Questioning the "rush to nuclear"

[kristopher]

I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year.
>
>
There are about 1200 coal plants in the US with a nameplate generating capacity 390GW+-. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t23p1.html and
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epav2/html_tables/epav2t45p1.html

Coal plants average about a 79% capacity factor. The production by coal of 390GWx79% equals 308GW that we need to deliver to 'technically' replace coal - the worst offender for climate change and pollution bar none. That would be a total production of 2,698,080 TWh/year.

Lets leave natural gas and nuclear as is for the moment.


Current generation turbines are 1/5-2 MW onshore and 2-3.6MW offshore The onshore probably will be slow to achieve further increase because they are limited by the ability to transport the rotors overland. But the next generation of offshore wind farms are between 5-7MW per unit nameplate and can be expected to operate at 40+% capacity factor. Figure the build-out in the corridor Picken's speaks of to deliver about 30% capacity factor.


In near shore <50meter deep waters, and allowing exclusion areas for fishing grounds, beach replenishment borrow areas, avian flyways, shipping channels and visual buffering for the tourist areas, there is just off the coast of tiny Delaware enough room to place:
19GW with GE 3.6MW turbines
26GW with 5MW turbines (vestas?)
37GW with the RePower 7MW turbine

Using a capacity factor of 40% (it is actually estimated to be 44%) that yields:
7.6GW for the 19GW with GE 3.6MW turbines
10.4GW for the 26GW with 5MW turbines (vestas?)
14.6GW for the 37GW with the RePower 7MW turbine

So just off the 25 mile coast of little old bitty Delaware, we can get an output equal to between 7 and 14 nuclear reactors - with no waste storage problems or risks of proliferation.

As for finding the space for solar - why don't we start with roofs?
As of 2000 in the US residential sector alone there were about 83 million buildings with a combined square footage of roughly 170 billion square feet or 18 billion meters^2 or 1.8 billion km^2.

Using an average capacity factor of 14% against the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight gives us 252kWh/year/m^2.

18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

And we can let the homeowners be responsible for cleaning them.

Finally, we add in storage through the batteries of V2G EV and similar battery packs for the home so that those majority of those 83 million homes are mostly self sufficient and there is also plenty of storage to maximize wind and large solar thermal arrays.

What is the rush to nuclear with its KNOWN pitfalls? Why not a goal like described above first and then see what the need for nuclear ends up being? Of the two choices, we are much better off in the long run (in money, energy security, national security, energy returned on energy invested and environmental footprint) to do this without nuclear if we can.

So again, what is your rush to promote nuclear?

Data on buildings drawn from http://www.btscoredatabook.net/?id=search_table_title&q=Single-Family+Homes&t=5
Tables 5 and 21

[AndyTiedye]

1. Kicked and Recommended

[OneBlueSky]

2. I'm still baffled by the likes of James Lovelock, Stewart Brand, and . . .

other noted environmentalists who have done a 180 on nuclear power and now support it 100% . . . most seem to think that we have no other options if we want to maintain the kind of technological society we've become accustomed to . . .

still, I find it more than strange that these individuals have so completely reversed their positions on a technology that they fought against for decades . . . can't help but think that there must be corporate money somewhere in the equation, though I'm not sure where . . .

[kristopher]

4. I don't know about their thinking specifically

But I think the general take is probably best summarized by Socolow and his "wedge" conceptualization for dealing with global warming. The belief behind that approach is one that says the problem is severe and all options should be on the table to be part of the solution. However, some of those "wedges" come with higher price tags than others, either monetarily or (non-GW) environmentally. So political reality forces us to approach planning with the realization that limits on resources will force us to choose which wedges to emphasize first. I don't rule out the possible need for nuclear; but all things considered, it is not the first technology we should be taking off the shelf.

[bananas]

23. Lovelock has never been anti-nuclear

http://www.nuclearspin.org/index.php/James_Lovelock

[aspergris]

24. It means they have minds OPEN TO DATA

which is how we are supposed to be.

I believed the anti-nuclear propaganda for years too

and I changed my mind based on data, not $$$

If you are confronted with uncomfortable facts, should you run away, or incoporate the facts into your understanding and adjust opinions as called for?

[bananas]

30. So now you believe the pro-nuclear propoganda.

You've changed your mind based on bogus data.
Nukes are still expensive and take a long time to build.
There's still no solution to waste disposal.
Weapons proliferation is still a serious problem.
We're running out of high-grade ore,
mining low-grade ore will be environmentally destructive.
Bush's GNEP scam has been rejected by NAS.
McCain's plan for 45 new reactors by 2030 won't do crap to global warming.
Yucca Mountain will probably never open.
Reprocessing is expensive and creates other problems.
The rush to nuclear is based on hype.

[aspergris]

32. 20 to 30 yrs ago

there was a dearth of data.

Today there is TONS of data, and it overwhelmingly supports nuclear energy, on a cost/benefit scale.

[bananas]

33. Here's what the TONS of data boil down to

"I'm not quite sure the number McCain put out is obtainable," says Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x158528

[aspergris]

35. What does McCain have to do with it?

Because McCain put out a # that may not be obtainable says what exactly about nukes as AN alternative energy source?

[bananas]

40. Because McCain's number is 45 new nukes by 2030

and that won't come close to replacing coal.

[aspergris]

41. So what?

I didn't say nuclear will or could replace coal (at least not in the short run).

Alternative energy means just that.

[bananas]

52. So nuclear is mostly irrelevant.

That's what.

