Written by: anthonyC, 16 Apr 2011 9:39 AM
From: United States
A loan to build a money loser......SMART!
From: United States
anthonyc apparently thinks that officials in this land actually do feasibility studies before they establish projects. don't be so naive. it is all about the comision. wise up!
From: United States
anthonyC, it is only a money loser because nothing in the DR is untouched by the inbred entitlement mentality morons greed.
There are several success stories in the world, especially since they are now building them with direct drive (no gearbox).
Everything starts out expensive, we just need people to buy them and others to learn how to maintain them.
Written by: danny00, 16 Apr 2011 10:43 AM
From: United States, syosset, key west, santo domingo AND NOW THE GLOBE TROTTER
hey! leave it alone please.
in puerto plata the people that live their already have plans on STEALING THE WIND...
iam going back to pop next week, i also have the 'PLAN"
IAM GOING TO BUILD PLACES TO STORE THE "WIND' for use in the furture.
HOPE I CAN GET SOME INVESTORS TO BACK ME UP??
if any one on this site has extra money u should think about this investement. your money will have great turn's....... lol...lol.
Written by: danny00, 16 Apr 2011 10:46 AM
From: United States, syosset, key west, santo domingo AND NOW THE GLOBE TROTTER
anthonyc apparently thinks that officials in this land actually do feasibility studies before they establish projects
FEASTIBILITY STUDIES IN THE DR.???
S------ U CAN GO INTO A DOCTORS OFFICE AT 8AM, AND HAVE OPEN HEART SURGERY AT 10AM... HOW U LIKE THESE STUDIES???
ALL U NEED IS THE "MONEY HONEY".
Written by: danny00, 16 Apr 2011 11:56 AM
From: United States, syosset, key west, santo domingo AND NOW THE GLOBE TROTTER
. President advisor caught stealing power?
Officers of the Electricity Fraud Prosecution Office (PGASE) suspects that President Leonel Fernandez's transport advisor, Mochotran transport magnate Alfredo Pulinario (Cambita) had a fraudulent electricity connection at his vehicle dealership in eastern Santo Domingo. As reported in the Listin Dario, EdeEste power distribution company anti-fraud technicians discovered a 37.5 kilowatt transformer with a direct connection to the business. EdeEste estimated the business consumed around 1,530 kWh monthly that was bypassing the electricity meter, or around RD$15,000 in unpaid monthly consumption,
GUESS ITS IN THEIR BLOOD. THE NEED TO STEAL.
From: United States, I dont even live inside a house , I haunt one!
In 2012 the Dominican Republic will have 250 megawatts of wind energy, equivalent to 10 percent of the energy matrix.
AND THE LIGHTS WILL STILL BE GOING OUT ! UNLESS THEY FIX THE CORRUPTION MESS AND MONITOR THE PAPER TRAIL
Written by: abc200, 16 Apr 2011 1:23 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Great. Who cares overmuch about lights going out - there's plenty of sun.
Corruption is a minor issue.
S.
Written by: SALSOUL, 16 Apr 2011 1:42 PM
From: Dominican Republic, UNC-Chapel Hill
Behold folks! Let the dipping begin! No wait, double-dipping...that is!
RL
Written by: ateo2010 
, 16 Apr 2011 1:52 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Owning Noobs
OK alternative energy is great, no doubt,. But why not focus on fixing the current problems with the electric system ? ? ?
Written by: airgordo, 16 Apr 2011 4:25 PM
From: Dominican Republic
the current problem of the DR electric issues is simple, MONEY...and all will be solved when people PAY the bills and stop stealing power...the trick however, is to get the Bill to a DECENT level, and that is done through cheap power generation.
Written by: anthonyC, 16 Apr 2011 4:39 PM
From: United States
Gmiller,
Name me one place where Wind Power is economically feasible. Go ahead. Name one place.
From: United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_powerCapacities. Almost 10% growth in 6 months.
At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (GW).[1] (By June 2010 the capacity had risen to 175 GW).[2] Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage
From: United States
There should be a tax rebate for seller of solar panels inthe DR also.
The big companies are sill gouging us with $4 a watt.
The silicone price were have to fallen that $1-$1.50 a Watt by now.
Written by: anthonyC, 16 Apr 2011 6:43 PM
From: United States
Gmiller,
I asked for Economically feasible. Not supported by state subsidies but 100% privately funded and profitable.
So try again.
From: United States
and oil and gas are not subsidized? difference being the oil is gone after use but the renewables keep producing.
From: United States
anthonyc, stop making yourself look even dumber than we know you are. not every project in a country is measured in terms of monetary profit. there are social benefits to certain ventures, which are not measured in red or black ink. education, for one. public health, for another. security initiatives. besides, as gmiller points out, the technology is advancing, and we might get to a point in the near future wherein it arrives at a point wherein it is relatively inexpensive. not because it is more costly than fossil electricity means we should scrap it and stick to fossils. there is a concept in economics known as creative destruction. simply put, because of it, i used to listen to 8 track players, while my kids are listening to digital mp3 players. get the idea?
From: United States
ABC reminds
Great. Who cares overmuch about lights going out - there's plenty of sun
i have a problem with this concept where i live. the sun does not shine at night, like it does in the area where you live.
Written by: anthonyC, 16 Apr 2011 9:05 PM
From: United States
Benny,
Oil and coal infrastructure was created by private industry. The subsidies of today are criminal if you ask me.
Still doesn't change the fact that Wind power with probably never be economically feasible or even practical. Now the DR has taken another loan for something that will never be able to pay for itself.
Dready.
There are many infrastructure projects that benefit society and are also economically viable. Roads, ports and airports are some.
Wind, solar or any of the other so-called "alternative energies" benefit nobody except the business who live off the money taken from others.
From: United States
sorry to burst your bubble, anthonyc, but there are very many airports that lose money. to your limited way of thinking, maybe they should close them down. well, maybe the intelligent people who keep them open realise that the costs that will be generated by closing them down are greater than the losses they sustain....ask an adult to explain that to you.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
I hope they install these wind turbines in areas where it will not conflict too much with natural beauty, so that we could still continue to draw some tourists and their dollars.
I've just returned from trip to Germany yesterday, after being there a week peddling CNG fuel injectors. I drove 1300 km from Luxembourg to Wolfsburg and back and got to see hundreds of wind turbines along the way.
As many of you might already know, the German countryside was very beautiful. However, placement of these turbines has not always been done with greatest care and, in many cases, they are an absolute eyesore. There were many rolling hills and villages whose natural beauty has been totally occluded by what sometimes appears to be man-made monstrosity.
We really need to find the right balance, in order to attain harmony between environment and energy. We have to, for our country is highly dependent on tourism, which would come to grinding halt once natural beauty is gone.
MJEV.
From: United States
Large successful businesses where built on contrarian thinking at the time.
My nirvana of alternative energy is the hydrogen fuel-cell,
Last week MIT announced they created a silicone 'leaf' (the size of a playing card) that when floated on even muddy water under direct sunlight a gallon of water can produce enough hydrogen for one day.
Now would I say stop researching because at $20 a (fuel-cell) watt that is insane. Never.
From: United States
absolutely correct, gmiller. i remember when the first cd players came to market. i bought a Pioneer for 575.00 USD that sounded like crap. it was totally unlistenable. any 100 dollar turntable would blow it away. today, i can buy a 100 dollar cd player in WalMart which makes that Pioneer obsolete. it takes time to get new technologies right.
Written by: abc200, 17 Apr 2011 12:02 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Hey man those blades turning in the sunlight are beautiful. When I visited Norfolk in my youth I would see offshore
'dirty British coaster ( spewing black smoke ) steaming down the channel'.
Now beautiful gleaming wind turbines offshore also onshore.
I used to walk though a little village ; existed since Saxon times; now some idiots have built a motorway so nearby.
Not to mention the Cambridge of Byron and Keats - who knew the view of the gorgeous skyline of medieval Cambridge from Grantchester meadows ; the beautiful nearby village named in the Doomsday book ; totally corrupted by one American Rockefeller who insisted when he endowed the new Cambridge Library insisted it should have a giant phallic tower visible from miles around.
S.
Written by: abc200, 17 Apr 2011 12:04 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Much of the North Coast of the DR is despoiled.
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot
A pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot
Don't it always go to show
You never know what you got till it's gone ?
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot.
They took all the trees, they put them in a tree museum
They charged the people a dollar and a half just to see them
Don't it always go to show
You never know what you got till it's gone ?
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot.
Now they complain of lack of tourists!
A few beautiful wind turbines may enable the closure dirty power plants.
Planet trashers abound!
S.
From: United States
i wish i could build a time machine , so i could assist ABC in returning to the middle ages, wherein he could have great and wondrous times carousing with alchemists and sorcerers.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Gmiller,
For better or worse, future of hydrogen fuel cell might be dead, since only Iceland seems to be able to produce requisite fuel affordably, and only because of their excess geothermal energy. Funny thing is that they are only ones who don't really need the hydrogen.
US government has totally backed away from Hydrogen as a fuel and has curtailed funding. My department has benefited for many years from government funding in this area, and we have supplied large number of fuel cells to the US Dept. of Defense. Our emphasis has now shifted to SOFC from PEM technology, where we can use any fuel such as natural gas, diesel or gasoline to generate electricity, without first reforming it to extract hydrogen.
We are presently equipping many over-the-road, long distance transport trucks with "auxiliary power units" to provide all electricity for heating and air conditioning, etc. These are 3.5 kW to 5.0 kW units, and we are at every major show in USA.
MJEV.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@ Dr. Dread,
I am very much in support of your above commentary on the incomparable "ABC", who could have been right at home riding with Don Quijote.
As usual, Dr. Dread, very well stated.
MJEV.
Written by: anthonyC, 17 Apr 2011 2:57 PM
From: United States
Thank you dready for making my point.
CD were developed by private industry....NOT BY GOVERNMENT MANDATE!!!!
From: United States
glomarexplorer, hydrogen future is no where near dead.
In the US, since energy companies have to buy 'alternative' energy and still run at nearly 100% capacity using current energy production methodologies, they ground the excess. In hundreds of million watts.
Just like the farmers that now save their cow crap to make methane to run a generator and save a shit load of money they should do the same, but store hydrogen.
One, state of the art high temperature nuclear reactor (1/3 the size of one today) can produce 800 million metric tons of hydrogen a day.
American policy makers have become lazy and cannot see past the end of their nose.
It is only the beginning.
From: United States
anthonyC, Your statement was "A loan to build a money loser".
You're now confusing the issue with 'private industry' and "government mandates"
DR's problem is corruption, that is where it will start in the hole. But it has to start somewhere.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Gmiller,
The technology exists to extract hydrogen from many sources, including hydrocarbon fuels and water. However, the cost is prohibitive and you have to put in >$1.50 to get $1.0, even under best of circumstances.
We know how to do it and are willing to continue doing it; question is, is consumer willing to pay price and can he really afford it?
Look, I had long joint research and development program with BMW and we had several demonstration 7-Series cars running around on hydrogen and very well. But they even realized that the technology while viable, would never gain economic acceptance, especially when there are so many other more sensible choices, such as CNG and hybrid-electrics.
Look, CNG is plentiful, safe and cheap. It is readily compatible with existing internal combustion engine technology, yet we are unwilling to get infrastructure in place to take advantage of this energy source. So how could H2 ever have chance-remember the"Hindenberg"?
MJEV.
Written by: anthonyC, 17 Apr 2011 11:12 PM
From: United States
Gmiller.
Wind power is a money loser and a waste of taxpayer's money in any location not just the D.R.
There isn't even a legitimate reason to employ Wind Power. It is inefficient and has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power.
Written by: abc200, 17 Apr 2011 11:26 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
As usual MJEV is at the head of the planet trashers. Providing marginally better solutions to transport goods and people it is not needed to transport anyhow.
I guess when he reaches his father's age when he died he will recognize his life of stupidity and wanton destruction.
Now he has the anesthetic to his already limited braincells - copious bottles on 'Blue Label'.
People pity him as he travels on the escalator to hell. The eternal never ending capitalist treadmill has caught him for sure.
S.
From: United States, Omnipresence
So THIS is where my tax dollars are going to?...Geez, this makes me wanna sell drugs taxfree to recuperate my lost funds to the "WIND!"
Written by: RoyStone, 18 Apr 2011 9:01 AM
From: Australia
Dreads, your CD analogy to solar cell generation is not valid.
The cost of the materials in a CD player, unlike in a solar cell, are almost irrelevant. New consumer technology is expensive because they need to amortize the cost of development while "early adopters" are prepared to pay a premium.
Take a look at Bill Maher's sketch - only 40 seconds, at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlcygXYK_Y0Written by: abc200, 18 Apr 2011 9:01 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Written by: RoyStone, 18 Apr 2011 9:18 AM
From: Australia
abc200 what do you mean by "paying off"?
Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe, due to the highest implementation of wind generators. France has the cheapest electricity, due to the highest implementation of nuclear power - and no fatalities.
By the way, I know you would think otherwise from the media reports, but the Japanese Tsunami was caused by an earthquake, not by an accident at a nuclear power plant. I wonder how many more would have died if each nuclear power plant had been replaced by 6,000 120 meter high wind turbines.
Nuclear "problems"? More people die in road accidents in DR in two weeks than all nuclear accidents since the beginning of time!
From: United States
Roy, i was merely stating the idea that technological advances could bring about a condition in which the technology becomes less costly and more reliable. i do realise the fact that the materials in a cd are negligible, but the problems lay in the players, not in the cost of the encoding disc. a cd decoder puts out current, while the analog section amplifies voltage. in order to convert current to voltage, an operational amplifier integrated circuit is used, or a resistor from one pin of the decoder, to ground. the original operational amplifiers used in early players, like the NE5532, were disastrous, and made for disdainful audio. exponential gains in fidelity were realised by simply substituting a high quality operational amplifier, such as a Burr Brown OPA 627 or Analog Devices AD847JN ,instead of the NE5532. the costs were diminimus, but the advances were immediate and astounding.could something similar happen in the new energy technologies?
Written by: abc200, 18 Apr 2011 11:03 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
More nonsense from Roy.
Estimates of Chernobyl deaths range up to 1,000,000. Deaths from just British Nuke power stations and fuel reprocessing 50,000.
In addition to deaths from cancer etc. there are ongoing genetic mutations, excess treatable cancers etc.
http://www.greenpeace.org/interna....features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=11Gives some knowledge on the subject.
All coal burning, clean or not, gas burning, vehicles burning any fuel use result in excess deaths.
