Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Are you one of these 'solar roadway' people as well?

I'll point out a few things:

1. Solar panels are more effective if you angle them towards the sun and have the angle change throughout the day.

2. Solar panels are more effective if they aren't covered in grit, you need to clean them.

3. Solar panels might not be very effective at keeping out the rain to make sensible shingles.

2. Energy storage to deal with variability in output remains an issue, there is a limit of what % of your power can be feasibly solar due to variability.

1 - True

2 - True

3 - True

3 - Who would use them as shingles??

4 - Home battery solutions to store extra energy until a time when you do need it. It's not that difficult. And my reasoning for this is that there are battery solutions almost everywhere. Mainly used in tech centers to keep the servers running when the power goes out. I will also point out that some of you have UPS batteries for your computers at home. It's good for that, it can be good for a home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 204
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 - Who would use them as shingles??

4 - Home battery solutions to store extra energy until a time when you do need it. It's not that difficult. And my reasoning for this is that there are battery solutions almost everywhere. Mainly used in tech centers to keep the servers running when the power goes out. I will also point out that some of you have UPS batteries for your computers at home. It's good for that, it can be good for a home.

In fact, there are solar shingles (shingles that have solar cells embedded) on the market today. I think that building solar energy into building materials is a smart way to go.

It's expensive to use today's batteries as backup storage but there is a lot of research going on into better technologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many of each type of reactor exists out there? I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of location and type. That would tell me what I think I need to know.

Number of thorium salt reactors (in real world, not research) = 0.

This has been the darling of nuclear boosters forever but somehow they never quite get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 - Who would use them as shingles??

Other posters.

4 - Home battery solutions to store extra energy until a time when you do need it. It's not that difficult. And my reasoning for this is that there are battery solutions almost everywhere. Mainly used in tech centers to keep the servers running when the power goes out. I will also point out that some of you have UPS batteries for your computers at home. It's good for that, it can be good for a home.

Energy loss from battery storage depends greatly on the period of time that you want to store that energy for. Storing energy for a few hours when the power goes out isn't quite the same thing as storing power for 24h every day, let alone storing power captured during the summer for the winter.

My understanding is that in a decade, battery technology might improve enough to make solar + battery be cost competitive in sunny regions with fossil fuels / nuclear, but the battery technology will only be good enough for dealing with diurnal variation, not seasonal variation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number of thorium salt reactors (in real world, not research) = 0.

This has been the darling of nuclear boosters forever but somehow they never quite get there.

Probably because of all the anti-nuclear hysteria that prevents investment.

If all the subsidies to solar went to thorium salt reactors, I have no doubt that number would be greater than zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because of all the anti-nuclear hysteria that prevents investment.

If all the subsidies to solar went to thorium salt reactors, I have no doubt that number would be greater than zero.

What nonsense. The entire history of nuclear energy has been one of government subsidies and wild, unsubstantiated promises. Back in the 50's and 60's, nuclear proponents were promising electricity "too cheap to meter". The head of the US nuclear agency was once talking about nuclear furnaces in peoples homes. Current nuclear plants are generating liabilities in the form of wastes that will need to be monitored and protected for centuries to come. And who will wind up paying the decommissioning costs for these white elephants? Probably the government.

Thorium may be better and I would be supportive of government funded research through universities. But there needs to be some hard nosed reality injected into the analysis to prevent it from turning into the same boondoggle as the nuclear industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to vote for May buy, since she is US borne and not Canadian, that should disqualify her from holding the position of Prime Minister.

That being said, when I take her on as an individual, I would vote for her over any of the other three 'candidates'.

Does it matter? Are you worried she would have divided loyalties and .... do what exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What nonsense. The entire history of nuclear energy has been one of government subsidies and wild, unsubstantiated promises. Back in the 50's and 60's, nuclear proponents were promising electricity "too cheap to meter". The head of the US nuclear agency was once talking about nuclear furnaces in peoples homes.

Utilities are metered for more than just generation costs. The head of the U.S. whatever does not represent the entire industry worldwide. The only thing American about this thread is the Green Party leader.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-1=e^ipi

The probability is pretty good it's in the damned water.

Sign, fine I'll use facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

About 2.7 × 1016 Bq of Cs-137 entered the pacific ocean and a similar amount of Cs-134.

The half life of Cs-137 is 30 years and the half life of Cs-134 is 2 years. This means that Cs-137 is the main concern so I'll focus on that.

Cs-137 is much heavier than water, so most of it will quickly sink to the bottom of the ocean. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that doesn't happen and that the Cs-137 gets evenly distributed across the pacific ocean.

The pacific ocean has a surface area of 165.2 million square km and a volume of 714 million cubic km. This means that average ocean depth is around 4.322 km.

So when spread over the entire ocean, this is 163.4 Bq/m^2 and 3.78 x 10^-2 Bq/m^3.

Water is a decent absorber of gamma radiation and has an attenuation coefficient of 9.7/m. This means that an individual on the surface of the Pacific ocean receives 3.78 x 10^-2 Bq/m^3 / (9.7/m)/2 = 1.95 x 10^-3 Bq/m^2.

http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/muscle.html

The mass absorption coefficient of human tissue is about 3.074 x 10^-6 m^2/g. So this means that a human is receiving roughly 5.99 x 10^-9 Bq/g.

Cs-137 releases 1.176 MeV of energy when it decays, so this means that the human is receiving 7.05 x 10^-9 Bq*MeV/g of radiation.

