Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research Forum: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Forum Thread: Interesting News Articles Related To Solar Energy |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 122
|
Author |
|
svincent
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Jan 3, 2009 Post Count: 53 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
I'm not sure I see it as a bad precedent. If you need baseline power right now nuclear fission is probably the least of evils: certainly better than fossil fuel.
But long term solar is definitely the way to go. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
In a jump away from solar and other renewable sources, the US government today announced approval of new nuke plants to be built in Georgia -- first in decades. Bad precedent, in my opinion. I'm of two minds...while I would prefer some other form of power generation without such tremendous attendant risks, the thing about nuclear accidents is that they are "fairly" localized in comparison to the impact of global warming. I.e.,climate change=>famine/disease/population unrest + sea water level rise=>loss of arable land=>famine/disease/population unrest + loss of housing=>increased crowding=>disease/population unrest + ~war ------ deaths resulting from global warming would be far greater than catastrophic nuclear event=>acute radiation syndrome + radioactive contamination=>chronic radiation syndrome + radioactive contamination=>loss of arable land ------ deaths resulting from "Gee...[didn't think of that scenario/decided not to spend the money to contain that scenario]." nuclear "accidents" primarily because human casualties and ecological destruction, rather than being global, would "primarily" be restricted to just the affected areas in the states of Georgia and South Carolina; further, at this point in the population curve the impact of the loss of the affected arable land for thirty years or so would be "virtually" negligible. Besides, Waynesboro, Georgia looks to be a poor area. Could get as many as 800 permanent jobs for the even more permanent risk. (I'm not sure if I'm being facetious or sarcastic or...not. Besides, no doubt the executive team and major shareholders of the Southern Co. as well as the members and families of the approving Nuclear Regulatory Commission will all be moving within a 3-mile radius of the new plants in order to allay everyone's concerns to include the one I have about the term "nuclear accident". I find it to be a bit of a misnomer to label an event in an artificially created scenario where the chance of a catastrophe is considered to be a matter of probabilities for both planning and insurance purposes as an "accident". It wasn't an accident; rather, one of your probabilities happened. Maybe it was a long-shot, maybe it wasn't.) [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 11, 2012 9:56:56 PM] |
||
|
astroWX
Advanced Cruncher USA Joined: Sep 1, 2007 Post Count: 56 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
'Twas not my intent to hijack the thread; I thought my comment was linked to "solar," else I'd have started another thread. Mea culpa.
|
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
'Twas not my intent to hijack the thread; I thought my comment was linked to "solar," else I'd have started another thread. Mea culpa. It is all relevant. The building of nuclear facilities has an impact upon the perceived need for solar...a deceptive impact, in terms of risk/reward IMHO; while the industry would argue that the ability of nuclear to provide energy obviates the need for solar, I would argue that solar obviates the need for the risk of nuclear. Those who agree with me may crunch a little harder...with a little more ardor...in the hopes of getting solar deployable before nuclear facilities proliferate to the extent that moving upwind is no longer an option.I do have an ulterior motive, of course: After watching the American people - and the world - be jerked around for decades by the collusive monopolies that control hydrocarbons, I would like to see them freed...see them all with their own point-of-use power generation. Solar can do that; nuclear facilities of the type you mentioned cannot...they instead promise much higher rather than lower electricity costs. I must, of course, admit to the possibility that I may be absolutely shocked by delivery of the power generation capability on-time and under-budget with no expensive "Ooops!" occurring on down the road - and no rate increases simply because that is an opportunity that a monopoly gives you, and so one that is inevitably used...at least in America . Am I being political, or just offering reasons why CEP2 is a worthwhile project? Depends upon who butters your bread, I reckon. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If living in Massachusetts [that's how it sounds], this is of special interest to you.
http://energytwodotzero.org/2012/02/27/search-solar-grail/ --//-- |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Indirectly, solar energy too: Plants need the sun, Snails eat plants, Snails used as power generators through glucose conversion while eating plants: http://www.nature.com/news/cyborg-snails-power-up-1.10210
--//-- |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Oh dear... I think we'll stick with inanimate solar cells...
|
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
MIT research on the physical arrangement of solar cells:
Now, a team of MIT researchers has come up with a very different approach: building cubes or towers that extend the solar cells upward in three-dimensional configurations. Amazingly, the results from the structures they've tested show power output ranging from double to more than 20 times that of fixed flat panels with the same base area. Emphasis mine, albeit the significance is probably obvious to most.The biggest boosts in power were seen in the situations where improvements are most needed: in locations far from the equator, in winter months and on cloudier days. The new findings, based on both computer modeling and outdoor testing of real modules, have been published in the journal Energy and Environmental Science. |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I saw that too. They looked pretty funky (cool).
|
||
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: |
!
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by skgiven at Jul 18, 2012 9:19:01 PM] |
||
|
|