Where to get potting soil??
I would like to plant some veggies, herbs and berry bushes in large pots this spring, but I am at a loss as to how to find soil that wasn't tainted by Fuke. Any ideas???
Search
I would like to plant some veggies, herbs and berry bushes in large pots this spring, but I am at a loss as to how to find soil that wasn't tainted by Fuke. Any ideas???
I don't know where, really, but have some basic ideas
I feel lucky. I bought several bags of soil within a month of 3/11/11. I wish I had bought more and struggle with how I can find old soil (bagged before 3/15/11).
The only thing I can think of is to try and find out the shelf-life of soil and buy a brand that may not move fast. Perhaps a manufacturer had old labeling so that you can know it's older. If you can't find any, I think you're best bet is to see if you can get soil from as far east in the U.S. as possible.
If you have soil and can't be sure, I suggest removing the top inch of it from your pots (assuming it has rained on them) and amending with what you think is the least contaminated bag of new soil.
Kindly ignore the ranting soul
My best advice is to ignore the ranting raven in this thread.
Yes - Mad Mama went off the deep end
Mad Mama certainly went of the deep end.
Hi Anonymous: What part of
Hi Anonymous:
What part of our exchange from over 2 months ago are you saying indicates I'm nuts?
Do you say I demonstrate psychological instability because I say I accept any injury that Mother Nature-supplied radiation may cause without complaint, but refuse to accept the proposition that we, the general public, should likewise unquestioningly accept the increased exposure to our families provided by anthropogenic radiation in the same manner... as an inevitable part of life? Is it because I take this stand while claiming that nuke plants are a morally unacceptable energy source because the associated radiation risks to the public (major accidents and routine releases) are unnecessary because there are less dangerous/hazardous energy sources available?
Or, maybe you believe I "went off the deep end" when I described my family's alternative energy source: specifically a grid-linked 6.12 kw solar photovoltaic system, that supplies nearly 100% of our annual energy demand and has eliminated any increase in our annual electricity cost during the past 7 years since the system was installed?
Or, perhaps your claim that I am a "ranting raven" refers to my response to the OP's question about where to source potting soil that was not exposed to Fukushima fallout?
MadMama
Like WHAT?
Is it because I take this stand while claiming that nuke plants are a morally unacceptable energy source because the associated radiation risks to the public (major accidents and routine releases) are unnecessary because there are less dangerous/hazardous energy sources available?
==============================
Like WHAT??? Solar or wind? Solar and wind can't deliver electrical energy 24/7 which is what we demand. No - the "grid" doesn't store energy - it's just a bunch of wires. We don't have large scale storage capacity / technology.
So what other sources do we use? The number one source that we use now is COAL. Evidently you were totally ignorant of the fact that coal gives us 100 TIMES the radiation exposure that nuclear power does. Yet - coal is accepted.
Courtesy of scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
They concluded that Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.
Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.
I accept that you accept the natural radiation. However, you don't accept the component due to nuclear power. You complain about the nuclear power plants but not the coal plants. However, those coal plants that you are NOT complaining about give you 100 TIMES the radiation exposure as the nuclear plants you do complain about.
Typical anti-nuke HYPOCRISY
Of course the grid does not
Of course the grid does not literally store energy, but we use it in that way instead of batteries for our electrical system. It may be clearer to use the word "bank" instead of the word "store." We use the grid as a bank by depositing the excess electricity generated by our solar panels into the grid, it is used by other customers immediately, but our deposit is available to us (in the form of a kwh credit on our net metering balance sheet from SCE) to offset our consumption during low-production hours (night time, overcast weather, etc.). As I said, our system is structured to just about zero out on an annual basis. Absolutely, our heavy winter and June gloom consumption is later offset by our later summer overproduction.
It seems that distributed production such as our residential solar photovoltaic system (substitute a different application depending upon what's most appropriate for that location) that is tied into a centralized 24/7 reliable energy source may be the best bet we've got right now. I'm sure our options will improve as technology and consciousness advance. At least for now the distributed production will significantly reduce the load/production demands placed on the central energy producer and the associated negative environmental/health effects. The distributed production (consumer-installed solar & other alternative energy applications that are grid tied) will also mitigate any distribution loss/transport inefficiencies.
The proposed Palmdale, CA, solar/natural gas facility (discussed elsewhere in this thread) is a good hybrid example, that should be hugely efficient with the solar production significantly reducing the environmental degradation caused by the natural gas technology, by reducing the natural gas demand. It would be even more efficient with distributed alternative production, which is actually what you see when you drive through Palmdale these days. There are solar panels on virtually every carport, south-facing commercial roof structure and parking structure. Very forward thinking, a great long-term investment and economically stimulating.
So, I'm not a physicist, but it seems from this thread's discussion of electricity storage and based upon personal experience, that it (storage) may be an inefficiency that we should be trying to avoid where possible, aiming rather at reliable on-demand and hybridized/complementary energy sources that feed the community requirements.
Yes, I understand that all fossil fuel energy sources (oil, natural gas, coal) are polluting, not to mention finite, and because of that we should try to reduce our consumption of those polluting, but reliable, sources with the cleanest/safest available alternatives. Despite widespread propaganda to the contrary, nuclear power plants do not qualify as clean energy sources. Rather, it wins the most hazardous energy producer award by a landslide, being the only energy production method that is capable of annihilating an entire country and contaminating an entire hemisphere on a bad day.
MM
You say: "We don't have large
You say: "We don't have large scale storage capacity / technology."
Well why don't we just stop arguing and develop that storage technology and capacity, and make nuclear power unnecessary?
Large scale storage capacity
"We don't have large scale storage capacity / technology."
Simply untrue.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/2010-11-16_workshop...
It has existed for decades in California.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/wind/meetings/2008/10/ManhoYeung.pdf
NOT ENOUGH!!!
Yes - there are pumped storage plants.
However, NOT ENOUGH!!!
The pumped hydro plants are a small fraction of our capacity / demand.
For example; if you want to use solar exclusively; then you need to be able to meet the entire night time demand for electricity because solar plants don't work at night.
We are NOWHERE NEAR having enough pumped storage capacity for that.
We probably won't be able to build it either; because the same people that oppose nuclear plants will oppose any new pumped storage dams. In fact, they want to rip out the dams we have like Hetch Hetchy.
Why don't we cure cancer
Why don't we just arguing and develop a cure for cancer...
Just when you think the anti-nukes couldn't come up with something more stupid; they surprise you.
Don't you think scientists have been working to do that?? They've been working to develop that technology for ages now.
However, it just doesn't happen because you want it to.
It's like the cure for cancer in my opening line. GEEE - we should cure cancer...
We've been trying on BOTH - but we don't have it.
GEESH!!!
What, you mean we can develop
What, you mean we can develop nuclear reactors but we can't develop what amounts to better energy storage, better batteries, or better fuel cells? I think not. And you compare that to curing cancer? Storing electricity is a much simpler problem than curing cancer.
Storing electricity in LARGE AMOUNTS is hard
A solar farm or wind farm could be out of commission for a day because it was cloudy that day, or the wind wasn't blowing that day. In such a case, the day's output of electric energy would have to come from a storage system.
Suppose we have a solar farm or wind farm that is to supplant one large coal or nuclear power plant. How much energy does the storage unit have to store in order to have enough to replace one day's worth of electricity.
A typical large coal or nuclear power unit is about 1 Gigawatt. In a single day, a 1 Gigawatt power plant will produce 1 Gigawatt-Day of energy. The product of a unit of power and a unit of time is always a unit of energy. As such, it can be converted to any other unit of energy, just as any unit of length like the "inch" can be converted to "feet".
If you do the conversion; a Gigawatt-Day ( 24 million kw-hours ) is equal to 20.6 kilotons of energy or about the energy of the atomic bomb the USA dropped on Nagasaki.
Put your brain in gear. Sure it's easy to pick things up if you are picking up a 10 pound weight. How about picking up a 10 million pound weight? That's a LOT harder even though picking up 10 pounds is trivial.
Likewise, storing a few watt-hours of energy in a battery is trivial; like lifting the 10 pound weight. But storing an atomic bomb's worth of energy is rather difficult; don't you think?
Where does say a coal-fired
Where does say a coal-fired power plant store that days worth of energy before it converts it into electricity?
Contrary to what you say, storing this amount of energy is obviously not at all difficult, it is already done at power plants that use fuel, both at the plants in their fuel stocks, and in the fuel supply chains that feed the plants.
Evidently you've never seen a coal plant!!
Where does say a coal-fired power plant store that days worth of energy before it converts it into electricity?
==========================
Evidently you've never seen a coal plant. They have big coal piles sitting all around them. Coal is a fuel. All the energy is stored in the fuel. You have a physical medium, coal; which traps the energy and holds it ready for release in the plant's boilers.
Solar and wind don't have fuels. There's no physical material that we can store that contains the energy for solar and wind. Now we could make a fuel, and then burn the fuel later. However, the Laws of Physics tell us that there is inefficiency in going to / from energy and fuel. If you have a fuel like coal; then when you burn it, you can get 40% of the energy as electricity.
However, if you have solar energy, and you make a fuel; then the fuel will have only 40% of the energy that you captured. Then when you burn the fuel, you get 40% of that energy; which is only 16% of the original solar energy.
The problem with making a fuel from solar energy is that you have to go through TWO conversions. One from solar energy to fuel, then the second from fuel to electricity. You take TWO hits in inefficiency; whereas if you start with a fuel like coal; you only take one hit.
You say: "They have big coal
You say: "They have big coal piles sitting all around them. Coal is a fuel. All the energy is stored in the fuel."
So storing the energy needed to run power plants is not exactly difficult, is it?
Even big piles of lumps of coal can store it.
Nuclear power is the past, it was a grave mistake.
Solar power is the future.
BROTHER!!
So storing the energy needed to run power plants is not exactly difficult, is it?
Even big piles of lumps of coal can store it.
Nuclear power is the past, it was a grave mistake.
Solar power is the future.
===========================
Evidently you didn't read the above. Storing energy as fuel is fine when Mother Nature gives you energy stored as fuel. That's what coal is.
But what do you do with solar and wind??? There is no fuel storage medium with solar and wind. As stated above, one can always make a fuel with your solar energy - but then you take a big hit in efficiency.
Your final conclusion that nuclear was a mistake and solar is the future is NOT what our best scientists say. More like the other way around. Nuclear is very successful in the USA. It is one of the cheapest means of generating electricity, and has been extremely safe. The one accident the USA had harmed nobody. Other countries like Russia and Japan with more lax regulations have had problems. However, even Fukushima is NOT the health threat the anti-nukes make it out to be. If you don't believe that, you haven't understood this forum.
Here's an interview conducted by Pulitzer Prize winner Richard Rhodes for a program on PBS's Frontline several years ago. Rhodes interviewed physicist Dr. Charles Till, at the time Associate Director of Argonne National Laboratory:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html
Q: What about Solar?
A: Solar? No.
Q: Wind?
A: No. Small amounts. Small amounts only. The simplest form of pencil calculation will tell you that. But you know, energy has to be produced for modern society on a huge scale. The only way you can do that is with energy sources that have concentrated energy in them: coal, oil, natural gas. And the quintessential example of it is nuclear, where the energy is so concentrated, you have something to work [with]. With solar, your main problem is gathering it. In nuclear, it's there. It's been gathered.
Use what you normally use
Use what you normally use, and rest assured that the soil contains WAY, WAY, MORE radioactive elements courtesy of Mother Nature than anything that came from Fukushima.
Anything you grow will be more radioactive due to Mother Nature than anything else. That's how the ATF knows that wines and liquors are made from recently grown plant material.
Check out the book "Instant Physicist" by UC-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller:
http://www.amazon.com/Instant-Physicist-Illustrated-Guide/dp/0393078264/...
Read the "free sample" courtesy of Amazon that tells that the ATF REQUIRES that wines and liquors be radioactive in order to be legally sold in the USA.
I'll take any radiation
I'll take any radiation (albeit potentially dangerous) Mother Nature throws at me without complaint.
I'll fight and rail against any additional radiation provided courtesy of polluting industries, funded via their corrupted public officials and covered up for by their psychologically and financially invested industry members ("it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it,"... upton sinclair).
Those (any) increases will result in illness, injury and premature deaths. That is morally unacceptable. Societally we must make the effort to find alternatives that do not maim the unsuspecting public (which may include someone dear to you, but is still morally unacceptable even if it is someone else). Nuclear only provides 10-20% of Americans' electricity. I live in LA. San Onofre NPP is powered down right now because of a leak, and my lights are still working. Shut them down. We don't need the electricity that NPPs provide.. the assured injuries to those unsuspecting few are not warranted.
BTW... if you do buy bagged soil, maked darned sure it does not contained fish meal (which is often a Japanese import, the highly contaminated sand lance).
MadMama
Inductive Reasoning; anti-nuke style
Many here may be unfamiliar with the concept of "Inductive Reasoning".
We have a statement characterized by a number "n". In inductive reasoning, one first shows that the statement is True for n = 1. Then one shows that if the statement is True for "n", that implies it is True for "n+1". That is, the fact the statement is True for "n" implies it is also True for "n+1". One can them proceed recursively. Since the statement is True for n=1 that implies it is True for n=2, which in turn implies it is True for n=3,..... Hence it is True for all "n".
We have here a demonstration of the anti-nuke version of this reasoning; which is to show that the statement is True for "n=1", and then conclude it is True for all n.
A single ( n=1 ) nuclear power plant ( San Onofre ) shuts down and the grid doesn't collapse. Therefore, we can shut down all nuclear power plants.
