A Tale of Two Suntech Powers

By Ucilia Wang

There are two Suntech Powers in the world, it turns out. But one of them has been barred from doing business, at least in Germany.

The Suntech Power Holdings Co. (STP) that is based in Wuxi, China and makes crystalline silicon panels said it just obtained a preliminary injunction against the Hong Kong-based Suntech Power Holding Co. and its two known distributors. The Hong Kong company and the distributors now can’t sell solar panels with the Suntech brand in Germany, which is one of the world’s largest markets.

It wouldn’t be surprising to hear more about cases of trademark infringement or counterfeit solar panels as solar energy systems become more popular, thanks largely to generous government subsidies in places such as Germany, Spain and the United States.

There were reports of fake solar panels being sold in Uganda last year. Local retailers would change the labels of little-known brands to well-known ones, or they would alter other labels to claim a greater power output. Another news outlet said those panels originally came from China.

Comments

[investfarm:]

Every time someone mentions wind or solar power as the answer to our energy needs, the image that should form in your mind is that of 1 billion or more dying and starving children. If you do not yet understand why this is the case, you are forgiven. By the end of this piece you shall have been given the essential concepts and facts both to understand this ugly truth, and to act to prevent it.

Begin with this. To maintain a global population in a condition resembling a modern 21st Century standard of living will require an installed electrical generating capacity of at least 3 to 5 kilowatts per capita. Today only the United States, Japan, and a few countries of western Europe even approximate this level of generating capacity. Let us understand the meaning of this more clearly, before moving on to the crucial question of how we shall generate this power the world so desperately needs.

Kilowatts are a measure of electrical power, the amount of work that can be done per unit of time. One of the first means of measuring power was to compare it to that of a working horse. The standard horsepower is equivalent to about 750 watts of electricity. That means that it takes 750 watts of electricity, driving a motor or other device, to do the same work as a standard working horse. Thus, 1 kilowatt (1,000 watts) of electricity, is equivalent to the work of about 1.33 muscular horses of the working type. The horse cannot work all day, however, but only perhaps for one third of it, after subtracting the time for meals and rest. Thus one kilowatt of electrical generating capacity, available all day and night, could do the work of 3 times 1.33 horses equals 4 horses.

Here in the United States, we have about 3 kilowatts of electrical generating capacity available per capita—much less than we need to be a truly productive economy, but still something that most of the world comes nowhere near. Thus we could say that every person in the United States, on average, has the work of 12 horses available to him every hour of the day and night, in the form of electricity.[1] Without electricity, the work of those silent horses must be done by men and women, laboring to turn pumps, to carry water on their heads, to spend a whole day scrubbing clothes and another heating irons on a fire to press them, while such simple requirements as water and sewage treatment, refrigeration, even the light bulb, go wanting. Such and worse remains the condition of a majority of the world's population--some 1.7 billion people, who are entirely without electricity, and several billion more for whom the supply is intermittent and deficient.

China for example, which produces a great part of the manufactured products consumed in the U.S.A., had only 0.3 kilowatts of generating capacity available per capita in 2005, which increased by 2008 to an estimated 0.5 kilowatts. Well over half of this electricity goes to power Chinese industry, the product of which is primarily exported. Thus, the amount available per person for use in China is less than 0.25 kilowatts, about one-third of a horsepower. Taken over the full 24 hours, we can say that the average person in China has available to him the work of one horse, compared to the 12 horses available in the U.S. The source of most U.S. manufactured products is the low-wage labor of millions of Chinese, many of them from families with no access to even the electric light. In India, Egypt, most of the rest of Africa, and large parts of South America it is far worse. In Mexico, another major source of U.S. manufactured goods, the electricity available per capita is about the same as China. Such an injustice cannot continue for long. How then will we remedy it?

No one can seriously propose that the world energy shortage can be solved with windmills and solar panels. The proponents of these systems have never addressed the world need, except to propose such patronizing and pathetic schemes as solar-powered refrigerators for African villages, which only work, if at all, when the Sun is shining. But even the proposals to use solar and windmills in the developed countries are a chimera. They have never proven economically or technologically feasible, despite the enormous public expense in tax credits and subsidies which they have drawn upon.

To bring the present world population of 6.7 billion people up to a level of just 1.5 kilowatts of electrical generating capacity per capita will require that we build 6,000 gigawatts[2] (6 million megawatts) of generating capacity. The only feasible way to accomplish this is to embark now on a crash program to build nuclear power plants making use of our limited existing capabilities, and gearing up for a serial production capability for the new breed of fourth generation, high-temperature helium-cooled reactors, among other models.

Could solar or wind power possibly address the world electricity deficit? The largest existing solar power plant, the solar concentrator known as Nevada Solar One, produces less than 15 MW of power, averaged over the course of the day.[3] The largest solar plant using photovoltaic panels, is in Jumilla in southeastern Spain. It is rated at 23 megawatts maximum capacity. Divide this by four, and you have the actual average output of less than 6 megawatts! A single large nuclear power plant can produce 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) or more of electrical power. It can do this all day every day, not just when the Sun shines, and on a land surface area hundreds of times smaller than the equivalent solar plants or wind farms.

What Is Energy Density?

But wind and solar power are “free” people say: The energy is there, a bounty of nature, we just have to use it. Yet once one analyzes such an argument, one sees that is meaningless sophistry, even on the face of it. Coal, oil, and uranium are “free” in the same sense. A certain amount of work has to be done to mine them and bring them to the place where they will be consumed, but work also has to be done to utilize wind and solar, a very great deal of work compared to the benefit received.

Instead of such loose use of language let us examine the two most important concepts in evaluating a power source, energy density and energy flux density. By the energy density of a fuel or power source, we mean the amount of useful work that can be derived from a given mass of the substance. By energy flux density, we mean the transformative power which can be obtained from that fuel source.

Let us examine the first term first, and see what we can learn from it.

Over the course of human history, there have been several progressive increases in the energy density of the fuels employed. The transition from wood burning to coal (which is almost four times more energy dense than wood), took place in Europe in the 18th century. The higher temperatures and regulation that could be achieved with coal fires permitted the introduction of new technologies related to smelting of ores, steelmaking, and other techniques. Until the 1950s, coal was the primary energy source for industry and transportation, and it remains the principal fuel used for electricity generation in the U.S.A.

Oil is about half again as energy dense as coal. The advantage of oil over coal as a fuel for powering steam ships became a factor in geopolitics at the close of the 19th Century, with the conversion of the British Royal Navy from coal to oil-fired steam boilers. The weight advantage of oil, and its ease of handling, not requiring manual stokers to feed the fire, increased the range and efficiency of warships. The lighter derivatives of petroleum, such as gasoline, benzene, and kerosene, are among the most energy-dense liquids, which made them desirable as a transportation fuel--as long as they last.

