV grew by over 53% last year
alone, compared to the previous year (which had a 40ish % increase on
the previous year). Right smack-bang in the middle of a recession.

Have a look at what Germany are doing - getting rid of all nuclear power
stations before 2020. The shortfall in electricity will be made up with
improved efficiency at coal stations and also more RE.

There are already power stations in the U.S. and U.K. that run on poplar
and willow SRC (Short Rotation Coppice, I recommend looking that up).
Not experimental stuff either, but actuall grid-connected power stations.

Alan Erskine wrote:

Propaganda? Rubbish! Yes, the money will be spent on PV and wind
systems, as well as other systems. By using the word "innovative" they
mean "other than fossil".

No, it means other than fossil or nuclear. So propapanda indeed.

There is no abscense of innovation in
renewable energy, I can assure you. PV grew by over 53% last year
alone, compared to the previous year (which had a 40ish % increase on
the previous year). Right smack-bang in the middle of a recession.

Following the expontential growth pattern of solar, with a best guess on
when it will roll over to an asymptote, suggests around 2030 for the
time it replaces nearly all peak load generation.

Have a look at what Germany are doing - getting rid of all nuclear power
stations before 2020. The shortfall in electricity will be made up with
improved efficiency at coal stations and also more RE.

Which gives them a decade of being short on electricity. No matter the
anti-nuke sentiment by the irrational masses the need is for safer nuke
not for less nuke.

There are already power stations in the U.S. and U.K. that run on poplar
and willow SRC (Short Rotation Coppice, I recommend looking that up).
Not experimental stuff either, but actuall grid-connected power stations.

On Jul 15, 2:52*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:

Propaganda? *Rubbish! *Yes, the money will be spent on PV and wind
systems, as well as other systems. *By using the word "innovative" they
mean "other than fossil".

No, it means other than fossil or nuclear. *So propapanda indeed.

There is no abscense of innovation in
renewable energy, I can assure you. *PV grew by over 53% last year
alone, compared to the previous year (which had a 40ish % increase on
the previous year). *Right smack-bang in the middle of a recession.

Following the expontential growth pattern of solar, with a best guess on
when it will roll over to an asymptote, suggests around 2030 for the
time it replaces nearly all peak load generation.

Have a look at what Germany are doing - getting rid of all nuclear power
stations before 2020. *The shortfall in electricity will be made up with
improved efficiency at coal stations and also more RE.

Which gives them a decade of being short on electricity. *No matter the
anti-nuke sentiment by the irrational masses the need is for safer nuke
not for less nuke.



There are already power stations in the U.S. and U.K. that run on poplar
and willow SRC (Short Rotation Coppice, I recommend looking that up).
Not experimental stuff either, but actuall grid-connected power stations.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

safer nuke will never be absolutely safe nuke.

could a nuke plant be built that would survive intact and leak free a
complete meltdown?

its fine to make them less likely to melt down.

but the real design should be a plant that even if it melts down
remains intact and leak free

On 16/07/2011 9:39 AM, bob haller wrote:
t -

safer nuke will never be absolutely safe nuke.

could a nuke plant be built that would survive intact and leak free a
complete meltdown?

its fine to make them less likely to melt down.

but the real design should be a plant that even if it melts down
remains intact and leak free

Agreed, but that's just not possible. It's like the 'unsinkable' ship,
or the car that will never kill its occupants; fine on paper, but just
not practical. Making them less failure-prone just makes them more
expensive and they're already subject to extremely high subsides.

The Voitenko Compressor is a shaped charge that concentrates a
chemical explosion to energy densities needed to set off a fusion
reaction - exceeding the Lawson criterion needed for most fusion
fuels.

Lithium 6 is an isotope of lithium that is deficient in a neutron. It
consists of 7.5% of all lithium. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen
having a spare neutron. One in 6400 hydrogen nuclei are deuterium
nuclei.

Lithium-6 deuteride - is a form of lithium hydride - a powder - that
has these two types of nuclei.

When Lithium-6 deuteride is compressed and heated to over 100 million
degrees Kelvin, the two nuclei fuse and form two Helium-4 nuclei
releasing 576 trillion joules per kg.