The German investment is very sound and a few cents extra on electricity per unit a price well worth paying.
In reality there may be no extra cost because an increase in price motivates fuel efficiency, zero energy housing, efficient transport etc.
Also many people are employed; social security reduces; general welfare as measured by reduction in crime rates, better education etc. etc. increases.
So stop believing lies and do your own
Written by: abc200, 18 Apr 2011 11:09 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
research.
S.
From: United States
more debt, more stealing, lower peso, higher inflation, already more than 13% per year, more poor people hurt.
and we will pay this back with....wind energy, and it is going to snow tomorrow in Santo Domingo.
From: United States
glomarexplorer, I do not want cars (combustion engines) to run on hydrogen or Brown's gas HHO.
I want hydrogen fuel cells and the Hindenburg comment only shows me you do not get the concept.
If the Hindenburg had helium in it the disaster would have still occurred. No real scientist blames the hydrogen.
Again, it is called contrarian thinking. This has been done many times. Everybody buys into a technology first phase with subsidies (break even) or at a loss. The second phase is cheaper so you upgrade and any excess is used to create hydrogen for your local stationary PEM generator.
The third phase it is a win-win. If the US started this during the 70's oil crisis all would be fine today. But they choose to screw us. And we still subsidize the oil companies. That is total bullshit.
From: United States
anthonyC, where is the proof of "has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power. "
From: United States
gmiller asks Dr anthonyc
anthonyC, where is the proof of "has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power.
since when does anthonyc need proof? he said it is so, and that makes it so.
From: United States
RoyStone, one, I am not against Nuclear power. But never in the hands of Dominicans.
Secondly Dread is more correct than incorrect.
The only substance that is killing the solar industry is the price of pure silicone. One of the most abundant elements on the face of the earth. I think this is a man made situation.
The purification methods are considered draconian, in terms of purity and volume.
When the first solar cell was produced, 'experts' said that in 20 years (because of the abundance of silicone) it would be 10 cents a watt. What happened, greed happened.
Intel wanted us to get into space (prefect vacuum) so they could build chips made of Gallium Arsenide that out of the box would run at 3GHz. Well guess what, they didn't it space.
If production silicone was $10 a pound, solar cells would be 10 cents a watt and I could spend $1000 on panels that their only purpose was to change water into hydrogen. Done.
From: United States
abc200, plus 1.
I would gladly pay %100 more for my energy if I new it was sustainable and not oil or coal.
It is just time to do it.
25 years from now people will being paying nothing for energy.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Gmiller,
Standard PEM fuel cells, as presently made by General Motors, reform hydrcarbon fuels to extract hydrogen, which is then employed as fuel to run the IC engine.
Hydrogen is a very small atom and most difficult to contain and it could even permeate through metal. It is also stored under high pressure and an appreciable amount of mass must be in hand in order to satisfy appetite of the IC engine.
Last I checked, helium was an inert gas and, as such, very benign and non-combustible; that is precisely reason why it enjoys widespread use, even in balloons for birthday parties. Could you imagine for just one second using hydrogen in similar setting, especially in litigious society such as ours? I would think not.
By the way, my company and my department, are at the forefront of this technology, and we are committed to it and have millions tied up in it. We are capitalists, and will do whatever it'll take to make money.
MJEV.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Roy,
You engage the resident "Loco" at your own risk.
It seems to me that just before the Japanese desaster, we were having a similar conversation here at DT, and "Mucho Loco" came down in full support of nuclear energy, which you were championing with equal fervor at time. Now, predictably, he has done a 180 degree turn on you. The man is a functioning imbecile, which is precisely how I remember describing him to you previously.
MJEV.
Written by: anthonyC, 18 Apr 2011 2:04 PM
From: United States
Wind power is lethal to birds, especially migratory fowl and their noise has been directly attributed to higher stress levels causing Heart attacks and strokes.
Today's oil and clean coal burning generating plants do not cause any significant damage to the environment, provide jobs and are cost effective.
Written by: anthonyC, 18 Apr 2011 2:08 PM
From: United States
Written by: gmiller
"I would gladly pay %100 more for my energy if I new it was sustainable and not oil or coal."
You go right ahead! More power to ya.
Just don't even think of making me do the same as you!!!
I don't take very kindly to you and your buddies brand of Fascism!!!
Written by: Escott, 18 Apr 2011 5:28 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Cabrera and Sosua a 2 days a month for payday
Whoever thinks solar doesn't pay off doesn't have a clue. I have a solar pool pump and solar HOT water for 2 years and it paid for itself already.
I just put in a 215 foot well powered by a pump with 6 solar panels. Producing 5000 gallons a day TODAY with only 3 panels hooked up so far. Don't have to worry about low power, extremely high power and NO power ruining your pump along with the bills for power. Solar is a good investment in my opinion.
Written by: Escott, 18 Apr 2011 5:36 PM
From: Dominican Republic, Cabrera and Sosua a 2 days a month for payday
Look out for the price of gas. Someone said it is plentiful but the Japs are switching to provide energy and there will be a shortage. Guess what happens next?
From: United States
anthonyC, How did I know you were going to use that bird death thing.
Well that was a laugh 15 years ago when it was published that cats and cars kill 1,000 times more birds than all the wind turbines combined could ever.
Now where do you think acid rain came from?
From: United States
glomarexplorer, if you have money in using hydrogen in IC engines, I'd pull it out.
The IC engine is at best is 20% efficient, PEMs are closer to 50%. And if you use the thermal energy produced your are in the 85% efficient range.
They would never use PEM to create hydrogen, it is cost prohibitive. You are talking about those Brown's gas generators, they produce HHO.
And yes my point was that an inert gas like helium in the Hindenburg would have been just as disastrous. Hydrogen is so light it would have burned skyward in seconds. The continuous burning you see in the films are the outer covering with diesel fuel.
Written by: RoyStone, 18 Apr 2011 7:17 PM
From: Australia
Dreads,
The highly inflated figure of Chernobyl deaths estimates was initially as a result of anti-Soviet propaganda, anti-nuclear lobbying and general media frenzy (like Y2K, Swine flu, etc.)
According to a recent UN study, actual deaths to date are about 90. The death rate from DR road accidents is 41 per 100,000 population per year, average about one per day, or three times the entire death toll worldwide from nuclear power.
I have spent time in Kiev and Gomel and met many people from Chernobyl. I can confirm that Belorussian and Ukrainian women are hot, but do not glow in the dark!
The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. However, the design of the reactor is unique and the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc.
Written by: RoyStone, 18 Apr 2011 7:35 PM
From: Australia
So far deaths from wind energy is 43
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.htmlThis is low compared to coal and hydro, however when calculated per TWh of power generated, it is high.
Chernobyl should not be included in calculations any more that the Hindenburg disaster should be an indication of air travel safety. However even if included in calculations, nuclear power has the lowest fatalities per TWh.
Nuclear power would be good for DR provided it is designed, funded, built, operated and regulated by responsible foreigners (like Australians using Australian uranium!).
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@gmiller,
First of all, my company makes SOFC fuel cell, which are employed as APU's on long haul trucks to provide electricity for running A/C, heater, lights and other high energy demand appliances.
I've never seen real efficiency numbers for fuel cell higher than low 40's, when you conduct appropriate calculation in terms of benefit/cost or energy input versus energy output. With the numbers you purport, the market would have been flooded with FC's by now, and the government would probably even legislate it, especially those more liberally minded folks in California.
Your information on IC efficiency most be really old, since most engines today approach 30% and some versions from Nissan and Honda are even higher.
MJEV.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@gmiller,
So, tell me, what caused the fire in the infamous ship to begin with? Could it have been a spark or similar? If so, please tell me how a fire could have ensued if helium had been source of buoyancy rather than hydrogen.
MJEV.
From: United States
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_fuelcell_factsheet.pdfA conventional combustion-based power plant typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33
to 35 percent, while fuel cell systems can generate electricity at efficiencies up to 60 percent (and even higher with cogeneration).
The gasoline engine in a conventional car is less than 20% efficient in converting the chemical energy in gasoline into power that moves the vehicle, under normal driving conditions. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which use electric motors, are much more energy efficient and use 40-60 percent ofthe fuel’s energy corresponding to more than a 50% reduction in fuel consumption, compared
to a conventional vehicle with a gasoline internal combustion engine.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
From: United States
glomarexplorer, not saying Hydrogen isn't flammable and did add to the disaster but there are other articles that are not so sensationalized as this one.
I would have to think that the CNG that is ued in the cars in DR is only slightly less flammable as Hydrogen. And that storage is as a liquid not sequestered in a metal halide or other material.
From: United States
Roy, i made no input regarding chernobyl deaths. i stay away from these technical discussions, due to the fact that my competence to participate usefully is very restricted.
Written by: abc200, 19 Apr 2011 11:51 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Fuel cells don't work as a commercial proposition apart from one or two niche applications.
Cutting down fuel use by rationing car use, designing eco-houses, better transport systems, localizing production is the way forward.
Half of all freight ton/miles in France are now by train.
Solar and wind are best for power generation possibly followed third by small scale nuclear.
Nuclear has caused a lot of deaths through excess cancers etc. coal and gas through pollution and global warming.
S.
From: United States, FREEPORT, Long Island.... ((You're blind to the fact that you're blind))
I made one out of a mayo jar and hooked it up to an 84 rx7, with the help of youtube of course. I went from $50 a week to 20 BUCKS in gas. The only bad thing about it was the getting rid of the brown water, it looks hazardous. Imagine everyone dumping that stuff in the drain.....
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Gmiller,
CNG is very safe fuel, and that's reason why it is used for cooking and heating in many homes.
It is not so explosive, as so much of it is required for combustion; it also dissipates quickly into atmosphere when it leaks, thereby making combustion even more difficult. Storage is in gaseous state, for the most part.
MJEV.
Written by: abc200, 20 Apr 2011 12:27 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
CNG is not very safe. There have been explosions at processing plants and any gas under pressure is not safe. Plus now the idiots are getting the gas by fracking - this releases much methane into the atmosphere over time and this is a greenhouse gas. The groundwater may also be polluted.
S.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@abc,
With your line of thinking nothing is really safe, including: electricity, water, oxygen, food, scooters, bicycles, etc.
MJEV.
Written by: abc200, 20 Apr 2011 11:20 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Yes, they even have accidents on the cycle tracks in your beloved Milton Keynes - plus people are afraid to use them at night. 6 fatalities over 10 years I think most caused by non-segregation
places.
Polluted water is a major cause of death.
Poor nutritions kills 100's of thousands ; both through bad but adequate diet e.g. obesity and though lack of steady food supply ; poor nutrition.
Electricity worldwide is obtained at great human cost ; coal mining accidents, pollution from power plants, GHG from CNG gas extraction and burning ... the list goes on.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/0....cking-dangers-environment-health/It's a stupid and unnecessary industry.
The tide may be turning to fix the fracking mess:
http://www.anh-usa.org/a-huge-fracking-mess/http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth2011.pdfPlanet trasher MJEV tries to get more people to adopt fracking gas- stupid person bought off
by a bunch of environmental criminals.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@abc,
How about mining for Uranium? Is that not dangerous? How about servicing those tall wind turbines-is that not dangerous? How about a loose blade caused by high winds or poor maintainance-is that not dangerous?
How about sewer gas in your septic tank-is that not dangerous?
How about disposal of spent nuclear rods-is that not dangerous?
ABC, you are self-conflicted; you'd have been last person on my list to be proponent of nuclear energy, particularly for a country which has demonstrated gross inadequacy to provide maintenance even for simple things. Also, where would billions for erecting nuclear plant exactly come from?
I am in suupport of all of the solar, wind and ocean wave energy we could muster to achieve some measure of self-sufficiency, stop begging and improve life of our citizens. However, let's be a little realistic about it.
MJEV.
Written by: abc200, 20 Apr 2011 1:30 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
In 2007 Areva NC claimed that, due to their reliance on nuclear power, France's carbon emissions per kWh are less than 1/10 that of Germany and the UK, and 1/13 that of Denmark, which has no nuclear plants. Its emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide have been reduced by 70% over 20 years, even though the total power output has tripled in that time.[39]
French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy in 1996, and said in 2005, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect".[40]
I am inclined to think that without the profit motive, as in France, and smaller more reliable designs cutting coal and gas, increasing solar, wind, nuclear may be the way to go.
Leave the design to a team of experts led by France and take out the profit motive at the highest
level of design, build, commission.
S.
Written by: abc200, 20 Apr 2011 1:48 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Customers must use much less power in total through railways, green cities, minimum transport of goods, larger more efficient aircraft etc. etc. Also opportunistically so efficiency of generation is maintained.
e.g. charging cars, doing washing in automatic machines at night etc.
Nuclear energy, in my judgement needs a special management model revolving round different teams checking and rechecking and also strong maths/ simulation input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_FranceIt is years since I visted Saclay but it still seems to be in the forefront of safe nuclear power research.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030762581100.htmSmaller reactors have the advantage that they can be designed to withstand huge shocks - examples being a ship collision or a direct hit by an aircraft.
France can have a large electric car fleet quickly because there is much spare power at night etc.
When Venez goes nuclear it could export surplus to DR.
S.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@abc,
No profit motive in France? Are you kidding me? Don't you know that France is net exporter of electrical energy?
You are really over-crediting the French. Look, I'll love to credit them as much as you do, being that I can trace my lineage all the way to Paris. I have French names [first and last] and my great grandparents were French diplomats who also brought the "Cable Lyonnais" [French Cable] to our corner of the world. I trace my French ancestry 400 years, and my great great grandfather was the lead military musician in Napoleon's army. So, my French connection is established.
There is much resentment in Europe about France's excessive reliance on nuclear energy and how an accident might impact all of Europe. Just last week, I was in the town of Bascharage, Luxembourg, which is only a couple of miles from Metz, France, where a three-stacker nuclear plant is located. The Luxembougish are not to thrilled about this fact, and they would tell you.
MJEV.
From: Australia, melbourne
It is estimated now by an expert in the field that the level of radiation from Japan is probably equal to 400 times the lethal dose for every man woman and child on earth.It will spread in the plumes and jetstreams and up the food chain.We cannot do anything now.
This will make the Chenobyl accident and million or so deaths seem nothing. It may take a few years to kill us (say five) but time to put faith in the higher power.The day of reckoning is coming soon and it is NOT know by any man. Yep wind / solar would sure have been a better way to go even if a more humble life. Better than the coming dead planet.
