[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)

Hash: SHA1

On 02/26/07 20:38, Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 10:23:13AM -0600 or thereabouts, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> Hash: SHA1
>> On 02/26/07 10:08, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:34:12AM -0600 or thereabouts, Kent West wrote:
>>>> Ron Johnson wrote:
>>>>> But coal is less oogey-boogey scary [than nuclear].
>>>>> Besides, the power (a *LOT* of power) has to come from *somewhere*,
>>>>> on a *large* industrial scale.  Especially over in China, where coal
>>>>> and auto pollution is hundreds of times worse than in the West.
>>>> I'm expecting solar power to become practical in the next three years or 
>>>> so. At least, that's what the press-releases tell me to think ;-)
>>> Actually most practical people know that this won't ever be the case.
>> I think that Kent was being sarcastic.
> Really?! Sarcastic about the length of time or that it will become
> practical? I assumed the former.

About the veracity of press releases.

>>> TVO (TV Ontario recently had a panel dicussion with some expert
>>> discussion supporting this [from the green side]). Wind/Solar energy
>>> isn't sustainable, and in a best case scenario will only be able to
>>> support energy that remains constant 24/7, regardless of overcast or
>>> windless days.
>> Like data centers.
>> Each part of the globe has it's own "preferred" form of "natural"
>> energy.  In the American Great Plains, it's wind.  In any desert,
>> it's direct solar, in other places it's hydro or geothermal.
> These "natural" technologies that you speak of, can play a supporting role.
> There is a reason why coal and oil generating stations are used. They
> can sustain energy output 24/7.

And dense.  Ur/Pl/Coal/LNG/gasoline/diesel have very high
energy/mass ratios

>                                  Realistically, nuclear is our only option
> going forward if we're serious about reducing greenhouse gases.

I couldn't agree with you more.

> Anyone that thinks massive wind farms will be able to support much of
> the infrastructure, doesn't know whereof they speak. I'd prefer it
> wasn't true, but conservation has to be pragmatic.

The "answer" is to make more wind farms.

Winds usually blow during the day, and that's when electricity
demand is highest.  Thus, (enough) wind farms would help smooth out
the need for peak loads from nuke- or non-renewable generating plants.

>> Places like Hawaii and Yellowstone could/should make loads of
>> electricity, but no one has yet been clever enough to design
>> eco-*looking* power stations.
> I don't know about "loads" in the scope of a national power grid. I
> doubt it. Every little bit helps though. 
> Citizens should be encouraged to be negative energy users; <ie> building
> green homes that at times produce surplus energy, which can be sold back
> to the public power grid.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: