Global warming

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Frank, Oct 22, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Well, the point with absorbing/re-emitting is, that it will be emitted at a different wave length. So, it won't be re-absorbed by another CO2 molecule.
     
  2. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Where did I ever claim that?

    Yes, the Earth is warming. Check.
     
  3. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Well, I'm one of those guys that cringe at those stupid things as well. That's half the reason why I rarely watch Hollywood movies.

    Then again, Myth busters is first and foremost in it to mace a spectacular tv show, the actual myth busting is an extra.
     
  4. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    As shown in the paper, most of the reason they're the warmest years are because the data is adjusted upwards. I expected that you got that, having read it and all.

    And I have posted many posts in multiple treads on this board about those manipulations. Yes, even with back-up.

    Really, it's not only difficult for you to believe me when I'm all by myself, it is equally difficult for myself. When you're the only one, you're a nut-job by definition.
     
  5. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Thanks, Sxotty. Very nice summary.
     
  6. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    Sounds rather religious to me, especially if you filter out the message given.
     
  7. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    I do. But, like with everything, not "all out". Within bounds.
     
  8. Frank

    Frank Certified not a majority
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,187
    Likes Received:
    59
    Location:
    Sittard, the Netherlands
    As for nuclear power: I would look at Thorium reactors (safe and sound) first, and Fusors (best potential, although not as they are) second.

    Everything "natural", like solar and wind, requires a robust grid and a global energy exchange. But when you get there, transmission losses will be quite manageable, because you might buy energy from far away, but it will be an amalgam and the bulk will be delivered from some power plant nearby.

    But that will fund those renewable sources around the world.
     
  9. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I have looked. They don't turn over the main point, that wind is a very viable energy generation scheme on large scales.
     
  10. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Religious? Really? How is relying upon evidence in any way, shape, or form religious?
     
  11. Gubbi

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Messages:
    3,519
    Likes Received:
    852
    The reactor lifetime was halved because of corrosion. That is a fact. As to why the research programme was discontinued, I don't know.

    While Hastalloy-N has great corrsion resistance to LiBe salts, you still have the problem of galvanic corrosion.

    And nobody have ever encountered any problems with in-loop scrubbing of primary loop salt because nobody have ever done it. You can remove krypton and xenon easily, but the solid waste isotopes require more effort.

    I'm not saying that it can't be done, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done and I'm not saying that progress hasn't been made since the MSRE was shut down. But you seem to think MSR commercial viability is imminent when both the Chinese and Japanese efforts have a 20 year time scale for their research projects.

    Cheers
     
  12. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    About 25% actually is what I heard for the US. So now you have a number. I don't think you understand the Betz limit if you are quoting things about the turbine blade coverage area.
     
  13. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I really don't understand what you're going on about. The effect of wind turbines on the windspeed available to nearby turbines is just an optimization problem.
     
  14. Mintmaster

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,897
    Likes Received:
    87
    If you did, then you wouldn't have made that statement. Wind varies a lot, and the variation is well correlated over geographically large areas. You even get daily and seasonal variation.

    The intermittency of wind is a huge problem:
    -You have to back it up with fast-ramping natural gas
    -Ramping them up and down reduces their efficiency substantially, and increases emissions and wear
    -That backup is therefore running at reduced capacity factor, increasing LCOE

    Add all these up, and 1kWh of electricity produced by wind displaces far less than 1kWh of fossil fuel based production. You can even get increased emissions when trying to reduce output when wind power is plentiful, especially with coal:
    http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
    Looking at actual data from Texas (lots of wind generation there) this is what was found:

    Wind will work when you can figure out a way to store energy well beyond what we can achieve with the hydro reservoirs we can find and use. Isentropic is promising company pursuing heat storage with 70% efficiency, so I hope that works out.

    Wow, I didn't think the effects could be that significant. Anyway, what is your current position on wind? When I was being negative about it (due to intermittency) you were telling me that it makes a fair amount of sense due to the surplus natural gas capacity the US has. However, I'm sure that much of that surplus is lower efficiency peaker plants.
     