Amen
Written by: abc200, 1 Jun 2011 8:43 AM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Yes, gis. Great post,
S.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Mucholoco,
You darn hypocrite! Aren't you the one who was actively promoting nuclear energy just ahead of the crisis in Japan? I remember you and Roystone going on and on about the great attributes of nuclear energy, and me telling you both that the world simply could not withstand another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island incident. Obviously, now you ar eretreating, which is not entirely unexpected, given your track record.
MJEV.
Written by: RoyStone, 4 Jun 2011 8:52 AM
From: Australia
glomarexplorer,
I still stand by my preference for nuclear energy, despite the recent disaster in Japan. So far there have been about 30,000 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami, but not a singe death from radiation from the stricken nuclear power plants.
The death toll from wind turbine accidents is about 40 to date, despite the power generated is minuscule. There have also been deaths from people falling off roofs installing solar panels, and there are often deaths in coal-mine and oil-rig accidents. About 20,000 died when a hydro dam burst in China some years ago.
So far the actual death toll from Chernobyl is about 60. There were no fatalities at Three Mile Island. There have been no reactors of the Chernobyl type in operation for decades.
.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Roy,
You are not a hypocrite like Mucholoco.
I appreciate a person who stands by his convictions and remains true to his word, even if I may not necessarily agree with his premise.
MJEV.
Written by: abc200, 4 Jun 2011 1:55 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
Yes, Three Mile Island and Japan have prompted rethinking among many people; I am not alone.
Shares in solar companies have gone up and even conservative governments such as UK are advancing green plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13626406Re-thinking does not make one a hypocrite - it is the mark of a pragmatic, realistic person.
When I was in product design and was reviewing the work of design teams; and in the design a major problem was found ; a failure under test, or a fundamental flaw in operation the choice was there to persist with the design or use the experience to try another approach.
Of course some to GE engineers involved in the early GE reactors chose to resign rather than continue with an unsatisfactory design.
All energy processing has been shown to have hazards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMdIDtxMcX0S.
From: United States, Fresh Water Paradise-NY Finger Lakes
@Mucholoco,
Engineers, all of us, analyze to conceive tests, then we test to confirm conformance to governing physics....that's probably what you missed while enjoying the bong!
MJEV.
Written by: abc200, 4 Jun 2011 11:35 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
No, in many complex systems there is no absolute proof of correctness: the physics is poorly understood. Failure mechanism are not understood. Also some factor can be overlooked.
So this is why simulations of nuclear reactions and the thousands of equations involved represents the know physics and some conditions/equations are from empirical observations because the physics is beyond analysis.
But the conditions under which these observations are made are very specific and some minor design change may make a huge difference.
Written by: abc200, 4 Jun 2011 11:38 PM
From: United Kingdom, Dominican Republic
This is why it is impossible to predict the exact yield of an atomic bomb or a reactor core, the stress that will cause a composite fiber component to fail is not possible to predict exactly in spite of huge finite element models, the force that will cause two contacts to separate at very high temperature is not predictable, likewise the behavior of metals under explosive deformation, also the tunneling effect of in semiconductors is not not predictable, and we know for sure the number of bytes of code to produce a certain function has denied analysis
S.
Written by: RoyStone, 5 Jun 2011 7:40 AM
From: Australia
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were as a result of human error. It happens. Sometimes pilots make human errors. Not very often, but when they do, about 200 people die. It is tragic, but do we go back to horse and carriage and shut down the aviation industry? One plane crash kills more than every nuclear accident since the beginning of time. More die in road accident in DR in two months. Lets ban motorbikes!
From: Australia, melbourne
From Scientific American,June 9.............great this nuclear power. Fires in the US now.
A fire in an electrical switch room on Tuesday briefly knocked out cooling for a pool holding spent nuclear fuel at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant outside Omaha, Neb., plant officials said. [...]
If the cooling water a pool is lost, the used nuclear fuel could catch fire and release radiation. [...]
The fire, reported at 9:30 a.m., led to the loss of electrical power for the system that circulates cooling water through the spent fuel pool, according to a report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A chemical fire suppression system discharged, and the plant’s fire brigade cleared smoke from the room and reported that the fire was out at 10:20 a.m., the NRC said. [...]
The plant had already been operating under a heightened level of alert because of nearby flooding on the Missouri River, the NRC said. The cause of the fire remained under investigation this morning.
From: United States
Thanks for sharing this news update its really informative.
From: Singapore
The current issue is simple and easy to understand and therefore many people have accpeted it if people pay the bill on time then everything will be fine and good
http://www.smats.net/Taxation/From: Singapore
Anthonyc in fact thinks that officials in this land really do possibility studies before they begin projects. It is all about the commission.
http://tinyurl.com/3tfeyz5
Smaller
Bigger
Close Gallery
Facebook
Digg this
del.icio.us
Technorati
Yahoo
anthonyC, it is only a money loser because nothing in the DR is untouched by the inbred entitlement mentality morons greed.
There are several success stories in the world, especially since they are now building them with direct drive (no gearbox).
Everything starts out expensive, we just need people to buy them and others to learn how to maintain them.
in puerto plata the people that live their already have plans on STEALING THE WIND...
iam going back to pop next week, i also have the 'PLAN"
IAM GOING TO BUILD PLACES TO STORE THE "WIND' for use in the furture.
HOPE I CAN GET SOME INVESTORS TO BACK ME UP??
if any one on this site has extra money u should think about this investement. your money will have great turn's....... lol...lol.
FEASTIBILITY STUDIES IN THE DR.???
S------ U CAN GO INTO A DOCTORS OFFICE AT 8AM, AND HAVE OPEN HEART SURGERY AT 10AM... HOW U LIKE THESE STUDIES???
ALL U NEED IS THE "MONEY HONEY".
Officers of the Electricity Fraud Prosecution Office (PGASE) suspects that President Leonel Fernandez's transport advisor, Mochotran transport magnate Alfredo Pulinario (Cambita) had a fraudulent electricity connection at his vehicle dealership in eastern Santo Domingo. As reported in the Listin Dario, EdeEste power distribution company anti-fraud technicians discovered a 37.5 kilowatt transformer with a direct connection to the business. EdeEste estimated the business consumed around 1,530 kWh monthly that was bypassing the electricity meter, or around RD$15,000 in unpaid monthly consumption,
GUESS ITS IN THEIR BLOOD. THE NEED TO STEAL.
AND THE LIGHTS WILL STILL BE GOING OUT ! UNLESS THEY FIX THE CORRUPTION MESS AND MONITOR THE PAPER TRAIL
Corruption is a minor issue.
S.
RL
Name me one place where Wind Power is economically feasible. Go ahead. Name one place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark (2008 - 18.9% of electricity production and 24.1% of generation )
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-2....urbine-wind-turbines?_s=PM:WORLD. (newest model producing 50% more power) the largest single direct drive at 10 mega-watts, 200,000 homes 1.38 B ~ 7000 per home initial cost.
And this is just the beginning. No new materials have been used in a decade.
They are looking at ceramic motor/genertors that will double the capacity. Like any product that 1.3B will be 500MM in 5 years,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
Capacities. Almost 10% growth in 6 months.
At the end of 2009, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 159.2 gigawatts (GW).[1] (By June 2010 the capacity had risen to 175 GW).[2] Energy production was 340 TWh, which is about 2% of worldwide electricity usage
There should be a tax rebate for seller of solar panels inthe DR also.