But each of these improvements in the energy density of fuels was dwarfed by the discovery of atomic energy. As illustrated in the accompanying diagram, a barely visible speck of uranium fuel, when fully fissioned, is equivalent to 1260 gallons of fuel oil (weighing 4.5 tons), 6.15 tons of coal, or 23.5 tons of dry wood. When compared by weight, the advantage of uranium fuel over the older types is as follows:

Advantage per unit weight of Uranium . . . . [4]

. . . over Wood: 11.5 million times

. . . over Coal: 3.0 million times [5]

. . . over Petroleum: 2.2 million times

We shall be modest and note that these figures are derived assuming that all of the fissionable uranium in the fuel pellet is burned up (fully fissioned). The fuel burn-up rate in many presently operating reactors, may be only about 4 percent, though it is higher in advanced reactor designs. Thus the figures above need to be divided by 25, giving nuclear power, in the worst case scenario, an energy density advantage over wood, coal and petroleum of only 88,000 to 460,000. However, with fuel reprocessing, a form of recycling, the burn-up rate is greatly increased. Because of the production of extra neutrons in the fission reaction, new fuel can be created by nuclear transmutation as the old fuel burns up. The full nuclear fuel cycle, employing reprocessing and fuel breeding, is a virtually limitless cycle. Nuclear is the only fuel that replaces itself as it burns.

Energy Flux Density

To progress from the concept of energy density to energy flux density, it is necessary to have a deeper conception of the notion of work. In physics textbook terms, energy is the same as work. It was one of the great achievements of 19th Century physics, to demonstrate the equivalence of heat, electricity, and mechanical motion, resolving all these forms of energy (work), and others, to a common measure. Thus, the technical definition of energy flux density would simply be the amount of energy passing across a given surface area in a unit of time. An example of a higher energy flux density could be had by comparing the capability of a sharp knife to a dull one. Holding the sharper knife, the same work exerted by the hand is concentrated over a smaller surface area. The energy flux density is greater and the sharp knife is able to cut where the dull one cannot.

By that method of accounting, the energy flux density produced by the fission of a single uranium atom can be shown to be from about 20 million to 20 quadrillion times greater than that gained by burning a molecule of an energy-dense fuel, such as natural gas.[6] However, even this astounding numerical advantage does not yet comprehend the essential difference. To understand energy flux density in the context of physical economy, a higher conception of work is required. It is not sufficient to regard work, as we do in physics, merely as the expenditure of energy measured in calories, joules, kilowatt-hours, or electron volts. Rather, when considering a physical economy, we must look at the transformative power of the work. Something akin to the skilled worker’s maxim “don’t work hard, work smart” is appropriate as a first approximation of the concept. Implied in the saying is the idea, that by application of the human mind, the same expenditure of effort can be made more efficient, perhaps by use of a different tool, or by the improvisation of a new one, or by organizing the process in a different way. In the case of nuclear, as opposed to chemical or mechanical processes, a higher order sort of innovation is at work. Here we are dealing with the introduction of a new discovery of universal physical principle, the revolution in physical chemistry which began with the Curie’s separation of the first gram of radium, and proceeded through the identification of the radioactive decay process, nuclear transmutation, the energy-mass relation, the nucleus, the isotope, the neutron, the accelerator, the discovery of fission, the chain reaction, and so forth.

Apart from the questions of cost and efficiency, the fallacy of saying that wind and solar can be made to generate electricity, just as nuclear power can, is that it leaves out the transformative power which the application of this new universal physical principle permits. Nuclear energy works smarter, vastly smarter, than wind, solar, or fossil fuels ever can. The reason is not merely its superior energy flux density, measured in caloric terms, but the transformation in the physical economic process as a whole which it can accomplish.

With the fission of each uranium nucleus, several tiny entities, part particle and part wave, are released at velocities approaching that of the speed of light. These particle/waves, which we call neutrons, have the ability to penetrate the nucleus of another nearby atom and to transform it into a new element, a process known as transmutation. But this is only the beginning, for that new element may, in turn, spontaneously transmute into another, and another, producing a family of byproducts (isotopes) which finally settle into a stable form. By mastering the chemistry of these transformations, we have the ability to make new materials, some known and some yet to be discovered, which will be of benefit to future human life. We have also the benefit of the rays these isotopes give off, at least three different types, and each one at a different strength. Their uses in diagnosis and treatment of an array of dangerous diseases are proven, and every day brings new possibilities.[7]

Nuclear for Fuel and Water

In many parts of the world, including some of extremely high population density, such as the east coast of India, the supply of clean water is running out. Ground wells are becoming contaminated as the fossil water supply within the ground becomes exhausted. Substantial regions of the United States, including southern California and the American Southwest are also reaching critical water supply limits. Producing drinking water by desalination of seawater is a proven process. Presently, 40 million cubic meters of water a day are produced by desalination, mostly in the Middle East and north Africa. The leading methods are reverse osmosis, using electric-powered pumps to force salt or brackish water through a specially designed membrane, and flash distillation. However, desalination is an energy-intensive process.

The feasibility of using nuclear power for large-scale desalination was first demonstrated nearly 40 years ago in Soviet Kazakhstan. For 27 years, the Aktau fast reactor produced 80,000 cubic meters per day of fresh water, and up to 135 megawatts of electric power at the same time. Japan has operated 10 demonstration desalination facilities linked to nuclear reactors, and India in 2002 set up a demonstration desalination plant at the Madras Atomic Power Station in the southeast with a 6,300 cubic meter per day output. Windmills and solar panels will not supply the large amounts of electric power required to produce fresh water in dry areas of the world, but nuclear plants can do it.

Nuclear power also offers the solution to the dependency on imported oil. The key is the two atoms of hydrogen contained in every molecule of water. Hydrogen is a fuel, which can be utilized on its own, or combined with carbon sources to produce liquid fuels quite similar to those we know use. Hydrogen can be obtained from water either by electrolysis or by thermo-chemical splitting. At the higher temperatures available from the new generation of modular helium-cooled reactors, the efficiency of both these processes is greatly increased. Nuclear-produced hydrogen or hydrogen-based fuels, combined with ample electricity for battery vehicles, will provide a stable local supply of the transportation fuel the nation needs. Instead of enriching the Anglo-Saudi oil cartel by shipping petroleum across thousands of miles of ocean, we can produce our own, cleaner fuel at domestic nuclear power plants, while also providing our electricity and other needs.

These are the things we as a nation need. They are also the things the world needs. They are but some of the immediately knowable practical advantages of the use of this new physical principle, which has defined the 20th century revolution in science. Much more lies ahead, waiting to be discovered. Some breakthroughs, such as the practicable development of thermonuclear fusion energy, are almost now within our grasp. Others are yet to come. To deny its application to our economy, and to return to 18th century and earlier modes of power generation, is to stop human progress.

--end

Appendix 1:



Calculation of Energy in Electron Volts from Burning a Fossil Fuel [8]

(Example is methane, the principal component of natural gas)

Heat of combustion of methane (CH4) = 891 kilojoules/mole …

(8.91 x 102 kJ/mole) / (6.02 × 1023 molecules/mole)

= 1.48 x 10-21 kilojoules/molecule of methane

1 kilojoule = 6.24150974 × 1021 electron volts …

(1.48 x 10-21 kJ/molecule) × (6.24 x 1021 eV/kJ)

= 9.24 electron volts per molecule of methane [9]

The energy released in the fission of a single uranium atom is 200 million electron volts, making the simple advantage of uranium fission over combustion of natural gas about 20 million to 1. However, the figure does not include the surface area over which the work occurs. In comparing nuclear to chemical reactions, we must consider the ratio of the surface area of the nucleus (about 10-24 cm2) to that of a molecule (about 10-15 cm2 for methane). Thus an additional factor of 109 (1 billion) must be factored in, bringing the potential energy flux density advantage of nuclear fission over fossil fuel burning to approximately 20 quadrillion to 1. This advantage is not yet realized in the present design of nuclear reactors, but demonstrates the potential still contained within this new regime of energy production.



[1] A useful pedagogical device that used to be found more often at science museums and other public displays was the bicycle-driven generator. By mounting on the bicycle, the student could discover just how much work, in the form of pedaling, was required to keep a single 100 watt light bulb glowing, thus getting a sensuous appreciation for the labor-saving efficiency of modern electrical power generation.

[2] 1 gigawatt = 1 thousand megawatts = 1 million kilowatts

[3] Beware of labeling. The plant has a peak power output of 64 megawatts. But like all solar plants, that is the amount it can produce at high noon. As the Sun falls in the sky, the output of the solar plant falls with it, until, for half the day, the solar plant produces no power at all. When shopping for a solar power plant, divide the manufacturers claimed output by four to five, and you will have a clearer idea of the con-job you are about to buy into. Also remember, that for most of the day, solar concentrator plants require back-up power from natural gas-powered heaters to keep the working fluids flowing. And don’t forget that the Sun doesn’t shine every day. In order to integrate such an erratic power source into the grid, requires sophisticated planning, electronic circuitry, and maintenance work, the cost of which is rarely considered.

[4] Derivation of figures in this table:

Weight of oil equivalent (at sp. gr. = 0.9):

30 bbls × 42 gals/bbl × 7.2 lbs/gal × 453.6 grms/lb. = 4.12 × 106 grams

Weight of coal equivalent:

6.15 tons × 2000 lbs/ton × 453.6 grms/lb = 5.58 × 106 grams

Weight of wood equivalent:

23.5 tons × 2000 lbs/ton × 453.6 grms/lb = 2.13 × 107 grams

Dividing these weights by 1.86 grams of uranium, which when fully fissioned is equivalent to the energy content of the above weights of oil, coal, and wood, gives the results shown in the table . (Derived from graphic by Dr. Robert J. Moon, 1985)

[5] The weight comparison to coal is not academic, as coal accounts for nearly half the tonnage carried on U.S. railroads. Gradually replacing coal-fired plants with nuclear power will be an important step in creating a viable rail freight transportation system.

[6] See appendix 1 for calculation.

[7] Alas, the United States is falling far behind in the use of medical isotopes, because we have nearly shut down our capability to produce all but the commonest of them, and now must import more than 90% of what we use. The chances for survival of certain types of cancers are far greater in a hospital in Europe than here, because U.S. doctors do not make use of the relevant targeted radioisotope therapies.

[8] An electron volt is the work required to move an electron through a potential difference of 1 volt.

[9] Calculated per atom, the advantage for uranium increases somewhat more. This may be seen by dividing the result for methane by 5 (the number of atoms contained in the molecule), resulting in 1.85 electron volts per atom. For ethane, the figure would be 2.02 eV/atom and so forth, the figure increasing with the molecular weight of the hydrocarbon in question.

Feb 09 06:17 AM

[Tom B:]

You make some excellent points, but we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion of bringing everybody on the planet up to a 21st century standard of living resembling our own. We would be resource constrained, surely, in a variety of raw materials.

With regards to nukes, there is the waste issue and the increased leukemia rates near plants.

I would go with green energy, as much as possible, and, longer term, look at encouraging negative population growth to get the planet down to something maore sustainable, say, 3 billion people, to pull a number out of the air.


On Feb 09 06:17 AM investfarm wrote:

> Every time someone mentions wind or solar power as the answer to
> our
energy
> needs, the image that should form in your mind is that of 1
billion
> or more dying and starving children. If you do not yet
understand
> why this is the case, you are forgiven. By the end of this
piece
> you shall have been given the essential concepts and facts both
to
> understand this ugly truth, and to act to prevent it.
>
> Begin with this. To maintain a global population in a condition
resembling
> a modern 21st Century standard of living will require an
installed
> electrical generating capacity of at least 3 to 5 kilowatts
per
> capita. Today only the United States, Japan, and a few countries
> of
western
> Europe even approximate this level of generating capacity. Let
us
> understand the meaning of this more clearly, before moving on to
> the
crucial
> question of how we shall generate this power the world so
desperately
> needs.
>
> Kilowatts are a measure of electrical power, the amount of work
that
> can be done per unit of time. One of the first means of measuring
power
> was to compare it to that of a working horse. The standard
horsepower
> is equivalent to about 750 watts of electricity. That means
that
> it takes 750 watts of electricity, driving a motor or other
device,
> to do the same work as a standard working horse. Thus, 1
kilowatt
> (1,000 watts) of electricity, is equivalent to the work of
about
> 1.33 muscular horses of the working type. The horse cannot work
all
> day, however, but only perhaps for one third of it, after
subtracting
> the time for meals and rest. Thus one kilowatt of
electrical
> generating capacity, available all day and night, could do
the
> work of 3 times 1.33 horses equals 4 horses.
>
> Here in the United States, we have about 3 kilowatts of electrical
generating
> capacity available per capita—much less than we need to be a
truly
> productive economy, but still something that most of the world
comes
> nowhere near. Thus we could say that every person in the United
States,
> on average, has the work of 12 horses available to him every
hour
> of the day and night, in the form of electricity.[1] Without
electricity,
> the work of those silent horses must be done by men and
women,
> laboring to turn pumps, to carry water on their heads, to spend
a
> whole day scrubbing clothes and another heating irons on a fire to
press
> them, while such simple requirements as water and sewage
treatment,
> refrigeration, even the light bulb, go wanting. Such and
worse
> remains the condition of a majority of the world's
population--some
> 1.7 billion people, who are entirely without
electricity,
> and several billion more for whom the supply is
intermittent
> and deficient.
>
> China for example, which produces a great part of the manufactured
products
> consumed in the U.S.A., had only 0.3 kilowatts of generating
capacity
> available per capita in 2005, which increased by 2008 to an
estimated
> 0.5 kilowatts. Well over half of this electricity goes to
power
> Chinese industry, the product of which is primarily exported.
Thus,
> the amount available per person for use in China is less than
0.25
> kilowatts, about one-third of a horsepower. Taken over the full 24
hours,
> we can say that the average person in China has available to him
the
> work of one horse, compared to the 12 horses available in the U.S.
The
> source of most U.S. manufactured products is the low-wage labor of
millions
> of Chinese, many of them from families with no access to even
the
> electric light. In India, Egypt, most of the rest of Africa, and
large
> parts of South America it is far worse. In Mexico, another major
source
> of U.S. manufactured goods, the electricity available per capita
is
> about the same as China. Such an injustice cannot continue for long.
How
> then will we remedy it?
>
> No one can seriously propose that the world energy shortage can be
solved
> with windmills and solar panels. The proponents of these systems
have
> never addressed the world need, except to propose such patronizing
and
> pathetic schemes as solar-powered refrigerators for African
villages,
> which only work, if at all, when the Sun is shining. But even
the
> proposals to use solar and windmills in the developed countries are
a
> chimera. They have never proven economically or technologically
feasible,
> despite the enormous public expense in tax credits and
subsidies
> which they have drawn upon.
>
> To bring the present world population of 6.7 billion people up to
> a
level
> of just 1.5 kilowatts of electrical generating capacity per
capita
> will require that we build 6,000 gigawatts[2] (6 million
megawatts)
> of generating capacity. The only feasible way to accomplish
this
> is to embark now on a crash program to build nuclear power plants
making
> use of our limited existing capabilities, and gearing up for a
serial
> production capability for the new breed of fourth generation,
high-temperature
> helium-cooled reactors, among other models.
>
> Could solar or wind power possibly address the world electricity
deficit?
> The largest existing solar power plant, the solar concentrator
known
> as Nevada Solar One, produces less than 15 MW of power, averaged
over
> the course of the day.[3] The largest solar plant using
photovoltaic
> panels, is in Jumilla in southeastern Spain. It is rated
at
> 23 megawatts maximum capacity. Divide this by four, and you have
> the
actual
> average output of less than 6 megawatts! A single large nuclear
power
> plant can produce 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) or more of
electrical
> power. It can do this all day every day, not just when the
Sun
> shines, and on a land surface area hundreds of times smaller than
the
> equivalent solar plants or wind farms.
>
> What Is Energy Density?
>
> But wind and solar power are “free” people say: The energy is
there,
> a bounty of nature, we just have to use it. Yet once one
analyzes
> such an argument, one sees that is meaningless sophistry, even
on
> the face of it. Coal, oil, and uranium are “free” in the same sense.
A
> certain amount of work has to be done to mine them and bring them
> to
the
> place where they will be consumed, but work also has to be done to
utilize
> wind and solar, a very great deal of work compared to the
benefit
> received.
>
> Instead of such loose use of language let us examine the two most
important
> concepts in evaluating a power source, energy density and
energy
> flux density. By the energy density of a fuel or power source,
we
> mean the amount of useful work that can be derived from a given mass
of
> the substance. By energy flux density, we mean the transformative
power
> which can be obtained from that fuel source.
>
> Let us examine the first term first, and see what we can learn from
> it.
>
> Over the course of human history, there have been several
progressive
> increases in the energy density of the fuels employed. The
transition
> from wood burning to coal (which is almost four times more
energy
> dense than wood), took place in Europe in the 18th century. The
higher
> temperatures and regulation that could be achieved with coal
fires
> permitted the introduction of new technologies related to
smelting
> of ores, steelmaking, and other techniques. Until the 1950s,
coal
> was the primary energy source for industry and transportation, and
it
> remains the principal fuel used for electricity generation in the
U.S.A.
>
>
> Oil is about half again as energy dense as coal. The advantage of
oil
> over coal as a fuel for powering steam ships became a factor in
geopolitics
> at the close of the 19th Century, with the conversion of
the
> British Royal Navy from coal to oil-fired steam boilers. The weight
advantage
> of oil, and its ease of handling, not requiring manual
stokers
> to feed the fire, increased the range and efficiency of
warships.
> The lighter derivatives of petroleum, such as gasoline,
benzene,
> and kerosene, are among the most energy-dense liquids, which
made
> them desirable as a transportation fuel--as long as they last. <br/>