My doctor retired last year, and I am still in good health. Therefore, ALL doctors can retire and we don't need to have medical doctors any more.
An airline cancelled a single flight. The air travel system didn't fall apart. Therefore, all airlines can cancel all flights and there will be no problem
My neighbor junked his old car last month. People are still getting to work. Therefore, we can junk all the cars, and people will still get to work.
With ill-founded "logic" like that from the anti-nukes, they still wonder why the universe of intelligent people don't listen to them.
Hey MadMama...
Mad Mama,
Evidently you are ignorant of the fact that since you live in L.A., you do NOT get your electric power from Southern California Edison, the owner of San Onofre.
You get your power from the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, which is one of the co-owners of the Palo Verdes Nuclear Power Plant located in Arizona.
So even though San Onofre is closer to you; you don't get your electric power from San Onofre. You get your power from LADW&P, and some of that power comes from Palo Verdes Nuclear Power Plant west of Phoenix.
That nuclear power plant, with 3 reactors, is the largest nuclear power plant in the USA, and is working just fine. That's why your power is still on.
What "injuries" are you talking about? Nuclear power has NEVER killed or injured ANYONE in the half-century of nuclear power operation in the USA.
How much power is lost in
How much power is lost in transmission through those long lines? I've done the research and in fact most of the power generated by this monstrous nuclear plants is, get this, lost in transmission.
WRONG!!!
On average, only about 7% of our electricity is lost in the transmission lines.
Is there any LIMIT on the LIES the anti-nukes will tell in their opposition??
Come on; "most" of the power lost in transmission; give me a break.
Hello Pleasant Person
Hello Pleasant Person -
Actually, I have had solar panels on my property for the past 8 years, but still am hooked into the grid. I pay an annual net metering bill, which says "Make your check payable to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON." But then, it's probably a misprint because I'm sure you're correct about everything.
MadMama
Why are you still hooked up?
Why are you still hooked up to the net?
If solar panels are the answer, as so many have claimed; why not disconnect from the grid and the nuclear / fossil plants. Why not actually live the life the solar proponents claim would be so good for the rest of us?
Although your question was
Although your question was posed as a challenge with a snide tone, I will take the time to give a thorough answer. You can choose for yourself whether it is right for you, but at least my choice isn't exposing my neighbors to any dangerous byproducts that would I would then have to spend my time trying to 'splain away.
At the time we installed our system, it was extremely expensive (not so much anymore). We have a rental unit on our property and do not control the e-usage there, so it was difficult to design a system that would assuredly be large enough to accommodate the 2 household's needs without overbuilding.
So, we decided to stay on the grid with a net metering agreement with sce .... we overproduce in the summer and feed our excess-e into the grid for other sce customers to use... we underproduce in the winter and pull the excess we need from the grid... with a net result designed to be close to $0.
Also.... we saved money at the time by not buying the necessary battery bank instead using our grid connection with sce to serve that purpose. We financed it with a resultant payment that matched our typical monthly e-payment... and since sce buys/sells electricity from/ to us at the same rate, we guaranteed that our electricity payment would never go up (barring a huge increase in usage).
The tenant usage proved to be the unpredictable and uncontrollable expense... so we solved that by installing a submeter on the unit and passing through their useage current sce rates.
It has been a sweet little system.
MadMama (sorry for typos/formatting errors.. I am inept with the DROID keyboard).
What solar is good for...
Also.... we saved money at the time by not buying the necessary battery bank instead using our grid connection with sce to serve that purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The grid serves as backup in lieu of batteries. The grid also serves as a timing reference. Even if you have batteries, you need something for the inverters to use as a 60 Hz timing reference. Many inverters don't have a built-in 60 Hz reference, and use the grid as a result. If the grid goes down, their electricity also goes down even if they have sunlight on their panels, and they have batteries that are charged; they need the grid for that 60 Hz timing reference.
Sounds like you are doing with your panels what people should do with solar power. It should be a secondary source of power that can help save money; albeit the payback times are pretty long.
However, too many solar advocates think that solar can shoulder the burden of providing the bulk of our electricity demand. They don't think that solar power quits at night; but our use of electricity sure doesn't. One of the biggest users of electricity in the common house is the refrigerator, and they have to be supplied with energy at night; something that solar panels alone can't manage. Solar power intrinsically operates on a 25% duty cycle. It's completely down for 50% of the day (night), and for another 25% of the day; it doesn't produce much because of low sun angle. The bulk of a solar installation's power comes in a 6-hour period centered on the local noon.
Sure, one can use batteries. However, the problem comes when you have to supply power for many many people. A typical fossil or nuclear power plant has a capacity of 1 Gigawatt = 1,000 Megawatts. In a single day, such a plant generates 1 Gigawatt-Day of energy. ( The product of a power and a time is always a unit of energy ) A unit of energy can be converted to any other unit of energy just as a unit of length like the foot can be converted to inches.
If you do that, 1 Gigawatt-Day is 20.6 kilotons; or about the energy of the atomic bomb that blasted Nagasaki. Because a solar installation operates on a 25% duty cycle, you have to store 75% of the daily output or 15 kilotons or the energy of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
Until we have the technology to reliably and SAFELY store atomic bomb sized amounts of energy; solar is doomed to being a bit-player in the energy scheme.
If nuclear power only
If nuclear power only provides 20% of the electricity in the USA,
where do you think the other 80% of the energy from the
other non-nuclear power plants is stored,
before it gets converted into electricity?
We already store this much energy everyday and all around the country.
One solution is for solar energy to be converted into fuel for storage.
New technologies are needed, but it is entirely do-able.
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
We already store this much energy everyday and all around the country.
===================
We don't "store" electricity for the 80% that is non-nuclear.
First a rough breakdown of our electric generation capacity:
50% is coal
20% is nuclear
20% is gas
10% is hydro
Coal, uranium, and gas are all fuels. The energy is potential energy is the fuel until it is released. Reactors release the energy in uranium, boilers release the energy in coal and gas. The energy in hydro power is the gravitational potential energy of the water backed up behind the damn.
Evidently the scientifically ignorant anti-nuke above doesn't understand the concept of potential energy. The energy in ALL our generating capacity is some type of potential energy until the proper machine releases that energy as work. During the day, that energy is released at a rate to precisely match the demand. Contrary to the claims I frequently hear from solar proponents, the grid does NOT "store" electricity. Electricity is generated as it is needed from potential energy.
Solar isn't like that. There's no physical medium that holds potential energy until it is ready to be released. Solar electricity is made on an instantaneous basis from the photons that are collected from the Sun at that particular moment.
Therein lies the problem for solar. A solar panel can't see the Sun 24 hours a day which is what our demand for electricity is. Because of the geometry of the Earth and Sun, and the varying angle of incident solar photons; solar panels generate the bulk of their energy during a 6 hour period centered on the local noon. For the 12 hours that is night; solar provides us with nothing. For the 3 hours after sunrise and the 3 hours before sundown; the output of a solar panel is reduced from its peak which is at noon. Solar panels inherently operate on a 25% duty cycle. That is the bulk of their power comes during 25% of the day.
Therefore, since solar energy doesn't have a physical medium holding potential energy; and since the generation of electricity from solar doesn't match the demand as it does for our other power plants; solar needs some type of energy storage if it is to account for a large fraction of our electricity supply.
Yes - solar power could be converted to some type of fuel; and that fuel then used later. The problem here is one of efficiency. When one converts energy from one form to another, you can't do that at 100% efficiency. This is not just some engineering problem; the Laws of Physics prevent you from EVER being 100% efficient.
For example, the Rankine steam cycle that converts heat produced by coal or gas boilers and nuclear reactors into electricity is only about 40% efficient due largely to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. About 60% of the energy in the fuel ends up as waste heat discharged from our power plants.
If you convert a solar electricity into fuel, and then from fuel back to electricity, you end up doing two conversions and taking two efficiency hits. That inefficiency is going to drive up the cost of solar, and solar is already about 10 times as expensive as other energy generation methods.
If you store the solar energy as kinetic energy in flywheels; that is much, much more efficient than converting it to a fuel like the previous poster envisions.
However, one of the problems with energy storage is not whether or not it is doable; it certainly is doable. The problem is one of scale; that is how much do you have to store.
Let's take a typical 1 Gigawatt nuclear or coal power plant. How much energy does one of these plants produce in a day? The answer is 1 Gigawatt-day. The product of a unit of power and a unit of time is always a unit of energy. Therefore, it can be converted to any other unit of energy just as we convert any unit of length like the inch to another unit of length like the foot.
If you do the math, 1 Gigawatt-day is equal to 20.6 kilotons; or about the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Recall above that solar inherently operates on a 25% duty cycle. That means it can only meet our demand for 25% of the day, and has to rely on the storage system for the other 75% of the day.
Therefore, in order for our solar power plant to supplant one big coal or nuclear plant; we need a storage system that can store 75% of 1 Gigawatt-day which is about 15 kilotons or about the energy of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
So all you need to do is come up with a SAFE way to store the equivalent energy of the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Sure, it's "doable" in the parlance of the anti-nuke; but do you ever wonder why nobody has been able to actually do it
Our anti-nuke has some more thinking to do.
