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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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