>
> But each of these improvements in the energy density of fuels was
dwarfed
> by the discovery of atomic energy. As illustrated in the
accompanying
> diagram, a barely visible speck of uranium fuel, when
fully
> fissioned, is equivalent to 1260 gallons of fuel oil (weighing
4.5
> tons), 6.15 tons of coal, or 23.5 tons of dry wood. When compared
by
> weight, the advantage of uranium fuel over the older types is as
follows:
>
>
> Advantage per unit weight of Uranium . . . . [4]
>
> . . . over Wood: 11.5 million times
>
> . . . over Coal: 3.0 million times [5]
>
> . . . over Petroleum: 2.2 million times
>
> We shall be modest and note that these figures are derived assuming
that
> all of the fissionable uranium in the fuel pellet is burned up
(fully
> fissioned). The fuel burn-up rate in many presently operating
reactors,
> may be only about 4 percent, though it is higher in advanced
reactor
> designs. Thus the figures above need to be divided by 25,
giving
> nuclear power, in the worst case scenario, an energy density
advantage
> over wood, coal and petroleum of only 88,000 to 460,000.
However,
> with fuel reprocessing, a form of recycling, the burn-up rate
is
> greatly increased. Because of the production of extra neutrons in
the
> fission reaction, new fuel can be created by nuclear transmutation
as
> the old fuel burns up. The full nuclear fuel cycle, employing
reprocessing
> and fuel breeding, is a virtually limitless cycle. Nuclear
is
> the only fuel that replaces itself as it burns.
>
> Energy Flux Density
>
> To progress from the concept of energy density to energy flux
density,
> it is necessary to have a deeper conception of the notion of
work.
> In physics textbook terms, energy is the same as work. It was one
of
> the great achievements of 19th Century physics, to demonstrate the
equivalence
> of heat, electricity, and mechanical motion, resolving all
these
> forms of energy (work), and others, to a common measure. Thus,
the
> technical definition of energy flux density would simply be the
amount
> of energy passing across a given surface area in a unit of time.
An
> example of a higher energy flux density could be had by comparing
the
> capability of a sharp knife to a dull one. Holding the sharper
knife,
> the same work exerted by the hand is concentrated over a smaller
surface
> area. The energy flux density is greater and the sharp knife is
able
> to cut where the dull one cannot.
>
> By that method of accounting, the energy flux density produced by
the
> fission of a single uranium atom can be shown to be from about 20
million
> to 20 quadrillion times greater than that gained by burning a
molecule
> of an energy-dense fuel, such as natural gas.[6] However, even
this
> astounding numerical advantage does not yet comprehend the
essential
> difference. To understand energy flux density in the context
of
> physical economy, a higher conception of work is required. It is
> not
sufficient
> to regard work, as we do in physics, merely as the
expenditure
> of energy measured in calories, joules, kilowatt-hours, or
electron
> volts. Rather, when considering a physical economy, we must
look
> at the transformative power of the work. Something akin to the
skilled
> worker’s maxim “don’t work hard, work smart” is appropriate as
a
> first approximation of the concept. Implied in the saying is the
idea,
> that by application of the human mind, the same expenditure of
effort
> can be made more efficient, perhaps by use of a different tool,
or
> by the improvisation of a new one, or by organizing the process in
> a
different
> way. In the case of nuclear, as opposed to chemical or
mechanical
> processes, a higher order sort of innovation is at work.
Here
> we are dealing with the introduction of a new discovery of
universal
> physical principle, the revolution in physical chemistry
which
> began with the Curie’s separation of the first gram of radium,
and
> proceeded through the identification of the radioactive decay
process,
> nuclear transmutation, the energy-mass relation, the nucleus,
the
> isotope, the neutron, the accelerator, the discovery of fission,
the
> chain reaction, and so forth.
>
> Apart from the questions of cost and efficiency, the fallacy of
saying
> that wind and solar can be made to generate electricity, just as
nuclear
> power can, is that it leaves out the transformative power which
the
> application of this new universal physical principle permits.
Nuclear
> energy works smarter, vastly smarter, than wind, solar, or
fossil
> fuels ever can. The reason is not merely its superior energy
flux
> density, measured in caloric terms, but the transformation in the
physical
> economic process as a whole which it can accomplish.
>
> With the fission of each uranium nucleus, several tiny entities,
part
> particle and part wave, are released at velocities approaching
that
> of the speed of light. These particle/waves, which we call
neutrons,
> have the ability to penetrate the nucleus of another nearby
atom
> and to transform it into a new element, a process known as
transmutation.
> But this is only the beginning, for that new element
may,
> in turn, spontaneously transmute into another, and another,
producing
> a family of byproducts (isotopes) which finally settle into a
stable
> form. By mastering the chemistry of these transformations, we
have
> the ability to make new materials, some known and some yet to be
discovered,
> which will be of benefit to future human life. We have also
the
> benefit of the rays these isotopes give off, at least three
different
> types, and each one at a different strength. Their uses in
diagnosis
> and treatment of an array of dangerous diseases are proven,
and
> every day brings new possibilities.[7]
>
> Nuclear for Fuel and Water
>
> In many parts of the world, including some of extremely high
population
> density, such as the east coast of India, the supply of
clean
> water is running out. Ground wells are becoming contaminated as
the
> fossil water supply within the ground becomes exhausted.
Substantial
> regions of the United States, including southern California
and
> the American Southwest are also reaching critical water supply
limits.
> Producing drinking water by desalination of seawater is a
proven
> process. Presently, 40 million cubic meters of water a day are
produced
> by desalination, mostly in the Middle East and north Africa.
The
> leading methods are reverse osmosis, using electric-powered pumps
to
> force salt or brackish water through a specially designed membrane,
and
> flash distillation. However, desalination is an energy-intensive
process.
>
>
> The feasibility of using nuclear power for large-scale desalination
was
> first demonstrated nearly 40 years ago in Soviet Kazakhstan. For
> 27
years,
> the Aktau fast reactor produced 80,000 cubic meters per day of
fresh
> water, and up to 135 megawatts of electric power at the same
time.
> Japan has operated 10 demonstration desalination facilities
linked
> to nuclear reactors, and India in 2002 set up a demonstration
desalination
> plant at the Madras Atomic Power Station in the southeast
with
> a 6,300 cubic meter per day output. Windmills and solar panels
will
> not supply the large amounts of electric power required to produce
fresh
> water in dry areas of the world, but nuclear plants can do it. <br/>

>
> Nuclear power also offers the solution to the dependency on
imported
> oil. The key is the two atoms of hydrogen contained in every
molecule
> of water. Hydrogen is a fuel, which can be utilized on its
own,
> or combined with carbon sources to produce liquid fuels quite
similar
> to those we know use. Hydrogen can be obtained from water
either
> by electrolysis or by thermo-chemical splitting. At the higher
temperatures
> available from the new generation of modular helium-cooled
reactors,
> the efficiency of both these processes is greatly increased.
Nuclear-produced
> hydrogen or hydrogen-based fuels, combined with ample
electricity
> for battery vehicles, will provide a stable local supply of
the
> transportation fuel the nation needs. Instead of enriching the
Anglo-Saudi
> oil cartel by shipping petroleum across thousands of miles
of
> ocean, we can produce our own, cleaner fuel at domestic nuclear
power
> plants, while also providing our electricity and other needs. <br/>

>
> These are the things we as a nation need. They are also the things
the
> world needs. They are but some of the immediately knowable
practical
> advantages of the use of this new physical principle, which
has
> defined the 20th century revolution in science. Much more lies
ahead,
> waiting to be discovered. Some breakthroughs, such as the
practicable
> development of thermonuclear fusion energy, are almost now
within
> our grasp. Others are yet to come. To deny its application to
our
> economy, and to return to 18th century and earlier modes of power
generation,
> is to stop human progress.
>
> --end
>
> Appendix 1:
>
>
>
> Calculation of Energy in Electron Volts from Burning a Fossil Fuel
> [8]
>
> (Example is methane, the principal component of natural gas)
>
> Heat of combustion of methane (CH4) = 891 kilojoules/mole …
>
> (8.91 x 102 kJ/mole) / (6.02 × 1023 molecules/mole)
>
> = 1.48 x 10-21 kilojoules/molecule of methane
>
> 1 kilojoule = 6.24150974 × 1021 electron volts …
>
> (1.48 x 10-21 kJ/molecule) × (6.24 x 1021 eV/kJ)
>
> = 9.24 electron volts per molecule of methane [9]
>
> The energy released in the fission of a single uranium atom is 200
million
> electron volts, making the simple advantage of uranium fission
over
> combustion of natural gas about 20 million to 1. However, the
figure
> does not include the surface area over which the work occurs. In
comparing
> nuclear to chemical reactions, we must consider the ratio of
the
> surface area of the nucleus (about 10-24 cm2) to that of a molecule
(about
> 10-15 cm2 for methane). Thus an additional factor of 109 (1
billion)
> must be factored in, bringing the potential energy flux
density
> advantage of nuclear fission over fossil fuel burning to
approximately
> 20 quadrillion to 1. This advantage is not yet realized
in
> the present design of nuclear reactors, but demonstrates the
potential
> still contained within this new regime of energy production.
>
>
>
> [1] A useful pedagogical device that used to be found more often
> at
science
> museums and other public displays was the bicycle-driven
generator.
> By mounting on the bicycle, the student could discover just
how
> much work, in the form of pedaling, was required to keep a single
100
> watt light bulb glowing, thus getting a sensuous appreciation for
the
> labor-saving efficiency of modern electrical power generation. <br/>