You say: "If you convert a
You say: "If you convert a solar electricity into fuel, and then from fuel back to electricity, you end up doing two conversions and taking two efficiency hits."
This is only true if all the solar energy is converted to fuel, however a proportion of the solar power can be used directly during the day when it is created, and only a proportion needs to be converted to fuel. The overall efficiency with such direct usage included is then increased compared to the all-fuel case. Also why is 100% efficiency ever needed? Nobody would require that, the aim is just the best efficiency possible.
25% duty cycle
This is only true if all the solar energy is converted to fuel, however a proportion of the solar power can be used directly during the day when it is created, and only a proportion needs to be converted to fuel.
================================
Solar inherently has a 25% duty cycle. For 50% of the day that is night; solar gives you ZERO. Because of the angle of the sun rays hitting the Earth, the first few hours after sun-up, and the last few hours just before sundown give you relatively little. The bulk of the energy from land based solar comes in a 6 hour period centered on the local noon.
So yes - you don't have to convert solar to a fuel for those 6 hours; which is 25% of your daily cycle. However, for 75% of the day - including all of the night where solar gives you ZERO - you have to use the energy storage system.
Existing Technologies
"However, too many solar advocates think that solar can shoulder the burden of providing the bulk of our electricity demand. They don't think that solar power quits at night; but our use of electricity sure doesn't. One of the biggest users of electricity in the common house is the refrigerator, and they have to be supplied with energy at night; something that solar panels alone can't manage."
"Sure, one can use batteries. However, the problem comes when you have to supply power for many many people. A typical fossil or nuclear power plant has a capacity of 1 Gigawatt = 1,000 Megawatts. In a single day, such a plant generates 1 Gigawatt-Day of energy."
"Until we have the technology to reliably and SAFELY store atomic bomb sized amounts of energy; solar is doomed to being a bit-player in the energy scheme."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
Here is a method of storage that has been widely used around the world for decades with an efficacy of 70-87%. Completely safe, easy to license, relatively cheap, and non-polluting. Today there are over 127 Gigawatts of storage worldwide using this type of power storage. Some installations are completely pumped by solar to provide night time hydroelectric grid power. Some systems use net metering to utilize night time low power rates to pump, and generating during peak power payback. Because these systems are hydroelectric in nature they are especially well suited in meeting peak demands, unlike coal, natural gas, nuclear or wind power.
Pumped hydro storage is certainly useful
Pumped hydro storage is certainly useful, and is used where ever we have suitable sites.
However, as the above poster states; we have about 127 Gigawatts of pumped storage and that is WAY WAY SHORT of what we would need to go the solar route.
We would need to find more sites capable of hosting pumped storage, and we need to build WAY WAY MORE pumped storage. That's going to cost $$$$.
Unfortunately, the solar proponents don't seem to care about the cost. They just want to "go solar" and let the cost be damned.
Solar is already about 10X more expensive than other methods; but they don't care about that - let it cost 100X more, they don't care. They just want their way.
In recent studies of the energy problem, the National Academy of Sciences calculates that we need a MIX of energy generating technologies. They propose that renewables like solar and wind should be about 20% of our generating capacity. The other 80% should be "on demand" or "dispatchable" power sources; like fossil, hydro, and nuclear.
That makes sense to me. Why spend $$$$, way more than we have to just because someone wants their solar. Solar and wind have a "natural" percentage of the energy mix of about 20%. The other 80% should be fossil, hydro, and nuclear in a mixture that meets our goals of non-pollution. ( That means little, if any coal. )
Hydro and nuclear are the energy generation methods that are both "on demand" and clean.
"Solar power may be cheaper
"Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co. (GE)
“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossi...
and:
"Despite the relatively low power density of the solar flux, solar energy has the
potential of supplying a non-negligible fraction of our energy needs. In the case of the US
for example, the total electricity demand (418GW in 2002) could be satisfied by covering
a land surface of 180km square with photovoltaics. This surface represents 0.35% of the
total land area and roughly corresponds to the surface covered by roads in the country
(3.6.1010m2 [8]). All US electricity could hence be potentially produced by covering the
paved roads with photovoltaic (PV) modules."
http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/assessments/solar_assessment.pdf
The problem with solar
The main problem with solar is not the cost; but the variability.
You get ZERO energy from solar power during the 12 hours of the day we can night. Additionally, because of the angle of the sun to the ground; you get little energy during the first few hours after sunrise and the first few hours before sunset. The bulk of the energy one gets from solar power is derived from the 6 hours centered on the local noon.
Because of that, solar has inherently a 25% duty cycle. Additionally, even during this time, the solar energy output is variable because the sun could be obscured by clouds. Solar shares this intermittent nature with wind also.
In its recent report on energy policy, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that without massive energy storage capability that we don't have; solar and other renewables must be limited to about 20% of our energy capacity so that the 80% of the generating capacity that is "dispatchable" ( energy on demand ) can back-fill for the intermittent renewables.
So with solar and wind limited to 20%; what do we use for the remaining 80%?
Fossil fuels generate greenhouse gases. Any way you look at it; nuclear is going to be a major component in any mix of energy technologies that we use in a more climate friendly generating system.
Chernobyl 26 Year Anniversary
Sir, I disagree. We have a moral mandate to include the very real victims of nuclear power plant accidents in our view, when we "look at it." From this honest perspective, no, I cannot see including nuclear as a component in a technology mix going forward.
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl
Photos w/narration of Chernobyl downwinders in Belarus.
Fukushima showed that Chernobyl has not served as a lesson to ma
"Nevertheless serious differences between these disasters occurring with the difference of twenty-five years cannot serve as a consolation. Fukushima showed that Chernobyl has not served as a lesson to mankind - the nuclear energetic continues to develop, threatening the world with new troubles. Global security is sacrificed for the sake of efficiency, low prices and profit."
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_04_26/73023009/
I am sure downwinders of Chernobyl and Fukushima who have and continue to be sickened and have their lives compromised and shortened, would take issue with your final paragraph. I find it concerning that people who continue to promote nuclear energy do not consider these human sacrifices to "efficiency, low prices and profit," (due to public financing and liability-shift) a tragic lesson learned and worth making every effort to avoid repeating.
That being said, yes, solar has its limitations, however the bulk of electricity consumption is during daylight (office) hours. This is why utilities charge more for "peak" usage during these times. How convenient that the sun typically shines during these same hours of peak usage. Rather than be defeatist, why not develop the heck out of this energy production source in locations where it makes sense, and see how much of a load it truly does eventually carry? This could very well end up being easier and less expensive than it would seem, as there are currently tremendous banks of solar panels already developed (largely on national parklands) that the utility companies are not allowing to be hooked into the grid:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/09/local/la-me-parks-solar-20120109 ,
as well as massive private solar development projects that have been blocked by government officials and politicians
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.ht... http://phys.org/news156842404.html
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_named_files/106900_desert_bookle...
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/RenewableNEWS-4b.html
Not to mention governmental meddling with the hugely productive, clean, economical and completely paid for hydro projects throughout the country
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC0IJQX7WkU
Interesting to consider the fact that SoCAEdison is blocking the connection of the solar panels in the Santa Monica Mountains from hooking/feeding into the grid and how much that increased generation would offset the demands of Los Angeles area consumers, reducing their dependence upon the San Onofre NPP. Additionally, clearly the removal of existing dams / dirt-cheap electricity production will create a vacuum/immediate demand for unmet electricity needs. How will that be met? Don't doubt for a minute this as well as the Mojave Desert preservation/solar wind project obstruction were not both manipulations of environmentalists' (I consider myself one) well-intended and valid preservation concerns in order to serve the utilities' business model expansion and profit potential, including both being potential set-ups for further nuclear expansion.
In the interest of national security and human & environmental health - remove those roadblocks, stop the propaganda, encourage full information flow and honest science, and let's take an honest look at what percentage of our consumption can be met by solar generation, as well as other safe energy sources. We would still have to rely upon more traditional e-production sources (excluding nuclear) to make up the shortfall. However, the tremendous reduction (surely greater than 20% - as I've said repeatedly on this thread - our residential solar panels produce nearly 100% of our electricity on an annual basis) in demand from less benign sources will significantly reduce environmental degradation, including CO2 emissions and injuries to health.
MM
Interesting. Solar
Interesting.
Solar roadways:http://www.wimp.com/solarhighways
With Fukushima Daichi nuclear
With Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant still leaking and spewing toxic radioactive effluent and now even threatening the evacuation of Tokyo if Spent Fuel Pool # 4 leaks or collapses after the next big earthquake I disagree with you that nuclear can be considered 'clean'.
Yup.
Yup.
Same people
The same people who don't want you to build any more nuclear power plants, are not going to allow you to build any more dams for hydro pumped storage. In fact, they want to tear down the dams we have now like Hetch Hetchy. They don't want more dams for pumped storage.
