Problem is, a good size plant covers approx 7,000 acres. Everybody has a bitch when putting one up. I make my own electricity (36 p.v. panels, grid-tied), and heat my own hot water (2 glycol filled , roof-mounted panels), and the utility buys up what O over produce, but only to a point. If the credit gets too large it just gets cancelled out and the clocks reset. Nukes (for now) are the best answer. They have their issues, but are really the best solution for the next 30 years.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:48 AM, William <tapebu...@gmail.com> wrote: > "B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some > great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. " > > Not so fast.....concentrating solar thermal breaks that misconceived > limitation of solar. The sun heats up a reservoir of working fluid. > The hot working fluid runs a steam generator turbine just like a > combustion based power plant. In many cases the power plants > connected to solar thermal arrays are regular power plants that had > run on combustion. Those power plants run 24/7, even though the sun > is only up 10 hours a day. We need a lot of those plants to make a > big dent, but zero battery technology is needed to make that work. > They are approaching the magical "dollar a watt" price point for that > technology. When that happens, China tips to solar because then it's > cheaper than building more coal plants, and then everything > changes. > > On Jan 19, 7:52 pm, Leslie <leslie.bri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Oi! Lots of thoughts.... >> >> A) I applaud anyone who can commute via their Rivendell. >> Unfortunately for me, it's 40 mi from driveway to parking lot one >> way... I just can't commute by bike. I do carpool; so, four of us >> make the trip together, instead of each of us in four >> automobiles. (And whilst the obvious reply might be to either >> move to closer to work, or change to a job closer to home, neither of >> those ideas work: I don't want to live near where I work, and there's >> not as good of a job near home. Maybe one day, but, not at this >> time.) >> >> B) I concur w/ Robert Z, wind/solar can't handle the load until some >> great extraordinary development in battery technology comes along. >> However, I would like to make a comment along the lines of using the >> non-renewable resources: petroleum has far greater uses than being >> put into gas tanks, IMHO. Medicines that are petrochemical-based, >> lubricants, etc. (bicycle tires!); it's a shame that so much is used >> as fuel, instead of conserved for its other uses. Coal, is going to >> remain the baseload power source for the forseeable future in this >> country; half the electricity in the US is derived from such; unless >> we give up big-screen TV's, air-conditioning, electric heat, ipods, >> eliminate electric cars instead of having more of them, etc., the >> demand for coal will only rise. Yes, nuclear would be the only real >> alternative to coal for electricity, but politics will have to shift >> significantly first. Even if all electricity was produced through >> methods other than coal, though, coal would still be in demand for >> steel production (converted into coke), as chemical basestocks (the >> same way petrochemicals are), etc. (Disclosure: I'm a coal >> reclamation geologist, FWIW...) >> >> Think of it this way: our steel Rivendells: steel is an alloy of iron >> and carbon, the carbon is from coke, which is produced from coal. >> Without coal, we wouldn't have our Rivendells... >> >> C) I encourage recycling; we need less going into landfills. But >> even if you recycle nothing else, recycle aluminum (cans, non- >> Rivendell bicycles, Land Rovers, etc). The amount of electricity >> needed in the electrolysis process to convert bauxite into metallic >> aluminum is immense; so much electricity is saved simply by keeping >> the aluminum already made in the loop. >> >> D) Hope this doesn't step on toes, come across as preachy, etc. Not >> intended to; I realize internet musings often don't convey the visual/ >> audible nuances that we intend to be inferred.... >> >> -L > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