The big companies are sill gouging us with $4 a watt.
The silicone price were have to fallen that $1-$1.50 a Watt by now.
Gmiller,
I asked for Economically feasible. Not supported by state subsidies but 100% privately funded and profitable.
So try again.
Great. Who cares overmuch about lights going out - there's plenty of sun
i have a problem with this concept where i live. the sun does not shine at night, like it does in the area where you live.
Oil and coal infrastructure was created by private industry. The subsidies of today are criminal if you ask me.
Still doesn't change the fact that Wind power with probably never be economically feasible or even practical. Now the DR has taken another loan for something that will never be able to pay for itself.
Dready.
There are many infrastructure projects that benefit society and are also economically viable. Roads, ports and airports are some.
Wind, solar or any of the other so-called "alternative energies" benefit nobody except the business who live off the money taken from others.
I hope they install these wind turbines in areas where it will not conflict too much with natural beauty, so that we could still continue to draw some tourists and their dollars.
I've just returned from trip to Germany yesterday, after being there a week peddling CNG fuel injectors. I drove 1300 km from Luxembourg to Wolfsburg and back and got to see hundreds of wind turbines along the way.
As many of you might already know, the German countryside was very beautiful. However, placement of these turbines has not always been done with greatest care and, in many cases, they are an absolute eyesore. There were many rolling hills and villages whose natural beauty has been totally occluded by what sometimes appears to be man-made monstrosity.
We really need to find the right balance, in order to attain harmony between environment and energy. We have to, for our country is highly dependent on tourism, which would come to grinding halt once natural beauty is gone.
MJEV.
My nirvana of alternative energy is the hydrogen fuel-cell,
Last week MIT announced they created a silicone 'leaf' (the size of a playing card) that when floated on even muddy water under direct sunlight a gallon of water can produce enough hydrogen for one day.
Now would I say stop researching because at $20 a (fuel-cell) watt that is insane. Never.
'dirty British coaster ( spewing black smoke ) steaming down the channel'.
Now beautiful gleaming wind turbines offshore also onshore.
I used to walk though a little village ; existed since Saxon times; now some idiots have built a motorway so nearby.
Not to mention the Cambridge of Byron and Keats - who knew the view of the gorgeous skyline of medieval Cambridge from Grantchester meadows ; the beautiful nearby village named in the Doomsday book ; totally corrupted by one American Rockefeller who insisted when he endowed the new Cambridge Library insisted it should have a giant phallic tower visible from miles around.
S.
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot
A pink hotel, a boutique and a swinging hot spot
Don't it always go to show
You never know what you got till it's gone ?
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot.
They took all the trees, they put them in a tree museum
They charged the people a dollar and a half just to see them
Don't it always go to show
You never know what you got till it's gone ?
They paved paradise, they put up a parking lot.
Now they complain of lack of tourists!
A few beautiful wind turbines may enable the closure dirty power plants.
Planet trashers abound!
S.
For better or worse, future of hydrogen fuel cell might be dead, since only Iceland seems to be able to produce requisite fuel affordably, and only because of their excess geothermal energy. Funny thing is that they are only ones who don't really need the hydrogen.
US government has totally backed away from Hydrogen as a fuel and has curtailed funding. My department has benefited for many years from government funding in this area, and we have supplied large number of fuel cells to the US Dept. of Defense. Our emphasis has now shifted to SOFC from PEM technology, where we can use any fuel such as natural gas, diesel or gasoline to generate electricity, without first reforming it to extract hydrogen.
We are presently equipping many over-the-road, long distance transport trucks with "auxiliary power units" to provide all electricity for heating and air conditioning, etc. These are 3.5 kW to 5.0 kW units, and we are at every major show in USA.
MJEV.
I am very much in support of your above commentary on the incomparable "ABC", who could have been right at home riding with Don Quijote.
As usual, Dr. Dread, very well stated.
MJEV.
CD were developed by private industry....NOT BY GOVERNMENT MANDATE!!!!
In the US, since energy companies have to buy 'alternative' energy and still run at nearly 100% capacity using current energy production methodologies, they ground the excess. In hundreds of million watts.
Just like the farmers that now save their cow crap to make methane to run a generator and save a shit load of money they should do the same, but store hydrogen.
One, state of the art high temperature nuclear reactor (1/3 the size of one today) can produce 800 million metric tons of hydrogen a day.
American policy makers have become lazy and cannot see past the end of their nose.
It is only the beginning.
anthonyC, Your statement was "A loan to build a money loser".
You're now confusing the issue with 'private industry' and "government mandates"
DR's problem is corruption, that is where it will start in the hole. But it has to start somewhere.
The technology exists to extract hydrogen from many sources, including hydrocarbon fuels and water. However, the cost is prohibitive and you have to put in >$1.50 to get $1.0, even under best of circumstances.
We know how to do it and are willing to continue doing it; question is, is consumer willing to pay price and can he really afford it?
Look, I had long joint research and development program with BMW and we had several demonstration 7-Series cars running around on hydrogen and very well. But they even realized that the technology while viable, would never gain economic acceptance, especially when there are so many other more sensible choices, such as CNG and hybrid-electrics.
Look, CNG is plentiful, safe and cheap. It is readily compatible with existing internal combustion engine technology, yet we are unwilling to get infrastructure in place to take advantage of this energy source. So how could H2 ever have chance-remember the"Hindenberg"?
MJEV.
Wind power is a money loser and a waste of taxpayer's money in any location not just the D.R.
There isn't even a legitimate reason to employ Wind Power. It is inefficient and has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power.
I guess when he reaches his father's age when he died he will recognize his life of stupidity and wanton destruction.
Now he has the anesthetic to his already limited braincells - copious bottles on 'Blue Label'.
People pity him as he travels on the escalator to hell. The eternal never ending capitalist treadmill has caught him for sure.
S.
The cost of the materials in a CD player, unlike in a solar cell, are almost irrelevant. New consumer technology is expensive because they need to amortize the cost of development while "early adopters" are prepared to pay a premium.
Take a look at Bill Maher's sketch - only 40 seconds, at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlcygXYK_Y0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany
With Nuclear problems and increasing pollution from coal and gas wind comes to the forefront.
S.
Germany has the most expensive electricity in Europe, due to the highest implementation of wind generators. France has the cheapest electricity, due to the highest implementation of nuclear power - and no fatalities.
By the way, I know you would think otherwise from the media reports, but the Japanese Tsunami was caused by an earthquake, not by an accident at a nuclear power plant. I wonder how many more would have died if each nuclear power plant had been replaced by 6,000 120 meter high wind turbines.
Nuclear "problems"? More people die in road accidents in DR in two weeks than all nuclear accidents since the beginning of time!
Estimates of Chernobyl deaths range up to 1,000,000. Deaths from just British Nuke power stations and fuel reprocessing 50,000.
In addition to deaths from cancer etc. there are ongoing genetic mutations, excess treatable cancers etc.
http://www.greenpeace.org/interna....features/chernobyl-deaths-180406/
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=11
Gives some knowledge on the subject.
All coal burning, clean or not, gas burning, vehicles burning any fuel use result in excess deaths.
The German investment is very sound and a few cents extra on electricity per unit a price well worth paying.
In reality there may be no extra cost because an increase in price motivates fuel efficiency, zero energy housing, efficient transport etc.
