[ RadSafe ] Scientific American bias

[Dale Boyce]

John,

Focusing on the "efficiencies" of various power systems, and picking on the 
details probably has a very limited audience. Yes nuclear can suffer some 
losses at the generation stage relative to combustion generators because of 
lower steam temperatures. (Efficiency is a function of the temperature 
difference between the heat source and exhaust).  How efficient is 
hydrodynamic generation?  I don't know off the top of my head, but it 
usually has (mostly) beneficial side effects (flood control) (if you ignore 
snail darters, etc.).

Alternative energy sources are even worse, but proponents can say wind and 
solar energy are there for the taking.  Efficiency doesn't matter there. 
Well, yes it does, in the cost and in the environmental impact of the 
"alternative" sources, but that is a hard argument to win and has not been 
adequately put forth. The anti's need to look at things like the global 
warming caused by solar panels (change in the heat (not) reflected back into 
space), and wildlife (including people) killed by wind generation, and 
maintenance. Oh, don't forget greenhouse gases.  Why would one want to put a 
terrible greenhouse gas like methane into cars when you can smell the 
propane in almost any propane fueled car when you walk by it?  To win a 
conflict one needs to fight on the opponents turf.

What is the overall efficiency of hydrogen powered cars? Terrible.  Not that 
I oppose it.  Any of us that have experience with tritium know that you 
cannot completely contain hydrogen,  It also is very hard on the materials 
it comes into contact with. Its main advantage is that nuclear power is 
probably the best source of it through electrical generation. The bigger 
problem is if you have a much harder time containing propane than gasoline, 
and methane is tougher than propane, and hydrogen is way beyond methane, 
what are the as yet undiscussed effects of hydrogen power? Environmental 
arguments need to be faced with environmental arguments, and that has not 
been, as far as I am aware, adequately attempted.  The nuclear industry has 
been fighting a defensive conflict, and should start to use the negative 
qualities of the alternatives, in a proportional manner.

Bottomline is that you have to look at the bottom line.  How much energy, as 
a function of time,  is available from various sources, how much energy do 
we require to maintain the lifestyle we demand, and how do we get to that 
with a minimum harm to the environment.

At about 8 kwe generating capacity needed per person in the U.S. to cover 
both industrial and domestic needs, and peak insolance of about 1 kw/hr/m^2 
how much area of the U.S. needs to be covered by solar panels not to mention 
energy storage?  Pick an efficiency, 1%, and pick an (occupancy factor?) for 
the sun (4 hrs is generous due to diurnal variation in sunlight, and cloud 
cover etc.). We would need something like the order of 1000m^2/person. 
About 1 square kilometer per thousand people. Hmm. 300 million people would 
need 300,000 square kilometers of solar panels.

I'll leave it to the reader to pick which states to cover ;)

Dale


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grant" <grantjoh at pacbell.net>
To: <Know_Nukes at yahoogroups.com>; <All-Energy at yahoogroups.com>; 
<environment at yahoogroups.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Scientific American bias


> The September issue of Scientific American is devoted to world problems.
>
> For the section on energy they picked anti nuclear power Lovins as the 
> author.
>
> In a graph of worldwide electrical generation capacity from 2000 to 2010 
> he shows nuclear as a flat line but everything else is rising.
>
> On a drawing of power losses he starts of with 70% lost at the power plant 
> but I think the real numbers are 60% to 65%.  Then he goes on to claim a 
> 10% loss in transmission lines, the real number is about 5%.
>
> Next comes a motor with a 10% loss, real numbers are 3% to 5%, driving a 
> pump with a 25% loss.  If the loss at the pump was really that high then 
> pumped storage would not be cost effective.
>
> Then he shows a valve and claims "throttle loses" at 33%.  With modern 
> electronic control of the pump motor there would be no need for a throttle 
> valve.
>
> John Grant
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>