SW Ontario

[Michael Hardner]

It only makes sense to fund the construction and further research into nuclear energy.

Zero greenhouse gas emissions, slightly more expensive, a lot less sexy but the most sensible solution before us.

[bloodyminded]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/welcome-to-the-wacky-world-of-green-power/article1529760/

Now we know why Jack (fighting bravely) Layton's house has one.

Just incidentally, since you keep repeating the same derisive formulation (perhaps someone made the mistake of telling you it was witty): Layton has not been talking about his health issues. Only you have been. So for some reason, you've determined to mock people with cancer, while they remain silent about the matter. Of course, whatever floats your boat.

[AngusThermopyle]

It's simply isn't feasible or efficient enough to generate power with wind or solar, at the moment. we create a larger energy deficit in the manufacture and shipment of solar panels that

You have a point as far as mass generation of energy is concerned, however as I said earlier it is very feasible on a personal scale. As also mentioned if enough people choose to do it then it can actually make a difference, not only to your bank account but also the environment. The most frequent objections I hear always relate to cost, it doesn't have to cost a fortune though. All it takes is a willingness to do a bit of scrounging and some fab work.

For myself I'd love to include Geothermal in my plans but that is where a large financial commitment would be involved, so I'll stick with a combination of wind and solar instead. When you combine both they are most certainly capable of supplying a home. Many people just cant fabricate though, a skill set that I've always found to be very valuable, but then I've always enjoyed using tools and building or repairing things.

When it comes to home power generation I believe the skills required are really not beyond the average person. Certainly not as extensive as those required to build a sailboat for instance, which used to be one of my hobbies.

[Bonam]

Small scale nuclear is the way to go:

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/index.html

[DFCaper]

Zero greenhouse gas emissions, slightly more expensive, a lot less sexy but the most sensible solution before us.

I was never a fan of Nuclear power. I always felt, with current knowledge levels, that it was just passing the buck to the next generation. We have pollution that does not go away naturally, and we have no way to deal with it but to bury it. I bet in 50 years, people in Europe would be wondering what our generation was thinking in polluting our planet with radiation. I have a hard time believing that there isn't radiation spills on some level on a somewhat regular basis as the reactor age. With the extremely long half-life of the waste, the consequences of the spills will remain here for generations.

We have so many opertunities to become far more efficient that I think a combination of improved efficincies and having green technology at residences (Small Wind/solar setups) that I think we can eliminate coal without Nukes... Maybe I'm dreaming...

[Bonam]

I was never a fan of Nuclear power. I always felt, with current knowledge levels, that it was just passing the buck to the next generation. We have pollution that does not go away naturally, and we have no way to deal with it but to bury it.

Actually we have many ways to deal with it. The byproducts of uranium fission reactors has many applications. Depleted uranium is used in military hardware and in radiation shielding. Plutonium is used in radioisotope thermoelectric generators to produce power in space and in remote installations on Earth. Tritium is used as a fuel for other reactors, in betavoltaic batteries, and in plasma and fusion research. Many other byproducts are used in medical isotope applications.

Additionally, designs exist for reactors that can burn all remaining radioactive nuclear waste. For example, the laser inertial fusion engine design being developed at LLNL can burn almost any type of conventional fission byproduct. There are other reactor designs which do not rely on fusion concepts that can do this as well.

I bet in 50 years, people in Europe would be wondering what our generation was thinking in polluting our planet with radiation.

And I bet they will be wondering why the heck we didn't switch to more nuclear power sooner.

I have a hard time believing that there isn't radiation spills on some level on a somewhat regular basis as the reactor age.

Any radiation spills get MASSIVE coverage in the media. They are very rare because companies that build nuclear reactors realize that even a single such incident would be DEVASTATING to their business, and thus they are designed to make such spills as unlikely as possible.

With the extremely long half-life of the waste, the consequences of the spills will remain here for generations.

Except in the event of a reactor meltdown, waste that simply "spills" can be cleaned up. Radioactive waste from reactors does not cause long term activation of surrounding material. Hence, once the waste itself is removed from the area where it spilled, radiation danger in the area will be gone after a few hours. The only time that a reactor accident can cause radioactive contamination that lasts for years or more is when the whole thing melts down, which only ever happened once, and was caused by EXTREME IDIOCY on the part of the operators.

We have so many opertunities to become far more efficient that I think a combination of improved efficincies and having green technology at residences (Small Wind/solar setups) that I think we can eliminate coal without Nukes

I disagree here. Almost all of our energy intensive processes are already within a few percent of theoretical maximums. There is room for efficiency gains in things like home insulation, lighting, etc, but these energy expenditures are TINY compared to those associated with industrial processes, HVAC, and transportation. But those processes already run very very close to as efficiently as they can given the laws of thermodynamics.

... Maybe I'm dreaming...

Yup. The amount of energy needed simply cannot realistically be provided by wind and solar. Even ignoring all the other problems with wind and solar (expense, non-constant operation, location specificity, high land use), the energy simply is not there.

Edited April 14, 2010 by Bonam

[BrassTax]

You have a point as far as mass generation of energy is concerned, however as I said earlier it is very feasible on a personal scale. As also mentioned if enough people choose to do it then it can actually make a difference, not only to your bank account but also the environment. The most frequent objections I hear always relate to cost, it doesn't have to cost a fortune though. All it takes is a willingness to do a bit of scrounging and some fab work.

For myself I'd love to include Geothermal in my plans but that is where a large financial commitment would be involved, so I'll stick with a combination of wind and solar instead. When you combine both they are most certainly capable of supplying a home. Many people just cant fabricate though, a skill set that I've always found to be very valuable, but then I've always enjoyed using tools and building or repairing things.

When it comes to home power generation I believe the skills required are really not beyond the average person. Certainly not as extensive as those required to build a sailboat for instance, which used to be one of my hobbies.

Although I agree with you that energy self reliance is wholly possible, the willingness like you said just isn't there. I further agree with you that the skills aren't beyond the average person either, I've got my own balcony solar installation that I'd love to expand, but like you said the willingness for such a venture in the grand scale just isnt there and I don't see it happening any time soon.

[AngusThermopyle]

Well, my project has come one more step closer to completion. Our neighbours just down the road from us are building a new house so they'll be tearing down the old one. It has a 60' antenna mast attached to it that they don't want and have said I can have if I take it apart and remove it. I'm thinking I'll only use about 45' of it as that should be sufficient for me to cast a 5' deep concrete foundation and still have a 40' elevation for the turbine.

Yay, this project is lots of fun and also appeals to my desire to become more independant.

[Wild Bill]

Well, my project has come one more step closer to completion. Our neighbours just down the road from us are building a new house so they'll be tearing down the old one. It has a 60' antenna mast attached to it that they don't want and have said I can have if I take it apart and remove it. I'm thinking I'll only use about 45' of it as that should be sufficient for me to cast a 5' deep concrete foundation and still have a 40' elevation for the turbine.

Yay, this project is lots of fun and also appeals to my desire to become more independant.

Good score! If I were you, I'd also hang a wire out from it,plug it into my ham radio and chat with my service buddies over in Afghanistan directly! The sunspots have started to come back and radio propagation should be great by the fall and for 4-5 years after that before it starts to swing back to a minimum.

[charter.rights]

Good score! If I were you, I'd also hang a wire out from it,plug it into my ham radio and chat with my service buddies over in Afghanistan directly! The sunspots have started to come back and radio propagation should be great by the fall and for 4-5 years after that before it starts to swing back to a minimum.

The downside of commercial wind generation is that it comes in at about $8 per KW. Nuclear runs $2 per KW.

[BrassTax]

Stephen Harper is the current PM - don't you think he wants to cut taxes ?

