If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
RichA wrote:
Lithium batteries could be banned on air travel at some point due to their volatility. This would solve that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8297934.stm A larger batter than you mentioned could power a vehicle. There are so many ways nuclear energy can be used, but because it is nuclear some people do not see it as a green source of energy. If these people who spouted the global warming religion actually believe what they say, they would be behind every effort to develop nuclear power. Have you heard of the nuclear reactor the size of a SUV? http://www.istockanalyst.com/article...cleid/2882418\ http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/ I wonder when they will stop chasing windmills and do something about the energy production. It |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Rich wrote:
[...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Rich wrote: [...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue One of the biggest problems that we have concerning electricity generation is that there are far, far too many players of one-string fiddles (to make it on topic). Where is it written that we should put all our eggs in one basket? My preference would be to generate as much as we can via renewable, non-polluting methods (wind, sun, tides) and supplement as needed by other means--natural gas, nuclear, coal), each of which has major disadvantages: natural gas--definitely a wasting resource with some air pollution; nuclear--wasting resource, highly dangerous waste products that will be with for time spans that we can't imagine; coal--wasting resource, highest air pollution. The advocates of nuclear should volunteer to store some of the waste in their back yard, the coal pushers should be willing to live within a quarter mile of a coal plant. But, guess what? NIMBY takes over. Allen |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
On 10/13/09 09:55 , Allen wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote: Rich wrote: [...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue One of the biggest problems that we have concerning electricity generation is that there are far, far too many players of one-string fiddles (to make it on topic). Where is it written that we should put all our eggs in one basket? My preference would be to generate as much as we can via renewable, non-polluting methods (wind, sun, tides) and supplement as needed by other means--natural gas, nuclear, coal), each of which has major disadvantages: natural gas--definitely a wasting resource with some air pollution; nuclear--wasting resource, highly dangerous waste products that will be with for time spans that we can't imagine; coal--wasting resource, highest air pollution. The advocates of nuclear should volunteer to store some of the waste in their back yard, the coal pushers should be willing to live within a quarter mile of a coal plant. But, guess what? NIMBY takes over. Allen As much as I can't believe I'm going to say this...ahem, ...we might wish to take a lesson from the French. (sincerest apologies.) They generate much of their energy from nuclear. They recycle and reuse the depleted fuel, and unrecoverable waste is cast in glass bricks. Glass bricks neither corrode, nor leak. And can be stacked underground for centuries without incident. As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision. Instead of letting Brown and Root rape and pillage for billions, let the Navy build reactors for the power grid, sell them to the transmission companies. Help fund Naval development, and produce clean, cheap energy in abundance. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
As much as I can't believe I'm going to say this...ahem, ...we might wish to take a lesson from the French. (sincerest apologies.) They generate much of their energy from nuclear. Yes. They recycle and reuse the depleted fuel, and unrecoverable waste is cast in glass bricks. Glass bricks neither corrode, nor leak. And can be stacked underground for centuries without incident. Well, sort of. Except it applies mostly to uranium fuel, and not to the other radioactive byproducts of nuclear power, such as old power plants. And there are "discoveries" of undeclared nuclear waste dumps. And a national newspaper yesterday revealed that there is a big field in Russia where part of the French waste is kept. As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision. Not sure they would declare a nuclear incident anyway. And these power units are much smaller, and much more expensive, than civilian ones. Instead of letting Brown and Root rape and pillage for billions, let the Navy build reactors for the power grid, sell them to the transmission companies. Help fund Naval development, and produce clean, cheap energy in abundance. -- Bertrand, on his atom-powered PC. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
On 10/13/09 11:49 , Ofnuts wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote: As much as I can't believe I'm going to say this...ahem, ...we might wish to take a lesson from the French. (sincerest apologies.) They generate much of their energy from nuclear. Yes. They recycle and reuse the depleted fuel, and unrecoverable waste is cast in glass bricks. Glass bricks neither corrode, nor leak. And can be stacked underground for centuries without incident. Well, sort of. Except it applies mostly to uranium fuel, and not to the other radioactive byproducts of nuclear power, such as old power plants. And there are "discoveries" of undeclared nuclear waste dumps. And a national newspaper yesterday revealed that there is a big field in Russia where part of the French waste is kept. As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision. Not sure they would declare a nuclear incident anyway. And these power units are much smaller, and much more expensive, than civilian ones. With,...unlike Brown and Root built plants, one of which, here in Illinois, failed in containment before it was fully powered up...ZERO incidents. Smaller, more efficient, with zero incidents. Still less expensive power generation that civilian built plants. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Allen wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote: Rich wrote: [...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue One of the biggest problems that we have concerning electricity generation is that there are far, far too many players of one-string fiddles (to make it on topic). Where is it written that we should put all our eggs in one basket? My preference would be to generate as much as we can via renewable, non-polluting methods (wind, sun, tides) and supplement as needed by other means--natural gas, nuclear, coal), each of which has major disadvantages: natural gas--definitely a wasting resource with some air pollution; nuclear--wasting resource, highly dangerous waste products that will be with for time spans that we can't imagine; coal--wasting resource, highest air pollution. The advocates of nuclear should volunteer to store some of the waste in their back yard, the coal pushers should be willing to live within a quarter mile of a coal plant. But, guess what? NIMBY takes over. Allen In the last 40 years, if we had spent the money that went to avoiding nuclear energy, into reclaiming nuclear waste we would not have an energy problem today and have an nearly inexhaustible amount of energy. No; we chased windmills and solar energy which never will be a source of continuous reliable energy. Tides which would be in need of repair after every storm and probably have to have parts replaced yearly because of the corrosive environment. In the mean time they want to eliminate carbon based fuels by trying to get a cap and trade bill passed that would require the elimination of Carbon Dioxide which is part of the chemical reaction of the burning of anything carbon. 12 pounds of carbon produce 44 pounds of Carbon Dioxide it is basic chemistry. Properly contained nuclear waste could be stored in my back yard. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
D. Peter Maus wrote:
As for generation...take a cue from the Navy. They've been using nuclear energy to power carriers and subs for more than half a century, now, without nuclear incident even after collision. I suggest you read up on US military nuclear safety. They've had some doozies. US Navy nukes are relatively small and used well below peak power output most of the time. They have a fairly benign life. The safety culture in the US Navy is highly reputed, no doubt this contributes to their overall excellent record. Civilian nuke baseload power gen runs at near peak for as long as the fuel cycle will permit. Comparing US Navy ship/sub reactors to civilian baseload generation is a non starter. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Allen wrote:
Jürgen Exner wrote: Rich wrote: [...] issues put forth by the global warming kooks. Like covering thousands of acres of land with solar cells or "wind farms" all of which are pathetic energy producers. Indeed, wind energy is so pathetic that it covered only 20% of Danmark's energy needs last year. Of course the 20% of power coming from nuclear plants in the USA is much more admirable......... And in some regions wind energy covers much more, e.g. 71% in Ostfriesland-Papenburg (region in North-Germany) in 2005. That's just a tad more than the share of coal (49%) and nuclear power (20%) combined in the USA. Pathetic, indeed. jue One of the biggest problems that we have concerning electricity generation is that there are far, far too many players of one-string fiddles (to make it on topic). Where is it written that we should put all our eggs in one basket? My preference would be to generate as much as we can via renewable, non-polluting methods (wind, sun, tides) and supplement as needed by other means--natural gas, nuclear, coal), each of which has major disadvantages: The real disadvantages of major renewables (solar, wind, wave, tide) is that they suck for baseload. The only renewable that is great at baseload AND peaking load is hydro. Texas has more wind than any other US state. However, a couple years ago, during a drop in wind while there was little available fast NG turbine capacity available, ERCOT had to tell various industries to go offline for about 40 minutes or so to the tune of a few MWatts until baseload could be built up again (coal and NG fired boilers take a while to raise additional steam even if already fired up). NG turbines can turn on quick (10 minutes or less) - but need to be available - not always the case. Nuclear will make a huge resurgence over the next 30 years (Great at baseload, not peaking). Renewables are a good fit between baseload and peaking load allowing the baseload to be throttled a little bit. You just can't have too much of it in the mix. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The eventual end of crappy lithium batteries?
Keith Nuttle wrote:
In the last 40 years, if we had spent the money that went to avoiding nuclear energy, into reclaiming nuclear waste we would not have an energy problem today and have an nearly inexhaustible amount of energy. If we had started research and investing in renewable energies 40 years ago and had spent all that money that went into trying to make nuclear energy save on renewable energy development instead, then we would not have an energy problem today and would have an unlimited, inexhaustable amount of energy. Properly contained nuclear waste could be stored in my back yard. The department of energy will be happy to hear that. They are still desparately looking for what to do with the waste from Hanford and dozens and dozens of other places. jue |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|