Also many people are employed; social security reduces; general welfare as measured by reduction in crime rates, better education etc. etc. increases.
So stop believing lies and do your own
S.
and we will pay this back with....wind energy, and it is going to snow tomorrow in Santo Domingo.
glomarexplorer, I do not want cars (combustion engines) to run on hydrogen or Brown's gas HHO.
I want hydrogen fuel cells and the Hindenburg comment only shows me you do not get the concept.
If the Hindenburg had helium in it the disaster would have still occurred. No real scientist blames the hydrogen.
Again, it is called contrarian thinking. This has been done many times. Everybody buys into a technology first phase with subsidies (break even) or at a loss. The second phase is cheaper so you upgrade and any excess is used to create hydrogen for your local stationary PEM generator.
The third phase it is a win-win. If the US started this during the 70's oil crisis all would be fine today. But they choose to screw us. And we still subsidize the oil companies. That is total bullshit.
anthonyC, where is the proof of "has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power. "
anthonyC, where is the proof of "has a worse ecological impact than either Oil or Coal power.
since when does anthonyc need proof? he said it is so, and that makes it so.
Secondly Dread is more correct than incorrect.
The only substance that is killing the solar industry is the price of pure silicone. One of the most abundant elements on the face of the earth. I think this is a man made situation.
The purification methods are considered draconian, in terms of purity and volume.
When the first solar cell was produced, 'experts' said that in 20 years (because of the abundance of silicone) it would be 10 cents a watt. What happened, greed happened.
Intel wanted us to get into space (prefect vacuum) so they could build chips made of Gallium Arsenide that out of the box would run at 3GHz. Well guess what, they didn't it space.
If production silicone was $10 a pound, solar cells would be 10 cents a watt and I could spend $1000 on panels that their only purpose was to change water into hydrogen. Done.
abc200, plus 1.
I would gladly pay %100 more for my energy if I new it was sustainable and not oil or coal.
It is just time to do it.
25 years from now people will being paying nothing for energy.
Standard PEM fuel cells, as presently made by General Motors, reform hydrcarbon fuels to extract hydrogen, which is then employed as fuel to run the IC engine.
Hydrogen is a very small atom and most difficult to contain and it could even permeate through metal. It is also stored under high pressure and an appreciable amount of mass must be in hand in order to satisfy appetite of the IC engine.
Last I checked, helium was an inert gas and, as such, very benign and non-combustible; that is precisely reason why it enjoys widespread use, even in balloons for birthday parties. Could you imagine for just one second using hydrogen in similar setting, especially in litigious society such as ours? I would think not.
By the way, my company and my department, are at the forefront of this technology, and we are committed to it and have millions tied up in it. We are capitalists, and will do whatever it'll take to make money.
MJEV.
You engage the resident "Loco" at your own risk.
It seems to me that just before the Japanese desaster, we were having a similar conversation here at DT, and "Mucho Loco" came down in full support of nuclear energy, which you were championing with equal fervor at time. Now, predictably, he has done a 180 degree turn on you. The man is a functioning imbecile, which is precisely how I remember describing him to you previously.
MJEV.
Today's oil and clean coal burning generating plants do not cause any significant damage to the environment, provide jobs and are cost effective.
"I would gladly pay %100 more for my energy if I new it was sustainable and not oil or coal."
You go right ahead! More power to ya.
Just don't even think of making me do the same as you!!!
I don't take very kindly to you and your buddies brand of Fascism!!!
I just put in a 215 foot well powered by a pump with 6 solar panels. Producing 5000 gallons a day TODAY with only 3 panels hooked up so far. Don't have to worry about low power, extremely high power and NO power ruining your pump along with the bills for power. Solar is a good investment in my opinion.
Well that was a laugh 15 years ago when it was published that cats and cars kill 1,000 times more birds than all the wind turbines combined could ever.
Now where do you think acid rain came from?
glomarexplorer, if you have money in using hydrogen in IC engines, I'd pull it out.
The IC engine is at best is 20% efficient, PEMs are closer to 50%. And if you use the thermal energy produced your are in the 85% efficient range.
They would never use PEM to create hydrogen, it is cost prohibitive. You are talking about those Brown's gas generators, they produce HHO.
And yes my point was that an inert gas like helium in the Hindenburg would have been just as disastrous. Hydrogen is so light it would have burned skyward in seconds. The continuous burning you see in the films are the outer covering with diesel fuel.
The highly inflated figure of Chernobyl deaths estimates was initially as a result of anti-Soviet propaganda, anti-nuclear lobbying and general media frenzy (like Y2K, Swine flu, etc.)
According to a recent UN study, actual deaths to date are about 90. The death rate from DR road accidents is 41 per 100,000 population per year, average about one per day, or three times the entire death toll worldwide from nuclear power.
I have spent time in Kiev and Gomel and met many people from Chernobyl. I can confirm that Belorussian and Ukrainian women are hot, but do not glow in the dark!
The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. However, the design of the reactor is unique and the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc.
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html
This is low compared to coal and hydro, however when calculated per TWh of power generated, it is high.
Chernobyl should not be included in calculations any more that the Hindenburg disaster should be an indication of air travel safety. However even if included in calculations, nuclear power has the lowest fatalities per TWh.
Nuclear power would be good for DR provided it is designed, funded, built, operated and regulated by responsible foreigners (like Australians using Australian uranium!).
First of all, my company makes SOFC fuel cell, which are employed as APU's on long haul trucks to provide electricity for running A/C, heater, lights and other high energy demand appliances.
I've never seen real efficiency numbers for fuel cell higher than low 40's, when you conduct appropriate calculation in terms of benefit/cost or energy input versus energy output. With the numbers you purport, the market would have been flooded with FC's by now, and the government would probably even legislate it, especially those more liberally minded folks in California.
Your information on IC efficiency most be really old, since most engines today approach 30% and some versions from Nissan and Honda are even higher.
MJEV.
So, tell me, what caused the fire in the infamous ship to begin with? Could it have been a spark or similar? If so, please tell me how a fire could have ensued if helium had been source of buoyancy rather than hydrogen.
MJEV.
glomarexplorer, the outer material was flammable, which started to burn from the inside near the diesel exhaust ports. The inside material was also covered in diesel from fumes/poor exhausting.
The best % efficient PEMs use platinum membranes, are still too expensive.
There are abundant relatively cheap solid halides that can store hydrogen at near atmospheric pressure and new materials coming every day.
http://www.rsc.org/ConferencesAndEvents/RSCConferences/FD151/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112133751.htm
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf
A conventional combustion-based power plant typically generates electricity at efficiencies of 33
to 35 percent, while fuel cell systems can generate electricity at efficiencies up to 60 percent (and even higher with cogeneration).
The gasoline engine in a conventional car is less than 20% efficient in converting the chemical energy in gasoline into power that moves the vehicle, under normal driving conditions. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, which use electric motors, are much more energy efficient and use 40-60 percent ofthe fuel’s energy corresponding to more than a 50% reduction in fuel consumption, compared
to a conventional vehicle with a gasoline internal combustion engine.
Now we are converging!
You might wish to read this: ""http://www.airships.net/blog/dr-karl-hydrogen-hindenburg""
MJEV.
glomarexplorer, not saying Hydrogen isn't flammable and did add to the disaster but there are other articles that are not so sensationalized as this one.