  15. Mariner

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,600
    Likes Received:
    237
    From reading through many of the various Thorium/MSR threads and some of the many academic articles available, it would seem that the corrosion issue is well understood and has been investigated but is still not considered a deal stopper. Usefully, it would seem that some of the proponents of fusion have carried out research looking at different fluoride salts as a means of heat transfer and I'm sure some of this would be use in the testing and development of MSRs.

    Similarly the problems of the ongoing reprocessing has been thought about a great deal. I like the idea proposed in the following article:

    http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/0...lopment-of-a-reprocessing-system-for-an-lftr/

    A 'dry run', so to speak.

    I realise that Thorium MSR designs are not finalised and ready for immediate implementation but the bulk of the leg-work was carried out 40 years ago and the concept is good so I'm just disappointed that no government other than the Chinese is actively funding a research programme into the technology. At least there are finally some research projects taking place around the world (albeit most of them with limited funding) following years of inertia. As Flibe Energy is attempting to work with the US military to create small, modular reactors, I'm hopeful that they will have active test reactors quite some time before the Chinese have finished their civilian power project. Such proof of concept devices ought to show the enormous benefits of the LFTR fuel cycle and prompt faster development of larger civilian reactors.

    I just can't help but wonder where we might be now if just a fraction of the vast sums of money wasted on sodium cooled fast reactors had been spent on developing MSRs over the past few decades. Or some of the vast subsidies being handed out to renewables had gone the way of MSR research, for that matter.

    Fundamentally, in addition to the issues of Global warming, I'm also thinking how we are going to support the enormous and ever-increasing population of the planet. Energy will be of vital importance and the current fad for wind and solar power just isn't going to be able to support the vast populations of the future.

    For now, I'd be building Gen III+ reactors (as the Chinese are) to keep things ticking over and reduce the reliance on fossil fuels but the political classes aren't interested in this now. The MSR programme was cancelled for political reasons and now nuclear power is being ignored for a different set of political reasons, none of which makes much sense. None of the politicians can explain how renewables are going to supply all our power yet all are rushing headlong towards this aim because they want to show each other who has the best 'green' credentials.

    Yep, pretty much most politicians are a waste of space!
     
  16. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    I am in favor of wind, but it is unrealistic to think we can build as much as we want with no consequences. What I am saying is we can get 25% which is very high. It will give us other headaches first. We can integrate more than we have now though.
     
  17. KimB

    Legend

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Messages:
    12,883
    Likes Received:
    209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Define large. Because from what I've read, once you go beyond a few hundred miles, the correlation drops off dramatically.

    Not at all. There is no good reason whatsoever to use power plants to cover the variation of wind power generation within a single day. Energy storage is the only viable solution there. And the variation between days tends to be very slow, much slower than the occasional shutdowns of more traditional power plants. Both solar and wind have large intra-day variations, and as a result need power storage schemes to compensate. Attempting to use fast-changing fossil fuel generation instead is just plain stupid.

    I don't see why you'd be linking to what looks like a natural gas company front to support your arguments.
     
  18. Sonic

    Sonic Senior Member
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Mintmaster, what's so bad about solar? Obviously the further towards the polls the worse it gets during the winter seasons, which sucks. But it would be just fine during spring, beginning of fall, and especially summer. Is it the costs, is it the dismal amount of energy produced? The tech keeps getting better, and really all i sneeded is breakthrough in energy storage and we should be set.
     
  19. Sxotty

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    4,871
    Likes Received:
    330
    Location:
    PA USA
    Solar is about 1 order of magnitude more expensive than wind which is bad.
     
  20. epicstruggle

    epicstruggle Passenger on Serenity
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    45
    Location:
    Object in Space
    There is nothing bad about wind or solar, but neither are ready to be prime energy generating sources for the world. If you want clean energy, nuclear is the way to go. In a few years, that might change. However it is not today.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...