A tiny fusion reaction started by a small chemical compressor may be
expanded to any size limited only by the availability of suitable
fuel.

Both lithium-6 and deuterium may be extracted from seawater by simple
processes at a cost of $20 per kg. This is equivalent to the heat of
burning 4,721 barrels of crude oil for $1.

Micro-electro-mechanical systems may be produced that operate as
Voitenko compressors costing only fractions of a penny per device in
quantity. A 1 micro-gram fuel element releases 1.58 mega-joules.
Detonated in a tank of working fluid, like water, every 21.8 seconds,
this produces a tank of steam that produces energy at a steady rate of
26,400 Watts thermal. Run through a steam turbine at an efficiency of
38% - this produces 10,000 Watts electrical - continuously. A system
like this in quantity would cost $500 and would contain 29 grams of
lithium deuteride fuel, which would be sufficient at this rate to
allow the turbine to operate continuously for 20 years. The cost of
the fuel would be $0.60 of the total price.

These would be suitable for powering and heating homes, offices,
factories and vehicles.

Producing these units at a rate of 75 million per year (about equal to
current world automobile production) and with a 20 year life span, 1.5
billion units could become operational over this period. At 10,000
watts each this represents the present energy consumption of the
entire world.

A supply chain to produce 300 million units per year (possible as a
crash measure, similar to the production of weapons in World War 2)
and with the same 20 year life span - the world's existing power
infrastructure would be replaced in five years and the world would
have a global capacity of 6.0 billion units - approximately 4x the
present power production on the planet. When applied usefully to
industry, this surplus energy would raise living standards throughout
the world.

For this reason I am putting in my Bergius coal-to-liquid systems a
means to extract deuterium from the 2,500 tonne per day hydrogen
stream per unit. 14 units x 2,500 tons per day / 6,400 x 2 amu/atom =
10.9 tonnes per day of deuterium. Another process extracts 436
tonnes of lithium from the ocean each day, and then separates out 32.7
tonnes per day of Lithium 6. The lithium and deuterium are combined
to produce 43.6 tonnes per day of fuel containing 25.11e+18 Joules of
energy. If this were all released in power plants this would
generate a total power level of 290.7 trillion watts - about 19x what
the world consumes per day.

While large by 20th century standards, this is just the 'proof of
concept' of the system. Hundreds of ships built each year need
thousands of tons per trip, which require expansion - as the means for
production is built up.

Capturing even a small portion of the world's energy markets, allows
this to be paid for.

There are 200 billion tons of lithium in the world's oceans. Only a
small fraction is used before opening resources off world.

bob haller wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Which gives them a decade of being short on electricity. *No matter the
anti-nuke sentiment by the irrational masses the need is for safer nuke
not for less nuke.

safer nuke will never be absolutely safe nuke.

And there's an example of the irrational masses. There's no such thing
as an absolutely safe aircraft either, yet I think nothing of flying
even though I know more about the mechanics of the plane than most
passengers, though less than nearly all pilots.

On 16/07/2011 4:52 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Alan Erskine wrote:

Propaganda? Rubbish! Yes, the money will be spent on PV and wind
systems, as well as other systems. By using the word "innovative" they
mean "other than fossil".

No, it means other than fossil or nuclear. So propapanda indeed.

There is no abscense of innovation in
renewable energy, I can assure you. PV grew by over 53% last year
alone, compared to the previous year (which had a 40ish % increase on
the previous year). Right smack-bang in the middle of a recession.

Following the expontential growth pattern of solar, with a best guess on
when it will roll over to an asymptote, suggests around 2030 for the
time it replaces nearly all peak load generation.

Have a look at what Germany are doing - getting rid of all nuclear power
stations before 2020. The shortfall in electricity will be made up with
improved efficiency at coal stations and also more RE.

Which gives them a decade of being short on electricity. No matter the
anti-nuke sentiment by the irrational masses the need is for safer nuke
not for less nuke.

There are already power stations in the U.S. and U.K. that run on poplar
and willow SRC (Short Rotation Coppice, I recommend looking that up).
Not experimental stuff either, but actuall grid-connected power stations.


The German nukes aren't closed down until the local capacity has been
supplanted by coal/RE.

Why do you say propagana?