1 rad = 62.4 x 106 MeV per gram. So the above value is equal to 1.13 x 10^-16 rad*Bq. Converting this to mSv gives 1.13 x 10^-15 mSv*Bq.

Taking into account the number of seconds in a year, this corresponds to 3.57 x 10^-8 mSv/y.

By comparison, average background radiation in Canada is about 1.8 mSv/y. So Fukushima increases your radiation exposure by less than one fifty-millionth of background radiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this thread represents the whole problem with the Green party.

One member (ReeferMadness) seems to support the greens. Others may not have explicitly stated they support the greens but seem to occupy the same spot on the political spectrum.

Multiple problems have been pointed out regarding the greens and their attitudes towards science. (Anti-nuclear/pro-organic/alternative medicine/etc.) Instead of accepting that there are problems and pointing out that overall they support their party (even though they disagree with certain things in their platform) they double-down on the stupidity, trying to justify why their bad science should be accepted. It just verifies to some of us that the Green party and their supporters are a bunch of hippies and anti-science kooks.

I have supported the conservatives in the past. But that does not mean that I supported each and every policy they had. I disagree with their stance on marijuana. I disagree with some of their environmental actions. But I supported the party because when I added up all the good policies and bad, overall they most closely matched my political beliefs.

It would probably mean a lot more if, when we pointed out the silliness of the Green party stance towards nuclear power, or organic farming, some of their supporters said "yeah those aren't good policies... but their other policies make up for it". Instead, they try to justify bad policies. It seems counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ipi: If one of those cesium particles gets in the bones it can cause leukemia.

Segno: I also fully support the Greens.

Anti-nuclear and organic are not anti-science positions. Both positions are scientific. Nuclear energy causes massive amounts of nuclear waste, which costs millions and millions in the future. So it is not cheap energy in the long run.

And non organic food is more likely to cause cancer. If you don't believe that you're a fool.

It's your party that's anti-scientific. For example I know a guy whose job it was to drill ice cores in the arctic, but Harper eliminated all ice core drilling jobs in Canada. Why? to prevent science from being undertaken and known.

Edited by G Huxley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Segnosaur: Multiple problems have been pointed out regarding the greens and their attitudes towards science. (Anti-nuclear/pro-organic/alternative medicine/etc.) Instead of accepting that there are problems and pointing out that overall they support their party (even though they disagree with certain things in their platform) they double-down on the stupidity, trying to justify why their bad science should be accepted. It just verifies to some of us that the Green party and their supporters are a bunch of hippies and anti-science kooks.

Of course there are fringe Green supporters, but the party itself is not a fringe group. Greens are pro clean energy and pro-labelling, not anti-science. There's a huge difference.

Edited by BC_chick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pro-labelling, not anti-science. There's a huge difference.

Pro-labelling *is* anti-science because there is no scientifically justifiable reason for putting 'contains GMO' labels on food. The only reason people even think it might be helpful is because they have been duped by the anti-GMO propaganda spread by the Greens. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pro-labelling *is* anti-science because there is no scientifically justifiable reason for putting 'contains GMO' labels on food. The only reason people even think it would be helpful is because they have been duped by the anti-GMO propaganda spread by the Greens.

Why do we label ingredients? Why do we label where things are manufactured? Where they're imported from? Is that all anti-science too?

Give it a rest, some of us do care what we put in our food and where it comes from and it has nothing to do with science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMultiple problems have been pointed out regarding the greens and their attitudes towards science. (Anti-nuclear/pro-organic/alternative medicine/etc.) Instead of accepting that there are problems and pointing out that overall they support their party (even though they disagree with certain things in their platform) they double-down on the stupidity, trying to justify why their bad science should be accepted. It just verifies to some of us that the Green party and their supporters are a bunch of hippies and anti-science kooks.

I have supported the conservatives in the past. But that does not mean that I supported each and every policy they had. I disagree with their stance on marijuana. I disagree with some of their environmental actions. But I supported the party because when I added up all the good policies and bad, overall they most closely matched my political beliefs.

Wow. You really have chutzpah. Voting for a government that is more ideological and less evidence-based than any other I can think of in modern history. And then calling Green supporters anti-science. That's funny.

I suppose when you vote for Conservatives, you really have a need to project your failings on to others. Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself.

Unlike ideological faith, science doesn't preclude pursuing alternative theories and beliefs - in fact it thrives on them. And when it's proven wrong it adopts them. It's religion that can't tolerate other beliefs. Now can you see the difference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we label ingredients? Why do we label where things are manufactured? Where they're imported from? Is that all anti-science too?

Product origin labels are as silly as GMO labels because they are basically meaningless with complex products manufactured with components from different places. Ingredient lists ARE scientifically relevant because the physical composition of a product matters to people with certain dietary requires. The fear of GMOs just another religion.

Give it a rest, some of us do care what we put in our food and where it comes from and it has nothing to do with science.

And some people want kosher and halal foods which is fine but people who want kosher or halal foods don't have the gall to claim that their preferences have anything to do with science. GMO labels are just another mythology based label and should not be government mandated. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we label ingredients? Why do we label where things are manufactured? Where they're imported from? Is that all anti-science too?

Give it a rest, some of us do care what we put in our food and where it comes from and it has nothing to do with science.

What kind of person says, "I would rather know less about what's in my food."

It's a ridiculous position. I wouldn't even bother arguing against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...