[ RadSafe ] Forwarded: Re: rational thought

[Ted de Castro]

Indeed - Corn is notorious for nitrogen depletion of the soil - and thus 
one of the uses of petroleum products as soil amendments in farming.

The grasses under consideration grow in the wild year after year.  I 
will presume that MOST of them die where they sprout and thus return 
minerals to the same soil - but I'm also sure that much is eaten and 
redeposited elsewhere.

Most certainly fertilization needs must be considered - but if you've 
ever driven past a feed lot - you'll quickly realize that fertilizer is 
in ample supply.

Considerable work has been done at LBL on the grass (and other crude 
cellulose ag waste) as biofuel and I would be surprised if soil 
replenishment was not considered - but it was not mention in the 
presentation I attended.

In any event - if crop rotation can solve this issue for corn - it can 
certainly be applied here.  This is not new technology.

And of course - there is no such thing as a free lunch - so there will 
be costs.  HOWEVER it DOES represent integration of solar energy over 
many acres with little infrastructure - no windmill towers or racks of 
PV panels - and over an annual growing season with an already 
demonstrated net efficiency of 2% and with existing time tested technology.

On 10/5/2011 11:59 AM, Bob Hearn wrote:
> Corn (or "wild grasses" for that matter) as a biofuel are not exactly a
> renewable resource. The plant matter is formed by extracting materials from
> the plot on which it is grown. "Non-renewable" oil is formed from organic
> matter as well, just further processed into a more concentrated energy
> source.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff Terry
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:44 PM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Forwarded: Re: rational thought
>
>
> Please remember to send plain text messages.
>
> Forwarded:
>
> A few days ago, James Salman made some comments (copied below) about
> electricity generation that I think deserves a bit of a rebuttal.  James
> stated that wind generation is 2 cents/kWh.  That's not quite true.  Best
> case estimates for levelized costs (includes production, fuel, and capital
> construction) of onshore wind generation are about 9.7 cents/kWh and
> offshore is 24.3 cents/kWh (due to high cost of construction).  New nuclear
> is 11.4  cents/kWh, comparable to conventional coal, advanced coal and most
> gas turbine generation.  Solar thermal is over 31 cents/kWh and photovoltaic
> is 21.  In conclusion, if you want low-carbon generation, new nuclear is
> considerably less expensive - and that according to Chris Busby is all that
> counts, right?  Those figures are from the Energy Information Administration
> so it's your government tax dollars at work and you can believe it.  And
> incidentally if you look at "old" nuclear, existing plants for which the
> capital costs are already pai  d off, then the generation costs are right
> around 2 cents/kWh and only existing hydro is less.  And you won't be
> building any significant hydro facilities in the US in the near future.  Too
> great an environmental impact.  Finally, you cannot forget about reliability
> and nuclear runs about 90 capacity factors while wind is 34% and solar
> thermal is 18% and PV only 25%.  You cannot run a grid on a power source
> that's available on average only 34% of the time and very unpredictable.
> And most the public is objecting to expensive, very high voltage
> transmission lines if you're going to attempt to pull power from other
> distant states . . .
>
> Lastly, look at the overall carbon footprint and you see that wind and solar
> aren't much better there either.  The cost of blade manufacture, concrete
> foundations, steel tower manufacture, etc. along with high maintenance costs
> yield a carbon footprint very similar to nuclear that is dominated by fuel
> production (mining, enrichment, and fabrication) and by decommissioning.
> See the report of the UK Office of Science and Technology.
>
> Bottom line, don't put all your eggs in one basket.  You'll end up with an
> ugly omelet.
>
> Eric M. Goldin, CHP
> <Eric.Goldin at sce.com>
>
>
> Jeff Terry
> Assoc. Professor of Physics
> Life Science Bldg Rm 166
> Illinois Institute of Technology
> 3101 S. Dearborn St.
> Chicago IL 60616
> 630-252-9708
> terryj at iit.edu
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu