June 29, 2008 at 11:31 am
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The June 2008 Energy Update
June 30, 2008 at 6:11 am
Nuclear has its challenges, but it's the only proven technology that could handle the kind of power generation that we need for the next 100 years until other alternates take over.
There are only two challenges, both worthy of consideration.
1) What to do with spent fuel? The French have been recycling fuel effectively for the last 30 years. Because spent fuel is a recognized challenge, we're developing better and better ways to recycle.
See link:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
2) Meltdown. Pretty serious. Again (and I'm not usually a big fan of the French) the French have been running their reactors safely for a long time.
We've learned how to build and operate nuclear plants safely for the long haul, and concerns that might have been legitimate 30 years ago no longer apply now. It's the only legitimate way to go at the moment. Solar and wind are great, but we need something that will produce power when the wind stops blowing and he sun goes down.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
June 30, 2008 at 6:49 am
I too have been trying out other light bulbs, I don't care for the light the CFL's put out. I guess we will have to get used to not being able to dim our lights since the government's war on dimmer switches....It would have made far more sense for people to want to use CFL bulbs because they save you money theoretically, and have the companies develop efficient bulbs that can actually run on a dimmer switch. But regulation will always trump innovation.
Good luck on the windmill - I know a company in WI has been working on a design that won't kill any birds, which appears to be a big sticking point in this part of the country.
One person I know of used old cell tower batteries to store his energy from his windmill, and used a diesel generator to supplement his power needs. Rather than just replacing everything for energy efficiency, think of recycling and reusing - that will inevitably save more.
Cheers
http://twitter.com/widba
http://widba.blogspot.com/
June 30, 2008 at 6:51 am
One of the most annoying problems with CF is their spectrum.
I have that lighting in my closet area, and I cannot tell dark blue from black pants in that room.
I agree with you, we need nuclear power (we should have had it 30 years ago). Here is an interesting article about numeric analysis of what is actually feasible as energy in the long term.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
June 30, 2008 at 7:48 am
Steve, I love these articles and updates!
Not trying to go all engineer on you or anything (and I haven't read the linked article - it may mention this already), but one efficient way to store energy for peak is to use it to pump water into human-made retention ponds/lakes of hydroelectric facilities. Pump it at night when power is cheap and then release it to the generators at peak.
I didn't think of this, I heard it on a tour of Kerr Reservoir (Buggs Island Lake) years ago and thought it was a cool idea... at least until gravity runs out.
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
June 30, 2008 at 8:25 am
P.S. - Steve, let me chime in in saying thanks for articles like this. Normally, I come to this site for technical insights (which you normally feature of course) but it's fun every now and then to take a break and discuss current issues with other technical minded people. I thought I'd mention this before we get the entry about "why are we wasting our time with non-tech stuff like this..."
I'll give the normal caveat that I don't always agree with everyone, but it's still interesting. 😎
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
June 30, 2008 at 9:38 am
I'm completely fascinated by the Mariah wind generator. It sure has me thinking that I might actually be able to afford personal wind power. The idea is heady. Thanks for the link.
June 30, 2008 at 10:09 am
I forgot to include this link with my post
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
June 30, 2008 at 10:23 am
I've heard about the pumping of water, it's really a "gravity well", using current power to move something higher, creating potential energy, and then gravity to bring it back down and release this energy as kinetic. It's just like a roller coaster.
Meltdown can almost be eliminated in some modern, gravity fed nuclear designs. Korea has made big strides here. It's still a problem, but not a deal breaker.
I agree with the light on CF bulbs. LEDs have a very white, almost bluish tint as well. Not sure how well LEDs would work in a closet, course you could just buy all black pants P)
We have a CF bulb in our room as a side light and it was weird at first. Definitely doesn't throw off as much light as a regular bulb, but it's not bad. The spectrum isn't too bad for reading.
I think we might end up removing the dimmers (they came with the house) and moving to CF bulbs in a few more places. I think I might need to invest in 3-4 more LEDs and replace one whole room with them and see how it compares. Right now I've replaced one in a few places with a flood in the ceiling cans, but it's overwhelmed by the incandescents, so it's hard to tell if it's acceptable.
June 30, 2008 at 10:24 am
And the Mariah, vertical windmill (darius or egg-beater shape) doesn't seem to affect birds. You have a relatively narrow impact zone as opposed to the large sweep of horizontal blades.
PacWind is another company doing them if you want, but Mariah seems to be ahead of them.