I would have to think that the CNG that is ued in the cars in DR is only slightly less flammable as Hydrogen. And that storage is as a liquid not sequestered in a metal halide or other material.
5KW - $15K, now all you need is H.
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/en/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=53
glomarexplorer, you do have to admit, no matter what type of fuel cell, they are elegantly simple.
Metal Hydride storage, I incorrectly said halide.
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/en/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=108
Cutting down fuel use by rationing car use, designing eco-houses, better transport systems, localizing production is the way forward.
Half of all freight ton/miles in France are now by train.
Solar and wind are best for power generation possibly followed third by small scale nuclear.
Nuclear has caused a lot of deaths through excess cancers etc. coal and gas through pollution and global warming.
S.
CNG is very safe fuel, and that's reason why it is used for cooking and heating in many homes.
It is not so explosive, as so much of it is required for combustion; it also dissipates quickly into atmosphere when it leaks, thereby making combustion even more difficult. Storage is in gaseous state, for the most part.
MJEV.
S.
With your line of thinking nothing is really safe, including: electricity, water, oxygen, food, scooters, bicycles, etc.
MJEV.
places.
Polluted water is a major cause of death.
Poor nutritions kills 100's of thousands ; both through bad but adequate diet e.g. obesity and though lack of steady food supply ; poor nutrition.
Electricity worldwide is obtained at great human cost ; coal mining accidents, pollution from power plants, GHG from CNG gas extraction and burning ... the list goes on.
http://climateprogress.org/2011/0....cking-dangers-environment-health/
It's a stupid and unnecessary industry.
The tide may be turning to fix the fracking mess:
http://www.anh-usa.org/a-huge-fracking-mess/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/Howarth2011.pdf
Planet trasher MJEV tries to get more people to adopt fracking gas- stupid person bought off
by a bunch of environmental criminals.
How about mining for Uranium? Is that not dangerous? How about servicing those tall wind turbines-is that not dangerous? How about a loose blade caused by high winds or poor maintainance-is that not dangerous?
How about sewer gas in your septic tank-is that not dangerous?
How about disposal of spent nuclear rods-is that not dangerous?
ABC, you are self-conflicted; you'd have been last person on my list to be proponent of nuclear energy, particularly for a country which has demonstrated gross inadequacy to provide maintenance even for simple things. Also, where would billions for erecting nuclear plant exactly come from?
I am in suupport of all of the solar, wind and ocean wave energy we could muster to achieve some measure of self-sufficiency, stop begging and improve life of our citizens. However, let's be a little realistic about it.
MJEV.
French environmentalist Bruno Comby started the group Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy in 1996, and said in 2005, "If well-managed, nuclear energy is very clean, does not create polluting gases in the atmosphere, produces very little waste and does not contribute to the greenhouse effect".[40]
I am inclined to think that without the profit motive, as in France, and smaller more reliable designs cutting coal and gas, increasing solar, wind, nuclear may be the way to go.
Leave the design to a team of experts led by France and take out the profit motive at the highest
level of design, build, commission.
S.
e.g. charging cars, doing washing in automatic machines at night etc.
Nuclear energy, in my judgement needs a special management model revolving round different teams checking and rechecking and also strong maths/ simulation input.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
It is years since I visted Saclay but it still seems to be in the forefront of safe nuclear power research.
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/07/stories/2010030762581100.htm
Smaller reactors have the advantage that they can be designed to withstand huge shocks - examples being a ship collision or a direct hit by an aircraft.
France can have a large electric car fleet quickly because there is much spare power at night etc.
When Venez goes nuclear it could export surplus to DR.
S.
No profit motive in France? Are you kidding me? Don't you know that France is net exporter of electrical energy?
You are really over-crediting the French. Look, I'll love to credit them as much as you do, being that I can trace my lineage all the way to Paris. I have French names [first and last] and my great grandparents were French diplomats who also brought the "Cable Lyonnais" [French Cable] to our corner of the world. I trace my French ancestry 400 years, and my great great grandfather was the lead military musician in Napoleon's army. So, my French connection is established.
There is much resentment in Europe about France's excessive reliance on nuclear energy and how an accident might impact all of Europe. Just last week, I was in the town of Bascharage, Luxembourg, which is only a couple of miles from Metz, France, where a three-stacker nuclear plant is located. The Luxembougish are not to thrilled about this fact, and they would tell you.
MJEV.
This will make the Chenobyl accident and million or so deaths seem nothing. It may take a few years to kill us (say five) but time to put faith in the higher power.The day of reckoning is coming soon and it is NOT know by any man. Yep wind / solar would sure have been a better way to go even if a more humble life. Better than the coming dead planet.
Amen
S.
You darn hypocrite! Aren't you the one who was actively promoting nuclear energy just ahead of the crisis in Japan? I remember you and Roystone going on and on about the great attributes of nuclear energy, and me telling you both that the world simply could not withstand another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island incident. Obviously, now you ar eretreating, which is not entirely unexpected, given your track record.
MJEV.
I still stand by my preference for nuclear energy, despite the recent disaster in Japan. So far there have been about 30,000 deaths from the earthquake and tsunami, but not a singe death from radiation from the stricken nuclear power plants.
The death toll from wind turbine accidents is about 40 to date, despite the power generated is minuscule. There have also been deaths from people falling off roofs installing solar panels, and there are often deaths in coal-mine and oil-rig accidents. About 20,000 died when a hydro dam burst in China some years ago.
So far the actual death toll from Chernobyl is about 60. There were no fatalities at Three Mile Island. There have been no reactors of the Chernobyl type in operation for decades.
.
You are not a hypocrite like Mucholoco.
I appreciate a person who stands by his convictions and remains true to his word, even if I may not necessarily agree with his premise.
MJEV.
Shares in solar companies have gone up and even conservative governments such as UK are advancing green plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13626406
Re-thinking does not make one a hypocrite - it is the mark of a pragmatic, realistic person.
When I was in product design and was reviewing the work of design teams; and in the design a major problem was found ; a failure under test, or a fundamental flaw in operation the choice was there to persist with the design or use the experience to try another approach.
Of course some to GE engineers involved in the early GE reactors chose to resign rather than continue with an unsatisfactory design.
All energy processing has been shown to have hazards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMdIDtxMcX0
S.
Engineers, all of us, analyze to conceive tests, then we test to confirm conformance to governing physics....that's probably what you missed while enjoying the bong!
MJEV.
So this is why simulations of nuclear reactions and the thousands of equations involved represents the know physics and some conditions/equations are from empirical observations because the physics is beyond analysis.
But the conditions under which these observations are made are very specific and some minor design change may make a huge difference.
S.
A fire in an electrical switch room on Tuesday briefly knocked out cooling for a pool holding spent nuclear fuel at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant outside Omaha, Neb., plant officials said. [...]
If the cooling water a pool is lost, the used nuclear fuel could catch fire and release radiation. [...]
The fire, reported at 9:30 a.m., led to the loss of electrical power for the system that circulates cooling water through the spent fuel pool, according to a report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A chemical fire suppression system discharged, and the plant’s fire brigade cleared smoke from the room and reported that the fire was out at 10:20 a.m., the NRC said. [...]
The plant had already been operating under a heightened level of alert because of nearby flooding on the Missouri River, the NRC said. The cause of the fire remained under investigation this morning.
http://www.smats.net/Taxation/
http://tinyurl.com/3tfeyz5