Basically, they are technology haters. They think we should all live like the Native Americans
Yes and No
Yes, the very little resistance that has been show for pumped hydro storage is related to nuclear:
http://www.basinandrangewatch.org/EagleMtnHydro.html
No, this proposed project has nothing to do with building new dams. Eagle Mountain is a project that involves two depleted mining pits in the desert, far removed a water source, not anything like Hetch Hetchy. In fact the major supporters of draining Hetch Hetchy are in support of pumped storage hydro:
http://www.hetchhetchy.org/how/what-about-power-generation
Actually most of the efforts to drain reservoirs comes from government environmentalists, here is a typical story:
http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/local/1190088/Draining-New-Melones-Rese...
I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are a lot of technology haters in the world, but to compare them to Native Americans is a bit callous and racial.
Reading comprehension problem
The poster didn't compare technology haters to Native Americans. The poster stated the technology haters want people to live like Native Americans. That's not saying that Native Americans are technology haters. It's saying that technology haters admire the lifestyle of Native Americans due to the lack of technology. There's nothing in there that says Native Americans hate technology or are comparable to technology haters.
Thank you for your respectful
Thank you for your respectful input. OP
Thanks for that
Thanks for that information.
It seems that the proposed/approved solar thermal/natural gas farm in Palmdale, CA, is a well thought out application that addresses what you discuss: http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html
On a micro level, if it weren't for the useage unpredictability of our tenants, then we would have disconnected from the grid and installed a battery bank plus a diesel generator back-up (with a pre-heater to run on filtered waste vegetable oil).
You state that residential solar is a good secondary energy source, however we do consider our solar panels our primary source of power since they supply 100% of our electricity on an annual basis (with the grid "storing" the summer/daylight over-production for our use during winter/lack of sunlight.
I like the Palmdale solar/gas farm concept, and I hope it's successful. I also believe that my family's current set-up (solar panels using grid as backup) is a good model for widespread application. Using long-term, low-interest rate financing as we did (to match a typical electricity bill payment), or the now-available low-payment lease options for residential solar installations, the buy-in is negligible and pay-back (on multiple levels), is immediate.
MadMama
WORTHLESS RANT!!
Nuclear provides "only" 20%??? You shut down ALL the nuclear power plants such that we are missing 20% of our capacity; and your lights WILL GO OUT!!
Evidently you don't understand that Mother Nature is exposing you to 3000 times as much radiation as all the nuclear plants.
Courtesy of the Health Physics Society at University of Michigan:
http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm
Nuclear power ("nuclear fuel cycle" in table) is only <0.03% of the background radiation exposure.
There's no such thing as "natural" radiation being OK for you, but "artificial" radiation being sinister. Radiation is radiation. A 1.0 Mev photon is a 1.0 MeV photon is a 1.0 MeV photon.
Don't fall for the "scare-mongering" from those stupid idiot anti-nukes.
Recent research from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://lowdose.energy.gov/
http://www.examiner.com/science-in-south-bend/dna-repair-centers-fix-low...
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, breast cancer researcher with the Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
So lower doses of ionizing
So lower doses of ionizing radiation DO cause DNA damage, thanks for the confirmation.
Low doses get REPAIRED!!!
Yes - a low dose of radiation does cause damage.
But what the anti-nukes always leave out it that damage gets REPAIRED by our DNA repair mechanism.
Recent research from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the repair mechanism is particularly effective at low doses:
http://lowdose.energy.gov/
http://www.examiner.com/science-in-south-bend/dna-repair-centers-fix-low...
“Our data show that at lower doses of ionizing radiation, DNA repair mechanisms work much better than at higher doses,” says Mina Bissell, breast cancer researcher with the Life Sciences Division. “This non-linear DNA damage response casts doubt on the general assumption that any amount of ionizing radiation is harmful and additive.”
So yes, low doses do cause damage; but counter to the claims of the anti-nukes, the story doesn't stop there. The body REPAIRS the damage done, so there is ZERO net damage.
In Fukushima City what is the
In Fukushima City what is the percentage of radiation exposure due to Nuclear power?
Hello Other Pleasant Person
Hello Other Pleasant Person -
You may want to re-read my comment before attacking. I did not say that natural radiation is OK for you.
I disagree with pretty much the rest of your post as well. Plenty of valid scientific research that contradicts your assertions has already been posted on this site over the past 10 months.
Good night,
MadMama
Care to back up your UNSUBSTANIATED claim???
I disagree with pretty much the rest of your post as well. Plenty of valid scientific research that contradicts your assertions has already been posted on this site over the past 10 months.
================
If there is so much; why can't you provide some information to substantiate your claim.
Then we get to evaluate your sources; are they from the National Academy of Sciences or are they just from some anti-nuclear website.