>
> [2] 1 gigawatt = 1 thousand megawatts = 1 million kilowatts
>
> [3] Beware of labeling. The plant has a peak power output of 64
megawatts.
> But like all solar plants, that is the amount it can produce
at
> high noon. As the Sun falls in the sky, the output of the solar
plant
> falls with it, until, for half the day, the solar plant produces
no
> power at all. When shopping for a solar power plant, divide the
manufacturers
> claimed output by four to five, and you will have a
clearer
> idea of the con-job you are about to buy into. Also remember,
that
> for most of the day, solar concentrator plants require back-up
power
> from natural gas-powered heaters to keep the working fluids
flowing.
> And don’t forget that the Sun doesn’t shine every day. In
order
> to integrate such an erratic power source into the grid, requires
sophisticated
> planning, electronic circuitry, and maintenance work, the
cost
> of which is rarely considered.
>
> [4] Derivation of figures in this table:
>
> Weight of oil equivalent (at sp. gr. = 0.9):
>
> 30 bbls × 42 gals/bbl × 7.2 lbs/gal × 453.6 grms/lb. = 4.12 × 106
> grams
>
> Weight of coal equivalent:
>
> 6.15 tons × 2000 lbs/ton × 453.6 grms/lb = 5.58 × 106 grams

>
>
> Weight of wood equivalent:
>
> 23.5 tons × 2000 lbs/ton × 453.6 grms/lb = 2.13 × 107 grams
>
> Dividing these weights by 1.86 grams of uranium, which when fully
fissioned
> is equivalent to the energy content of the above weights of
oil,
> coal, and wood, gives the results shown in the table . (Derived
from
> graphic by Dr. Robert J. Moon, 1985)
>
> [5] The weight comparison to coal is not academic, as coal accounts
for
> nearly half the tonnage carried on U.S. railroads. Gradually
replacing
> coal-fired plants with nuclear power will be an important
step
> in creating a viable rail freight transportation system.
>
> [6] See appendix 1 for calculation.
>
> [7] Alas, the United States is falling far behind in the use of
medical
> isotopes, because we have nearly shut down our capability to
produce
> all but the commonest of them, and now must import more than
90%
> of what we use. The chances for survival of certain types of
cancers
> are far greater in a hospital in Europe than here, because U.S.
doctors
> do not make use of the relevant targeted radioisotope
therapies.

>
>
> [8] An electron volt is the work required to move an electron through
> a potential difference of 1 volt.
>
> [9] Calculated per atom, the advantage for uranium increases
somewhat
> more. This may be seen by dividing the result for methane by 5
(the
> number of atoms contained in the molecule), resulting in 1.85
electron
> volts per atom. For ethane, the figure would be 2.02 eV/atom
and
> so forth, the figure increasing with the molecular weight of the
hydrocarbon
> in question.
>

Feb 09 08:46 AM

[sirfisup:]

Too bad that you didn't do enough research regarding the shortage of uranium in the world.

The sun is our greatest source of energy along with geothermal and once they can both be harnessed they will pay much higher diviidends than nuclear power and will give the human race something of which you didn't bother to mention, "Peace of Mind".

Feb 09 10:03 AM

[HaavBline:]

To investfarm:

Your VERY LONG, COMPLETE article pulling for Nuclear may be interesting, but I did not bother to read it.

I think it is very bad manner on your part to post an article TEN times longer than the orginal article, almost completely unrelated to the original subject, which is about a specific company which just happen to be a solar panel company. If you want people to read your stuff, you should just invite people to your blog with a link, no more.

Nuts!

Feb 09 12:43 PM

[bobbobwhite:]

Of course what you say is quite true for the best "advance and progress" of mankind's civilization as we presently know it. But, this uncontrolled advance and its purposeful continuation of it in any form, name or title, is what got us into our present species-ending problem in the first place. For example, Is making Africa a better place to exist for humans going to reduce its overwhelming birthrate that cannot ever be supported no matter what progress is made there without immense world contributions of nearly all things necessary to live there? That type of issue requires a new thinking that would change all society therein forever, and not the outmoded conventional thinking of today that only desires to place temporary band-aids on the symptoms of the underlying causes. Those underlying problems only eventually exaggerate beyond any hope of solution under prevailing cause-deficient thinking.

What is missing in your well studied and conventionally intelligent piece is the realization that humans have not demonstrated any documented ability in all history to invision the end point of the best societal culmination possible for all humans and all earth life living together, and then the ability to work backwards from that desired end vision to the smallest support detail in order to insure the best and most endurable establishment of principles and utility which support that ultimate and desired end point first seen. We must learn that eternal societal growth is not compatible with continued earth existence, and an end point must be established, understood, and achieved at a permanent maintenance level. (Sorry, but that means an end to all private transportation, for example.)

Details and not vision will always consume conventional thinking, even that of supposed geniuses, but it will require heretofore unknown grand and sustainable vision, and continuous and unabated implementation of that vision, if humanity is to survive even for a few more centuries. It will not survive nearly so long under the conventional thought of today, and under that thought, even base and crude survival for almost all will be impossible for many years before those final days arrive. That is what we have awaiting us if we cannot change our present idea of what civilization should and is to be.

Feb 09 12:45 PM

[Advill:]

Quite impresionant comment (or it is a essay?), however there are some points to underline:

1. Jumilla as all the other solar power instalations are at nominal output (which assumes specific position en Earth, average sunlight hours (1820 in the specific case) which means that power has not to be divided by 4 o5 as you mention.

2. Solar energy, wind energy and others like them are sustainable which means that will be under Kyoto and post-Kyoto emissions agreenments which will be increasingly important for ANY energy production in the future.

3. 120% agree with your appreciation of energy for everybody, your approach of a minimum amount of electricity per capita is very interesting and focus the size of the problem in the future.

4. The backbone of energy production late in S.XXI will be a mix of souces, many of them with descentralized, personal or communal centers of production, technology in solar systems is approaching the theoretical maximun rate of conversion, in 10 years a combination of discoveries will allow to produce that 3 kw/h you mention in a few square meters of roof, that in combination with store devices as new generation batteries or ultracapacitors or conversion to hidrogen for fuel cell use after sunset.

