fireofenergy

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

Play with what materials?
At say, 300 MW capacity per sq mi, that's 10 watts per sq foot. Panels cost more like $50 a sq ft, so unless a massive undertaking to develop automated PV factories is enacted, this whole solar thing is out. Because of the low capacity rate (.22 or so), these things would have to be made for less than $5 per sq ft!. That's asking for the glass, the frame, and the connectors (and the supporting infrastructure) to basically be free!

Therefore I give up on PV in favor of trying to learn about a much more non-diffuse source, that is, energy from thorium which relies upon nuclear reactions (multiple fissions) but should be about a thousand times safer, with only 1% of the wastes that take about 1,000 x less time to "halflife", meaning that if the "casings" were to crumble in 300 years, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!
If anybody here wants to research energy, try "LFTR" or liquid fluoride thorium reactor. I've asked the people on that site dedicated to LFTR for any negatives and they came up with what I already know (and a whole lot more!), that the conventional (uranium) nuclear supported the need (at that time) to build weapons, and thus took precedence in all the following political and design decisions. The liquid salt reactor wasn't needed and wasn't even fully built (I don't think). The science is proven as it was a project of ORNL.

Cap and trade is just a farce designed to rob us of what little money we have left and to starve developing nations to death. I would rather go against every (little) energy thing that I believed in if those things required this sinister tax just to compete (I have heard that it is not working elsewhere)! Global warming is real. We are not going to fix it with fantasy solutions because we will become to broke to fix it.
I'm telling you, there is no excuse not to have unlimited thorium power as the solution. The problem is too many people have been scared (to our collective death).
I don't want to see more conventional nuclear as it produces 100 times the waste which takes 1,000 times as long to "decompose" per amount of base load energy! It's time to tell congress to shine the diffuse renewables in favor of the nuclear renewables. Yes, the fission process can even "burn" those wastes (with a differently designed reactor).

We, at least, have to prove the LFTR concept untrue before "going back" to wind and solar thermal. We are given many solutions in reality but only a few from those that try to impose their realities...

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

I get 2,590,000 sq m * 20 watts (because efficiency should be more like 15-20% with solar thermal, the better choice) ~52 megawatt capacity. However, starting from scratch, I use 1,000 watts (total possible) * 15% = 150 watts per square meter * sq mi = 388,500,000 watts capacity. If you times that by .22 for actual capacity throughout the year, I still get WAY more at ~85.5MW

Hmm, go figure.

Clean Energy: The Materials Play

"Anythings worth getting CSP with storage developed on a massive scale" as that is THE ONLY renewable that could even come close to powering the world!

Problem though, I've "stumbled" upon a much simpler (and unlimited) yet to be (re)developed source of power. A spin off from nuclear tech, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is about a thousand times safer and produces less than one percent of wastes, which has a halflife of about a thousandth of what the dummies want to put in Yucca Valley! (So in 300 years, if the casings crumble, the contents would be less radioactive than natural uranium itself!) Better yet, this thing can even "burn" the high level wastes! Infact, it requires such to "kick start" the process of thorium fission (as I think I understand it)!

The reason why it is not used is because the infrastructure and design went towards the weapons making form of nuclear, that is of "burning" uranium, which I oppose.

Just search it and see if this is not truly the answer since the tech has been around half a century ago... Imagine, no need to spend billions on extra lines, no need to fight off global dust storms caused by desert bulldozing (the easiest way to do CSP), and being able to use the deserts to desalinate water and to grow food and with all that unlimited power, to not have to worry about the few times when CSP doesn't provide baseload power, not having to impose STUPID wealth restricting carbon caps (before cheap unlimited alternative is in place) and most importantly, a way for the rest of the world to produce power for less than that of coal!

Global warming, PROBLEM SOLVED!

As someone who really wanted CSP, I must admit, that something better is available, something that EVERYONE should look into! I am asking more questions about the LFTR concept as it seems almost to good to be true, but it is for real and the science has been around to prove it!