observations

[omegajim]

Not a big fan of burning coal, but what do you have?

as mentioned, wind, solar and hydro - but wind is somewhat inconsistent, solar is great for daylight hours and hydro is only going to get you so far.

Right now, there are plants using old nuclear warheads as fuel - great for 20 - 30 years, but in the scheme of things that isn't going to go very far, either.

the U.S. has lots of coal, but you really can't burn that cleanly.

As far as Germany, their "we're going to do this by that date" kind of thought is wonderful, but it seems like putting the cart in front of the horse. We have made a mandate, now make it happen.

Had Germany done some research and found out a good long term strategy that took into account the price of yellowcake, the lifespan of currently operating powerplants as well as off peak demand among other things, the results would be much more credible plan.

[Motorcycle Forums]

MotorcycleForums.net is the original Motorcycle Forum! Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!

[inspiron]

No, Germany's energy companies (the ones operating the nuclear power plants) are warning that there will be major price hikes when the nukes are shut down.

At the same time, the German government has been reducing the subsidies for solar power, because the "grid" is not able to handle it. The grid was designed with nuclear power plants in mind - so there are massive cables leading from these sites, and the cables get smaller as they get farther away. With solar panels on the roof of thousands of buildings, the grid needs to be redesigned, with larger cables used throughout the country - it will take many years and many millions of Euros to implement this.

Germany's energy future will consist of a mixture of technologies - windparks, solar power, hydroelectric power, gas-turbine power plants and importing power from other countries (like Norway, which has almost unlimited hydroelectric power capability).

[omegajim]

I'll argue first Norway's unlimited hydro power - as you scale up hydro, there is evaporation increasing salinity. Even in Norway, this will occur but in Norway's case this is a distant 2nd to
environmental disruption - that's right, by generating power without burning something or nuclear power still isn't good enough when you disrupt the fish from moving upstream.

Next, I'll argue the "big grid" argument, they don't need no bigger cables everywhere, they just need to place the solar panels closer to the load they are supplying; maybe I am massively overthinking that something like a flimsy little solar panel lends itself to moving to the mountain than the other way around.

Windparks, I have to save this one for last. Wind is intermittent, and with few exceptions, is at best like solar. Until some form of battery is developed light years better than current technology (every other week the best battery of all time is invented - then they try to scale it up from the lab and the costs are either enormous or the battery concept simply does not scale up as thought).

Germany, among others, is going to find out that its' "leap before you leap" concept to a massive overhaul of electricity generation is going to hurt them bad and fairly quickly.

Gas turbines indeed, not only not an improvement over nuclear power, depending on who you ask, worse.

Since I can adapt a car to run on natural gas, but that plutonium carburetor is a bit more tricky.

[inspiron]

What about the flux capacitor, Jim? 1.21 gigawatts ...

[omegajim]

not quite that but

Building Cheap Batteries to Circumvent the Grid - Technology Review

Between Germany, Japan and all points in between (remember that line) the solar panels, wind mills, but most importantly, the battery technology will take off.

Something about "being thrown off a boat, and that's when I learned how to swim" concept.

I also forgot to mention, when a nuclear powered car backfires through the carb, there's hell to pay, real hell to pay. Mushroom clouds.

[Easy Rider]

I also forgot to mention, when a nuclear powered car backfires through the carb, there's hell to pay, real hell to pay. Mushroom clouds.

Old technology.
Anti-matter engines use injectors.
Much more trouble free.

[omegajim]

now the iphone 5 is out - with a different plug, and more adaptors to sell.

Additionally, I have to chuckle when people say "I love my phone! I hate my service provider!"

sure enough, when the next iphone comes out with the same crummy service provider (at & t service is pretty good, but others are just a smidge better, which gets exaggerated everywhere along the line - providing the iphone's antenna doesn't simultaneously suck and blow in the process) and the zombies go back and say........

shut up, and take my money.

[inspiron]

As one of those who jumped off the Apple bandwagon (I have two Samsung Galaxy S II's), I'm amused by the hype.

My Samsungs are sometimes a bit unstable (my Swiss phone tends to reboot alot, I think one of the apps is buggy but I can't tell which one), but in general I'm happy to NOT have to use iTunes anymore.

[inspiron]

An in reference to the battery discussion - we're due for a revolution in battery technology. I think we've pretty much exhausted the use of chemicals for storing energy - we need to look to quantum physics to see how to pack more energy into a smaller package without starting a nuclear chain reaction or other "bad" side effects. But for the moment, traditional battery technology just isn't up to the job. Lithium Ion batteries are the best we've got, and these aren't good for storing massive amounts of energy (heat/fire danger), while NiCad has the "memory effect" and lead-acid (car batteries) also give off dangerous fumes and risk explosion.

[omegajim]

you're close - but I think the good old chemical battery is only about mid way developed. I believe the old chemical battery has a lot of development left.

But I say this knowing that from "lab to life" cycle that can span several decades easily - you don't think lithium ion batteries just showed up overnight, did you?

as for phones, I use an old discontinued trac phone mfg'd by Motorola as recently as 2003.

I find the infatuation with all things apple interesting - it's like they are zombies or something. Especially when I read that some 40% of them are bought on plastic. Which means they not only overpay for the phone and the service, they oeverpay on interest for the phone and the service.

Back to "the grid" I think that better conducting wires will eventually be the answer - allowing to send power a few thousand rather than a few hundred miles efficiently.

Until then, I am staying with the theory of large solar banks that will electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen and transport said chemicals by pipeline to their needed destination.

In other news, I picked up another toy - a genuine war era mosin nagant to add to my rather modest collection.

[dantheman]

I like that idea...hydrogen

Hydrogen Fuel Cells in cars should be mainstream. Most abundant element in the universe, but we haven't made it useful for mass transport? For shame, sir.

This could solve many environmental problems...notice I didn't say Global Warming. Frankly, I don't want to start that debate. I'm thinking of pollution in general...

[inspiron]

There are problems with Hydrogen, though.

First off, it takes a lot of energy to break the bond between H and O in water - a lot more energy than you're going to get from a fuel cell. Sure, solar power is cheap and plentiful, but still ...

Next, hydrogen gas takes up a lot of space, so you need to compress / liquefy it, which again takes a lot of energy.

Finally, hydrogen is explosive. Much more so than gasoline. A major traffic accident, which in a gasoline-powered car would kill the passengers could easily create a large crater and significantly more injury and death if a 20-gallon tank of liquid helium goes boom.

This last point is also a major concern for "hybrid" cars like the Toyota Prius and other models. The huge batteries needed to store the power are a major hazard when there is a traffic accident. If the car is burning, we need to be careful - we can't just hit the car with water, because there is the risk of electrocution and/or causing environmental damage when the chemicals leak out. We need to treat every traffic accident with hybrid cars as a potential chemical spill...

[dantheman]

Good points...every solution has its flaws, unfortunately. All the same, I think I would drive one.


People said the same things about gasoline powered cars when they first came out...Great Grandma would roll in her grave if she knew you were sitting on a bomb going 80mph! I think it really is funny how things change, and how resistant to change some people can be. I'm not saying you, just the general public really.

I still believe this technology is worth exploring, it doesn't hurt to know your options.

[inspiron]

I'm not resistant to change - I'm a project manager, so my whole career is "implementing change"!

But, every new technology introduces new risks alongside the benefits. Sometimes people ignore the risks because the perceived benefits are "worth it".

[dantheman]

I wasn't saying you...

You seem like a very open minded, intelligent person. I wasn't suggesting that. But, I did say that I would consider driving one. Just like you said, I think the benefits are worth the risk. Hydrogen could be the closest thing to a viable alternative to fossil fuels. It would take time to overcome some of the problems associated with it, but that isn't something out of reach.

It is a very interesting subject, one that I'm anxious to see play out. If fuel prices in the U.S. hit highs like in Europe, we would be in MAJOR trouble. But then again, maybe that needs to happen?

For now, I guess we can agree to disagree. Only time will tell with this subject.