Of course he wants to cut taxes!! for the top 10 percentile and corporations but this is old news isn't it.

[Argus]

From what I know (which isn't a lot) the wind turbines appear cost effective in the long term. Solar isn't anywhere near being cost efficient so that's another story.

The wind turbines are nowhere near cost effective. If they were the government wouldn't need to subsidise the rate the producers are paid.

[Wild Bill]

The wind turbines are nowhere near cost effective. If they were the government wouldn't need to subsidise the rate the producers are paid.

Remember Angus, this thread is talking about PERSONAL generation systems which have differences from commercial generating facilities.

You'd be quite correct about a windfarm but for Angus' own home a wind turbine can be a very cost-efficient supply of electricity.

Especially if you can "do it yourself" and are good at scrounging materials, like a free tower!

Angus, you might consider making that tower a "tilt-over". It would then be far easier for you to work on it, both for installation and for maintenance.

[AngusThermopyle]

Angus, you might consider making that tower a "tilt-over". It would then be far easier for you to work on it, both for installation and for maintenance.

I thought about doing just that Bill, but given the hieght and wieght of the tower I'd require some sort of hydraulic or ellectrical assist to raise and lower it. This would add considerably to the cost and complexity of the system so I'll just use a simple cantilever with my harness and lanyard for construction/servicing.

The turbine is only a part of the system though. I also plan to build at least six solar panels for roof top installation. I'm still waiting for those plans to arrive in the mail as of now. Six deep cycle batteries are recommended for the average home but I want to use eight to ensure a little excess capacity. I think I might have a line on some fairly decent batteries for free, I have to check them out this weekend or next.

[Topaz]

Well, my project has come one more step closer to completion. Our neighbours just down the road from us are building a new house so they'll be tearing down the old one. It has a 60' antenna mast attached to it that they don't want and have said I can have if I take it apart and remove it. I'm thinking I'll only use about 45' of it as that should be sufficient for me to cast a 5' deep concrete foundation and still have a 40' elevation for the turbine.

Yay, this project is lots of fun and also appeals to my desire to become more independant.

He, Angus, better check with your local government to make sure you don't have to have a permit.

[Wild Bill]

He, Angus, better check with your local government to make sure you don't have to have a permit.

No problem! All Angus has to do is get his ham radio licence and put an antenna somewhere on his tower.

Ham radio operators are federally licenced. Municipal and provincial governments have no jurisdiction over antennae and towers.

The only exception is if you live in a trailer park, condominium or something like that. They can put a clause outlawing antennae and towers into your agreement that you have to sign before you move in. In effect, it is a private group of homes with their own rules that you have to agree with to be allowed in.

Angus would be scot free!

[AngusThermopyle]

No problem! All Angus has to do is get his ham radio licence and put an antenna somewhere on his tower.

Ham radio operators are federally licenced. Municipal and provincial governments have no jurisdiction over antennae and towers.

The only exception is if you live in a trailer park, condominium or something like that. They can put a clause outlawing antennae and towers into your agreement that you have to sign before you move in. In effect, it is a private group of homes with their own rules that you have to agree with to be allowed in.

Angus would be scot free!

Quite correct Bill. Actually after your Ham suggestion I started che cking Ebay for Ham rigs since I love techy stuff and Ham seens like a pretty good hobby. This tower was originally used for a TV antenna so it can see double duty with ease

This is a very cool project and a lot of fun, after this project is done I have an old fiberglass runabout I'm going to restore. The hard part about that will be finding an old outboard motor in decent shape. It has to be an old motor since I want the boat to be as original as possible.

Edited May 7, 2010 by AngusThermopyle

[fellowtraveller]

This tower was originally used for a TV antenna so it can see double duty with ease

Really?

The strain imposed by a dynamic load like wind is much different than a static antenna. You might want to check that out before you bolt all that expensive equipment to the mast.