Solar power sissies; Plutonium for spacecraft is BACK!!

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 12:07:41 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 10:02:02 PM UTC-7, lal_truckee wrote:
On 12/27/15 7:35 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
Solar is fine if you've got a lot of desolate desert nearby; if, instead, you
have to put good agricultural land in the shade, there's an impact.

Written like a true green grass chauvinist: deserts have remarkable
environments and habitats just as worthy of protection as the green
wastelands.

Yes, it's true that desert ecosystems are fragile. But they don't do the really
important work of feeding humans.


Neither is your front yard (or All Bore's heated pool.)

Maybe if you and Bore would take up less real estate and use less energy then it would not be " necessary" to destroy the deserts. Are you not aware if the biodiversity of deserts?

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 3:23:17 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 27 December 2015 22:27:41 UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 5:23:29 PM UTC-8, RichA wrote:

The two major renewables still rank dead-last in terms of efficiency, which means "how much energy in, to get energy out."

What's the difference, if the energy in is free? Efficiency will increase as the technology advances...

EROI. Wind, Solar. DEAD LAST.

Renewables tend to suffer from "receding horizons."

Let's see solar panel/windmill manufacturing infrastructure powered EXCLUSIVELY by solar/wind energy... THEN we'll talk!

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 3:17:47 AM UTC-5, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:35:12 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
Solar is fine if you've got a lot of desolate desert nearby; if,
instead, you
have to put good agricultural land in the shade, there's an impact.

Solar energy doesn't have to be local. Electricity can be transported
over long distances.

Answer: High property values, decent radio reception and a good gene pool.

Question: What are three things you won't find under power lines?

(NIMBY, but maybe yours?)

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:34:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:41:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The "green" energy sources can't provide *as much energy as we
might happen to
want* - they have to be combined with conserving energy. And that
means energy
will be expensive rather than plentiful, and that will constrict
the economy.

True, and the longevity of the human speciellt depends on whether we
adapt to those constrictions or not. Our current lifestyle, which is
highly extravagant when compared to any other epoch of human history,
can only be temporary.

I'm more concerned about the ability of the United States to defend the
continued existence of liberty on the planet than our luxurious lifestyle. That
does require a strong industrial base.

As to the long-range prospects of humanity, there are enough stars shining in
the sky that it is not physically impossible for each one of us to have
available the entire energy output of the Sun for his or her own use. I want
progress for humanity, not regression.

John Savard

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:34:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:41:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The "green" energy sources can't provide *as much energy as we
might happen to
want* - they have to be combined with conserving energy. And that
means energy
will be expensive rather than plentiful, and that will constrict
the economy.

True, and the longevity of the human speciellt depends on whether we
adapt to those constrictions or not. Our current lifestyle, which is
highly extravagant when compared to any other epoch of human history,
can only be temporary.

I'm more concerned about the ability of the United States to defend the
continued existence of liberty on the planet than our luxurious lifestyle. That
does require a strong industrial base.

As to the long-range prospects of humanity, there are enough stars shining in
the sky that it is not physically impossible for each one of us to have
available the entire energy output of the Sun for his or her own use. I want
progress for humanity, not regression.

John Savard

On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:22:01 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 21:07:39 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Yes, it's true that desert ecosystems are fragile. But they don't
do the really
important work of feeding humans.

FYI: humans cannot eat electricity... :-)

Exactly, therefore we need to produce electricity in a way that doesn't
conflict with food production. Which solar fails to do in some locations.

John Savard

On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:41:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, December 27, 2015 at 11:09:10 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Nuclear is intrinsically unsafe in current designs, and the costs are
extremely high- environmental costs as well as construction.

I don't believe that to be true at all. However, there definitely is one serious
problem - the possibility of fuel being diverted for use in weapons, especially
by terrorists.

But nuclear can be expanded to provide a lot of energy. The high construction
costs are due to a legal environment allowing groups that don't like nuclear
power to obstruct the building of nuclear power plants, causing costly delays.
If we are serious about the use of nuclear power, laws can be amended to sweep
that problem out of the way.

Sure, laws can be changed. But they won't be, because we don't appear
to need nuclear energy to solve our energy problems, and there's
little will to adopt it (and quite a lot of resistance to doing so).
The reality is that nuclear is expensive, and is likely to remain that
way.

The "green" energy sources can't provide *as much energy as we might happen to
want* - they have to be combined with conserving energy. And that means energy
will be expensive rather than plentiful, and that will constrict the economy.

I think that the evidence is to the contrary. There's no reason to
think that in a decade we won't be receiving a significant amount of
our energy from a combination of conservation (in the form of higher
efficiency consumers) and solar power. There's no reason to think that
you won't be able to go down to Home Depot and for a couple hundred
dollars get a roll of 15% efficient PV plastic to lay out on your roof
that will provide you with a third of your electricity no matter where
you live, and a lot more in some places. Electric cars will certainly
replace most gasoline cars, and they'll be powered significantly from
solar. And there's no reason to think that existing fossil fuel power
generation won't be inexpensively modified to either scrub CO2 or to
use solar generated hydrocarbons.

Green energy sources are very likely to provide all the energy we want
within a few decades, which is the length of just the permitting
process for nuclear plants in many cases.

On Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:33:19 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 1:34:43 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:41:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

The "green" energy sources can't provide *as much energy as we
might happen to
want* - they have to be combined with conserving energy. And
that
means energy
will be expensive rather than plentiful, and that will
constrict
the economy.

True, and the longevity of the human speciellt depends on whether
we
adapt to those constrictions or not. Our current lifestyle, which
is
highly extravagant when compared to any other epoch of human
history,
can only be temporary.

I'm more concerned about the ability of the United States to defend
the
continued existence of liberty on the planet than our luxurious
lifestyle. That
does require a strong industrial base.

As to the long-range prospects of humanity, there are enough stars
shining in
the sky that it is not physically impossible for each one of us to
have
available the entire energy output of the Sun for his or her own
use. I want
progress for humanity, not regression.

Now you've really entered the real of science fiction. That would
require mankind to colonize most of our galaxy, and that would
require some 100 000 years, counted from the day we are able to
travel at almost lightspeed. And during those 100 000 years, the
number of humans must not increase much, or else there won't be one
star for each one of us. How likely is it that mankind will colonize
our entire galaxy without growing much in number?