June 30, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Although a proponent of nuclear (not a mindless one, mind you; I'm open to other suggestions), one of the biggest hurdles is 'where do you put them?' I think you would get massive protests from any territory where you proposed one.
One of the advantages of the smaller approaches like the Mariah is that you could have one in every home in some communities. Questions though: How long do they hold up? How do you maintain them when they break-down? How many will be left standing after a hurricane? The idea of de-centralized power is very appealing as long as we're comparing apples-to-apples and including things like usable lifespand and ongoing maintenace. I'm not knocking wind and solar; they're great supplements to larger schemes and they have a lot of potential. But again, they're not as dependable as other proven sources and they may be a lot more expensive than they look once implemented on a wide scale. Hey, we've all seen computer systems that were idealistically specified at one cost and that had a lot of overruns after all was said and done...
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
June 30, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Steve and others ...
I would be very cautious looking at vertical windmills. There just isn't enough evidence out there that they work. One of the big problems with them is that if the wind is blowing at them, it is trying to push both the blade going away from the wind and the wind coming towards it - thereby making it very inefficient. I know there are LOTS of companies that try to show you otherwise, but there isn't any good scientific studies that show VAWTs being good investments.
As for bird kill and other such anti-wind theories, I would encourage you to check out the American Wind Energy Association site (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629_Myths_vs_Facts_Fact_Sheet.pdf)
June 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I've wondered about the vertical windmills as well, but I've seen some scientific analysis that seems to show they work well. There's blade cuting into the wind slightly as well on horizontal ones.
Part of the problems are that I haven't seen enough studies on all of them to know if they're good ideas.
Ongoing maintenance is definitely an issue. To me, this is a place where utilities should be driving things forward. Lower the peak needs, get supplemental power, and sell services and equipment to homeowners, neighborhoods, etc.
Many windmills have brakes to stop them or stop generating power after some time. Of course you have to consider that stuff when planning. hurricanes and tornadoes aren't really a problem in Denver, so wind is appealing. however we have lots of hail every year, so solar is more worrisome.
I think nuclear also requires more education and more successes. Some people have to try and build them in more areas, and show the successes of many plants that exist. The two I worked in were in wooded areas, near nature preserves and had been there for decades. No ill effects.
June 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Steve, good suggestion on utilities getting involved.
I've never been in the accounting or business offices of a power utility, but it seems like it would be wise for them to find a way to get in on decentralized power. The more conspiracy-minded people have suggested that decentralized power sources threaten the big utilities (which is why they always lean towards big centralized plants which they can own) and supposedly the big guys buy off legislatures to prevent the development of competing systems. Although I'm not a conspiracy guy, I can see that it would appear at first glance to be against the utilities self interest to support something that would put them out of business. It seems though like it's only a matter of time before we come up with fuel cells or something that could power the average home.
In the mean time, every home system will need supplemental power anyway. One of the supposed problems of home generation is what happens when you have a lot of sources randomly feeding into the power grid. Currently, when a line goes down, the utility company can cut off power until it's fixed. When you've got power sources coming from all over, this is supposedly a safety issue for the workers. I've heard though that there are some recent developments in switching capabillities in the home systems that account for this.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
June 30, 2008 at 3:33 pm
With regards to light bulbs:
I have noticed that some CF bulbs work "better" than others, ie. they get brighter faster, the color spectrum is better. I don't have a good list of which ones work better. I have replaced the incandescent bulbs with CF in our most heavily used lighting around the house, to get the biggest savings. And I am very happy to see that they are improving rapidly. My husband still hates them because he wants instant, very bright light. (He actually bought some 50-200-250 3-way incandescents that I had to hide when he wasn't looking!)
I did NOT realize that incandescents will be phased out by 2014. That's good to know. What about halogen lighting? It's my impression that since they burn so hot they must use a lot more electricity.
As for LEDs - I love the idea. Sounds like a way to get around the direct-beam problem in standard table lamps would be to make lamp shades that reflect the light back down. If LEDs don't get too hot, you wouldn't really need the open hole at the top of the shade. In your experience, do the LEDs get too hot?
I am about to install lighting in several rooms, so this is a perfect time to take advantage of LEDs if I can make a convincing argument.
I just checked out the C. Crane Company LED products. Awesome! So you have recommendations on which ones you like the best, based on your testing?
There WAS one thing that caught my eye: proper disposal. With the electronics, sounds like LEDs will need special disposal. The biggest problem with the CF bulbs is the presence of mercury and proper disposal.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply