What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
70 Comments
- AnotherDiggGuy, on 11/04/2009, -7/+48The environmentalists wouldn't even allow California to build solar plants in the Mojave desert. Nineteen companies had submitted applications to build solar or wind facilities on a parcel of 500,000 desert acres
"It would destroy the entire Mojave Desert ecosystem" said executive director of The Wildlands Conservancy
"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert, I don't know where the hell we can put them," - Schwarzenegger
End result - Green energy was shot down by green retards - Frixionburne, on 11/04/2009, -2/+20Pick one: the absence of cheap renewable energy
or....
minor impact in the Mojave desert with a kickass solar plant.
Seriously, these people would ***** a brick the size of the Titanic if someone so much as spits in the desert, as I'm sure they'd justify it as microbial genocide or some such nonsense.
Can't have campfires anymore guys, too many co2 emissions, might destroy the Mojave. - iheartbakon, on 11/04/2009, -0/+15Make children's toys out of the waste and ship to China. Seems to work for them.
- Taiyoryu, on 11/04/2009, -1/+14Homeowners should lease their roofs. The homeowner gets a cut of the energy, the power company gets the rest and handles maintenance and upgrades. Problem solved depending on the type of solar being installed.
- Jektal, on 11/04/2009, -2/+15Remind me again... What's so bad about modern nuclear power?
- jrm125, on 11/04/2009, -0/+11Molten salt...that's pretty ingenious.
- cheddaro, on 11/04/2009, -1/+11I thought the holy grail of solar power was a system that saved you more money than you spent, and also didn't need rare natural resources to be made?
- stonerrobot, on 11/04/2009, -0/+9They have been doing this at Sandia National Labs for quite some time now.. I also believe that the Spanish solar tower works on the same principle.
- GrammerPants, on 11/04/2009, -2/+11The public doesn't trust it.
- lead2thehead, on 11/04/2009, -1/+10Buried for misleading title. They're not generating solar power when the sun goes down. They're just storing the power they generated when the sun was up. Great job, guys. You invented the battery.
- AndrewMoyer, on 11/04/2009, -1/+10Ingenious... and old.
- tao52nyc, on 11/04/2009, -0/+9There's usually not that much electricity generated even in good weather. But why lease what you already own? There are regs in place in many states, some since the late '70's, regarding this. You put up the rooftop solar, and integrate it with your home electrical system. If nothing else, your grid electric bill will go down significantly. You COULD break even. If by some miracle, you produce more than you consume, the utility is legally obligated to give you a credit. (Rarely happens, but on paper it's possible.)
- burketo, on 11/04/2009, -0/+7"SolarReserve is literally run by rocket scientists"
I guess that explains it! - Ferretman, on 11/04/2009, -2/+9Handling nuclear waste is a problem blown vastly out of proportion.
Taking care of the waste is simple:
* Glassify the waste into nearly waterproof glass blocks. This is an old technique, well understood, which you can read about all over the web (here's one link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste).
* Stack these blocks up in a nice pile out in the middle of a desert. There are tons of US military bases in the Southwest that have lots of spare land that would be perfect for this.
* Put two fences around this pile, one at 1/4 mile and one at 1 mile.
* Put cameras and the odd patrolling guard on the first fence, along with signs every 10 feet that say, "Nuclear waste storage facility--do not enter."
* Put cameras and regular guards every 15 feet along the inside fence, along with signs every 10 feet that say, "Cross this line and die".
Problem solved. - pstroll, on 11/04/2009, -1/+7Misleading headline. Solar thermal plants have been using graphite and molten salt for years.
- Countess666, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6@askantik : large yes, but it needs to be.
and compared to the Mojave desert itself its not even all that large a area at just over 2%. - Countess666, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6the main problem with roof top installation is they dont follow the sun, and dont have energy-efficient storage if they have storage at all, severely limiting their energy potential.
having said that, in a lot of places they can still make sound economy sense. - askantik, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6I'm not saying it shouldn't be done necessarily, I'm saying that when something like that is at stake, there needs to be inquiry and study into the effects of what would happen both in the short term and the long term.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_cycle_assessment - doctechnical, on 11/04/2009, -0/+6The sun ALWAYS shines in space, and a damnsight more than it does down here. What we should be working on is orbital solar, beamed back to earth. Give NASA and the rocket scientists something worthwhile to do instead of trying to sucker-punch the moon :)
- katana0182, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5What's so bad is that nuclear power competes with coal at a cheaper cost.
Thus, coal companies would go out of business.
This is intolerable to those who hold the power. - inferno10, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5The goggles do nothing!
- doctechnical, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Microwave transmission. The idea has been kicking around for quite a while, it's doable, or damned near so. At any rate the benefits are so great that we should definitely take a run at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_pow ... - sublimemm, on 11/04/2009, -1/+6As of 2007, the United States had accumulated more than 50,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors.[71] Underground storage at Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in U.S. has been proposed as permanent storage. After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety.
I don't think time is on our side here. - Frixionburne, on 11/04/2009, -0/+5Molten salt... that's pretty igneous.
- GrammerPants, on 11/04/2009, -4/+9That isn't problem solved the waste is still there. That is like saying a garbage dump solves our waste problem.
- CynicalTyler, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4But as SimCity 2000 taught me, there is a chance that the microwave beams will randomly strike around the city, spreading havoc and destroying football stadiums, starting fires, and lowering my public opinion ratings.
- katana0182, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4The nuclear power industry was using molten salt as a coolant and energy storage medium back in the 1950s.
Quite original. - lead2thehead, on 11/05/2009, -0/+4Jesus Christ, energy and power mean the same thing, you know-it-all douche. They are used interchangeably in every day conversation. And no, they aren't generating jack ***** after sundown. They collect energy during the day and CONVERT IT into electricity at night. They're not GENERATING power. They're converting STORED power. There are a million different ways to store energy. You can store it as heat, you can store it chemically, you can store it magnetically, you can store it kinetically... but it's all the same god damn thing. The title of this article is suggesting that they are actually collecting solar energy at night, which is not the case. I thought that would have been obvious, but here we are.
- theonlywizdum, on 11/04/2009, -1/+5Sublimemm, try doing some actual research instead of pulling numbers out of your ass. The nuclear fuel rods are good for 6 years before they have to be moved to a cooling pond, where it sits for another 5 years. Not exactly "producing these blocks like legos". We're probably talking more like 10 blocks per 11 years per plant, depending on block size This number will only decrease as we get better and better at reusing the fuel rods. (i'm assuming each block is roughly the same size as a 55 gallon drum.
You are underestimating the amount of space owned by military bases for flight training, weapons tests, etc.
How does a dump make a base more valuable as a target? This isn't half-life, nuclear waste doesn't explode when you shoot it. Even if someone managed to blow up the dump, the waste would still just be spread over a deserted area, it would be a minor ecological inconvenience. By the time that the waste is transported to a dump, the levels of radiation are very low, just not low enough to risk polluting water supplies in more populated areas. - Screwy1138, on 11/04/2009, -0/+4We have a plant in Michigan that during low power usage, pumps water up into a reserve. During high power usage, it lets water down to create hydroelectric power. They're looking to add wind turbines to this (as wind is a variable source, the plant is perfect for it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Stor ...
Consumers Energy has a fact sheet PDF about it, some propaganda, but has pictures.
http://www.consumersenergy.com/apps/pdf/LudingtonP ... - Ramble, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3You wouldn't get a lot of power out of that and it would also stress the materials greatly. It's far more efficient to store the energy as heat.
- Hetman, on 11/04/2009, -0/+3A dysons sphere? We have probably already polluted our oribital system even if producing one was possible.
- jj101, on 11/05/2009, -0/+2@rif42 - Pedantry fail!
- saranagati, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2the sun also ALWAYS shines across about 50% of the earth. something a lot safer and more reliable than an orbital solar is solar plants across the earth with some good power lines. There's already a company who is selling power cables that lose 50% less energy than the power cables produced a few years ago and i'm sure we can do much better than that.
- Dotcommer, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3lol, I wonder if that idiot realizes that the ChinaLake naval base is located in the mojave and they own quite a bit of land for testing explosives and air to ground missiles...
- jimrooney, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Ah, the solar powered flashlight :)
(I know, it's molten salt energy storage... but someone had to say it) - tyne101101, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Obviously, solar power must be something to come up with. Sun is a renewable energy source. Gasoline is pretty much dependent and we need to rethink what our consumption might be. Electric cars are also something to look at too.
- sublimemm, on 11/04/2009, -3/+5theonlywizdum,
Solid waste
For more details on this topic, see Radioactive waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power
The safe storage and disposal of nuclear waste is a significant challenge and yet unresolved problem. The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent fuel. A large nuclear reactor produces 3 cubic metres (25–30 tonnes) of spent fuel each year.[69] It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is made of fission products. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short term radioactivity.[70]
25-30 tonnes is one 55 gallon drum... right? The name wizdum is pretty appropriate
High-level radioactive waste
Spent fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be handled with great care and forethought. However, spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over the course of thousands of years of time. After about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used. Today, scientists are experimenting on how to recycle these rods to reduce waste. In the meantime, after 40 years, the radiation flux is 99.9% lower than it was the moment the spent fuel was removed, although still dangerously radioactive.[60]
no one said 'producing these blocks like legos', nice reading comprehension though. I was sarcastically showing how the Ferretman trivialized the nature of these 'blocks'. - coltonfrancis, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3Yea, just like GM's completely electric car, the EV-1.
***** greed - sublimemm, on 11/04/2009, -1/+3really theonlywizdum? says who, you and your unnamed source?
- AlaskanDad, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Where do you find contractors to build nuclear plants who will not cut corners or use cut rate materials to build Nuclear plants.
No such thing as safe Nuclear plant when it is built by the GREEDY capatalists. Then their is supply and demand which will cause uranium prices to soar, remember Oil used to be cheap fuel! - nheron87, on 11/04/2009, -0/+2What killed Geothermal Energy?
- rif42, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1No, thousands of large mirrors.
- lbzfoxracingsmp, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1This should reduce global warming! Which it needs to operate!
- jj101, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1@wizdum - I agree that nuclear is a short term solution (refering to your comments earlier) but also think that the waste is an as yet unresolved problem. Solar power in space is a much better idea. If the budget was available (say the amount spent pissing off a bunch of people in a desert recently) I'm certain a way can be found to make this work.
@Tyler - Lol. Fusion plants ftw. - sublimemm, on 11/04/2009, -1/+2Yeah no company, except for 100% of the companies in the US today...
- rif42, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1@cheddaro
"and also didn't need rare natural resources to be made?"
What rare natural resources do CSP (solar thermal power) need? - theonlywizdum, on 11/04/2009, -0/+1http://www.amazon.com/Sunstroke-David-Kagan/dp/044 ...
This sounds like a bad idea. - rif42, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1@lead2thehead
"energy and power mean the same thing"
No.
Energy is measured in Joule.
Power is measured in Watt = Joule / sec.
Energy and power definitions:
http://guidedtour.windpower.org/en/stat/unitsene.h ...
And please take your religious laden douchebag ranting somewhere else. - jj101, on 11/05/2009, -0/+1The notion that sucking the heat out of the earths core was not a good idea in the long term? Only joking. No idea.
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is