5. New generation of "deep burning" technology nuclear plants will support the intensive use of electricity by industries, 4th. generation reactors are able to burn near 50% of caloric value in comparison with actual 3-5% reactors., transmutation of heavy elements is a matter for next century but theoretical elements for it exists.

6. Carbon is the more abundant energy source on Earth gasifing it to produce gas without burning it is also a future source of grid associate comsumption

7. There are no future solution in one grid associated system as it was in 20th.century, a mix of elements (including of course ethanol and biofuels), hidrogen from new electrolysis processes just discovered and ultra efficient gasoline or diesel engines .

At the end what is important is providing that 3 kw/h per capita in a sustainable way

Your approach sounds "too american" for me.

Regards


On Feb 09 08:46 AM Tom B wrote:

> You make some excellent points, but we need to disabuse ourselves
> of the notion of bringing everybody on the planet up to a 21st century
> standard of living resembling our own. We would be resource constrained,
> surely, in a variety of raw materials.
>
> With regards to nukes, there is the waste issue and the increased
> leukemia rates near plants.
>
> I would go with green energy, as much as possible, and, longer term,
> look at encouraging negative population growth to get the planet
> down to something maore sustainable, say, 3 billion people, to pull
> a number out of the air.

Feb 09 01:19 PM

[frflyer:]

investfarm

Your comment sounds so well researched and so truthy. It's easy to confuse people with truthiness.
It's mostly based on false assumptions. Very little truth.


"But even the proposals to use solar and windmills in the developed countries are a chimera. They have never proven economically or technologically feasible, despite the enormous public expense in tax credits and subsidies which they have drawn upon. "

WRONG

Wind is one of the cheapest power sources available today. Wind and solar will out compete both nuclear and "clean coal" on price in the future. Recent estimates for the price of new nuclear are at least 12-17 cents/kWh.
That's about the same as solar thermal, which unlike nuclear, will fall in price to 5-8 cents/kWh in 5-10 years and will be below 10 cents/kWh in five years.
FPL raised their estimae for new nuclear plants from $4,000/kW to $5500-$8100/kW. Other estimates are as high as $10,000/kW. Some estimates for electricity from new nuclear are 22-30 cents/kWh. You think it's an accident that FPL is now in the solar thermal business?

Your comment about subsidies is perhaps the most misleading. Nuclear has received over $100 billion over the years. Fossil fuels receive $49 billion per year and have been subsidised for a century. (since 1918 without a single subsidy ever being phased out.)
Subsidies for wind and solar are miniscule by comparison. And aren't subsides supposed to be for new emerging industries, rather than mature and extremely profitable ones?

Solar is already competitive in higher priced energy markets. In the not too distant future it will be cost competitive in any market.



"The only feasible way to accomplish this is to embark now on a crash program to build nuclear power plants making use of our limited existing capabilities, and gearing up for a serial production capability for the new breed of fourth generation, high-temperature helium-cooled reactors, among other models"

WRONG

Yeah sure, we might even get a reactor up and running in ten years, with it's 1 GW, during which time we could build at least 100 GW of wind and solar if not more. Hell, we could build 100 GW of solar thermal alone by then if we had the political will to do it. And solar thermal with heat storage can run day and night with steady base load dispatchable power.

Instead we have people like you throwing monkey wrenches at the effort.
We need to lower emission now, not wait 10 years or more for new nuclear plants to be perfected and built. Same for "clean coal".

Wind grew by 8.3 GW last year in the U.S., and 4 GW in just the three months of 2008. Ok, the capacity factor is only 35-40%, so it's the equivalent of about 3 nuclear reactors being built in one year.
And the rate of growth in wind and solar will increase.
Good luck doing that with nuclear.
The NREL estimated we could build 600 GW of wind power by 2030. The Google plan calls for building 380 GW by then. We could easily have 20-25% wind power by 2030. Solar and wind could displace all our coal plants by 2030.


The jobs from wind in the U.S. grew by 70% last year to 85,000. It's only the beginning.

Wind and solar projects will create 4-5 times as many jobs as the equivalent nuclear plants.

"Could solar or wind power possibly address the world electricity deficit? The largest existing solar power plant, the solar concentrator known as Nevada Solar One, produces less than 15 MW of power, averaged over the course of the day.[3] The largest solar plant using photovoltaic panels, is in Jumilla in southeastern Spain. It is rated at 23 megawatts maximum capacity. Divide this by four, and you have the actual average output of less than 6 megawatts! A single large nuclear power plant can produce 1,000 megawatts (1 gigawatt) or more of electrical power. It can do this all day every day, not just when the Sun shines, and on a land surface area hundreds of times smaller than the equivalent solar plants or wind farms"

WRONG
There are much larger solar projects being built, in the hundreds of megawatts. You forget to tell us that the Nevada One plant was just a pilot plant. Nine solar thermal pilot plants in the Mojave have been providing 355 MW, since the late 80s and early 90s.
Now plants are designed that big each, and now have heat storage that makes them non intermittent base load power capable of running all night if designed with enough heat storage. Currently, we have excess power at night, which is why many gas plants don't run at night.

Photovoltaics efficiency and cost are on the mend and will be much cheaper than nuclear in the future.
Coal with CCS will never be able to compete with the low prices of solar and wind.


"Coal, oil, and uranium are “free” in the same sense. A certain amount of work has to be done to mine them and bring them to the place where they will be consumed, but work also has to be done to utilize wind and solar, a very great deal of work compared to the benefit received."

You are only including the land the reactor is on, what about the mining etc? And the area made uninhabitable by a meltdown? Yes it can happen.
Argonne National Lab says an airliner crashing into a nuclear power plant can cause a complete meltdown even if the containment building isn't compromised. Think they might be a terrorist target?

WRONG

What a bunch of pretzel logic. Did you mention that radioactive tailings and contamination from mining and milling and refining uranium? which by the way we import 90% of now.
So much for energy independence. We've lined up none other than Russia, to provide 20% of our uranium.

You forgot to mention that any fuel needs to be prospected for, mined, transported, stored, refined, burned, the pollution cleaned up from and wars fought over and in some cases like coal and uranium, the land is pretty much destroyed in the process.
Ok, with nuclear, the equivalent of burning is fission, with no CO2 emission, the only part of the process that doesn't have high emissions.
And as rich uranium ores are depleted the CO2 emissions from uranium mining and refining will increase.

Not so with sun and wind. They are free not only in price of fuel, but free of all the rest in the above paragraph. Not to mention that they are for all practical purposes, infinite. We will run out of fuels that are finite. Peak uranium will follow close on the heels of peak oil.

You are also not considering that we are seeking nuclear non proliferation in the world. So much for that effort, if nuclear power spreads all over the globe. Nuclear power plants are stepping stones to nuclear weapons. Imagine scenarios like in Iran, except globally. And with nuclear power all over the globe, low level waste will be everywhere for terrorists and rogue nations to get their hands on.


I haven't even mentioned at least a dozen other problems with nuclear.

And yes, wind and solar take work to build like anything else, but they provide far more jobs in doing so. What's wrong with that?
Do you imagine that labor is not already included in the price of solar and wind?


You have completely ignored energy efficiency.
We waste at least 40-50% of our power. The 3 kWs per capita could be nearly cut in half through conservation and efficiency.

You are assuming the whole world will live the wasteful consumerism throw away lifestyle of Americans. This has to change. More stuff isn't all it takes to have a rich life.

Nuclear no doubt will play a part in the new energy mix, but will end up contributing no more than the current 20% in the U.S. Old reactors will be closed as they age. For some areas without good wind and solar resources, nuclear will no doubt be needed.

If you study the Solar Grand Plan at Scientific American, you will find a plan to power the entire U.S. with solar. Their cost analysis calls for less money in subsidies over 40 years than we now give oil companies every 10 years.

There is also the great potential of biomass which is low tech and available now. Manure to methane etc.

Feb 09 01:58 PM

[Road Runner:]

investfarm, I totally agree with HaavBline. GET YOUR OWN POST AND DON'T HIJACK SOMEONE ELSES POST!!! What were you thinking?! Or were you just too lazy to make your comments a seperate post. You ruined this post which I was interested in learning more about. No wonder many people don't even bother coming to sites like these.

Feb 09 02:55 PM

[frflyer:]

More stuff to ponder

"Green jobs have grown 10 times faster than total job growth in California since 2005.
The state's pursuit of energy efficiency over the last 35 years has translated into 1.5 million jobs and tens of billions of dollars in payroll taxes and energy savings."

solveclimate.com/blog/...

The WSJ is part of the massive fossil fuel industry financed disinformation campaign on climate change and energy. They are also big fans of "truthiness". The link debunks their misleading analysis of the economics of going green.


While I'm at it, I hope no one believes the conclusions of the study for the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation(Chamber of Commerce) which tries to show how much it will cost us to convert to a clean and effficient energy plan. It was heavily biased, flawed, non transparant and not peer reviewed. 25 peer reviewed studies tell a different story, one of slight economic cost or none at all.

Links about economics of clean energy:

www.hillheat.com/artic...

getenergysmartnow.com/.../

getenergysmartnow.com/.../

climateprogress.org/20.../

gristmill.grist.org/st...

climateprogress.org/20.../


The huge loan guarantees for nuclear, in the current stimulus bill, would have a much quicker return by being loaned to companies that want to build solar thermal plants in the southwest. It would boost the industry up to scale and enable the building of a hundred gigawatts of capacity by 2030.
They can be built way faster than nuclear. And don't need any new exotic technology.
Same for wind. And won't need no stinkin fuel.



Example of how wasteful we are.

The embodied energy cost in kWh per kg of weight.

PET plastic 30
aluminium 40
glass 7

Yes we need aluminum, but do we have to drink soda out of aluminum cans? And do we need bottled water in PET bottles?
Using glass makes much more sense, obviously.

The energy cost of packaging(largely food packaging) that gets thrown away is about 10kWh/ kg. The average person in the west throws away about 4 kWh worth of packaging everyday.
(Some of that can be recaptured by incinerating the waste to make power.)

Each person throws away about 2kWh worth of energy embodied in junk mail, newspapers, magazines etc every day.

Wind and land use:
Investfarm's comment failed to mention that while wind power uses a lot of land, it actually only occupies about 2.5% of the land where it's sited, because turbines need to be spread out. This means wind can co-exist with agriculture on the same land.

Do turbines kill birds?
Yes, estimates for Denmark, which has 20% wind power, are 30,000 birds a year. That's a lot right?
Cars in Denmark kill 1 million birds a year.
55 million birds are killed by house cats in Britain
Collisions with windows kill a similar number.

More on the cost of new nuclear power.

climateprogress.org/20.../

climateprogress.org/wp...

web.mit.edu/nuclearpow.../

climateprogress.org/20.../


Wind:

www1.eere.energy.gov/w...


"The 20% Wind Scenario could require an incremental investment of as little as $43 billion NPV [net present value] more than the base-case no new Wind Scenario. This would represent less than 0.06 cent (6 one-hundredths of 1 cent) per kilowatt-hour of total generation by 2030, or roughly 50 cents per month per household."

"The benefits the country gets for this small incremental investment are staggering:"

"Reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by 25 percent in 2030.
Reduce natural gas use by 11%;
Reduce water consumption associated with electricity generation by 4 trillion gallons by 2030;
Increase annual revenues to local communities to more than $1.5 billion by 2030; and
Support roughly 500,000 jobs in the U.S., with an average of more than 150,000 workers directly employed by the wind industry."

Joseph Romm at Climate Progress


In 2007, 20 GW of windpower were installed globally.

"A 2006 report by the Western Governors Association “projects that, with a deployment of 4 GW, total nominal cost of CSP(solar thermal) electricity would fall below 10¢/kWh.” And that deployment will likely occur before 2015. Indeed, the report noted the industry could “produce over 13 GW by 2015 if the market could absorb that much.” The report also notes that 300 GW of CSP capacity can be located near existing transmission lines. As an aside, wind power is a very good match with CSP in terms of their ability to share the same transmission lines, since a great deal of wind is at night, and since CSP, with storage, is dispatchable."

climateprogress.org/20.../


Solar thermal

www.salon.com/news/fea...

www.solarserver.de/sol...

www.trec-uk.org.uk/

The above two links are about a proposal to build solar thermal around the Mediteranean, that will power Europe, the Mid East, and Northern Africa, while also providing hot water and seawater desalinization, all from solar thermal plants.

climateprogress.org/20.../

Feb 09 03:42 PM

[nmelendez:]

I believe people miss the true point, self sufficient households. Maybe not enough to run everything but at least a refrigerator and some lights and TV plus Dish.
I own a home i bought 8 years ago. i have a 500 gallon cistern, installed a Solar water heater and run on propane for cooking. I am going to install 6 to 8 Kw when prices go down. Here in the carribbean it's eternal summer. When hurricanes hit we are left without electricity for a week or so. Water also suffers since the rainfall causes the water to turn dirty. No TV and cable goes out. Oh, i also have wireless access thru sprint. I love the notion of watching TV while drinking a cold beer and afterwards taking a hot shower, all when there is no power water or any other public service available.

Feb 09 08:12 PM

[31October:]

investfarm, thanks for the concise reply on trademark infringement.

Feb 10 07:51 PM