[bananas]

34. The TONS of data overwhelmingly support wind and solar on a cost/benefit scale

Here's what the nuclear industry says about costs:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153252&mesg_id=153278

edit to add: and read the OP in that thread:
"The solar power business is bracing itself for a collapse in prices"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=153252&mesg_id=153252

[aspergris]

37. Among other things

It does not have to be either/or

[cosmik debris]

3. One issue

You calculated the entire square footage of residential roofs and you assumed that ALL of that space would be available for solar use. Much of that roof space is NOT available for solar uses. In most of the northern US, the north side of the roof is useless in solar collection.

[kristopher]

5. Note the reason for the work up

The issue it addresses is finding space for solar. The argument was that solar and wind take up too much area so we should use nuclear. The approach of using the square footage of homes with no regard for commercial or industrial or non-roof areas seemed like a reasonable way to demonstrate the availability of space.
For the price and poor EROEI of nuclear, we could probably justify erecting frames over every rooftop. *Tongue in cheek*

I considered using the tops of utility poles (at 4m^2 each) but couldn't find a total number except for wooden poles.

[cosmik debris]

7. Well, sure, if you ignore the facts it is easy to prove your point.

Your square footage numbers may be off as much as 70% or 80%. You don't know.

If you substitute 5 billion for your optimistic 18 billion, you find that solar does not replace coal production and your argument fails. Which number is right? Who knows? But it is certainly not your number.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that you haven't proved your point because you use bogus numbers.

[kristopher]

11. Here is the claim I was responding to

"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

[cosmik debris]

12. I don't see how any of that is relevant.

You made a claim based on bogus numbers.

"18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating."

You have failed to prove your point.

Your conclusion may very well be correct. But it is not proved by the evidence you presented.

[kristopher]

14. We obviously disagree. nt

[kristopher]

15. Wait a second.

Perhaps I see your point. Are you objecting to the use of the word "actual"?

I was using 'actual' as opposed to nameplate capacity. It is a point of constant criticism (valid to a degree) that most discussions of solar use only nameplate capacity versus the 'actual' amount of power a given array can generate. I was addressing that criticism.

Everything else is as I said; and the numbers are true and consistent with the assumptions in the OP. Your claim of "bogus numbers" is false.

[cosmik debris]

16. My objection is to you assumption

As for finding the space for solar - why don't we start with roofs?
As of 2000 in the US residential sector alone there were about 83 million buildings with a combined square footage of roughly 170 billion square feet or 18 billion meters^2 or 1.8 billion km^2.

Using an average capacity factor of 14% against the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight gives us 252kWh/year/m^2.

18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

Your calculation assumes that all 18 billion meters will be available for use on collecting solar energy. That assumption is clearly wrong. Not only are some roofs facing north, but some are shaded by trees, mountains, and other structures. The assumption that ALL 18 billion meters will be available is with out a doubt false. The actual number will be somewhat less.

Any calculation using false assumptions is mere speculation. Using speculation to prove a point is faulty logic. Therefore you have failed to prove your point.

[kristopher]

17. I see.

Then we disagree. I feel comfortable that I did, in fact, prove the point that I set out to prove and that I've described to you. There is no need to infer the "point" that you are when I, the author, am clearly stating that your inference is incorrect. There is clearly enough "space" in the US to meet our needs for collecting solar energy. Whether it is to be found on specific rooftops, in yards or in vast stretches of desert is the subject of a totally different discussion.

But hey, thanks for playing.

[cosmik debris]

18. Then you may as well use the total square mileage of the USA.

If you are going to pull numbers out of your ass, why not use really big numbers?

[kristopher]

20. Yes, you could do that.

But it doesn't enable a very good visualization of the scale of the effort, does it?

Housing statistics, on the other hand, are easy to relate to. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it goes.

[Fledermaus]

88. O, I see. Someone has already figured out the solar BS

Every roof would have to face due south and tilt South at Latitude And have no obstructions to sunlight.
I could be wrong, but I don't think thats a realistic assumption.

http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/

If he were at his favorite Blog he could just delete your posts...Not here though...ha ha ha.

[XemaSab]

19. Don't feed it

n/t

[cosmik debris]

22. Sorry,

I thought when he said "I welcome checks on my arithmetic;" that he might actually mean that he was open to changing his arithmetic when it was shown to be bogus.

I guess I was wrong.

Pulling numbers out of your ass to prove that solar is better must be a local custom with which I am not familiar.

[kristopher]

26. That's false.

The arithmetic is apparently correct - or at least no one has yet brought an error to my attention. What you don't agree with is the basic concept of what I've presented.

Tough shit.

[cosmik debris]

31. You used a bogus number to prove that roof top solar

could replace coal generated power.

By substituting a bogus number for a factual number, you reached the wrong answer in your equation.

The wrong answer in your equation casts considerable doubt on your conclusion. And it leaves us all doubting your reasoning ability and your logical skills.

Tough shit.

[kristopher]

36. IF I were trying to "prove that roof top solar could replace coal generated power"

IF I were trying to "prove that roof top solar could replace coal generated power" you may be right. However, as I've repeated stated that is YOUR straw man. What I set out to PROVE is that, contrary to the false claims of nuclear proponents, space to deploy solar does indeed exist. That was stated in the OP, even if it wasn't as clear as it might have been.

I would say that you are the one with a problem in logic, but I don't believe it for a second. I'm quite sure your intent is simply to deliberately try and discredit the obvious even if it means repeatedly asserting an obvious falsehood.

[cosmik debris]

42. One more time for the slow learners: My straw man or your quote.

As for finding the space for solar - why don't we start with roofs?
As of 2000 in the US residential sector alone there were about 83 million buildings with a combined square footage of roughly 170 billion square feet or 18 billion meters^2 or 1.8 billion km^2.

Using an average capacity factor of 14% against the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight gives us 252kWh/year/m^2.

18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

Your number, 18 billion, is obviously bogus. And it was used to show that roof top solar could replace coal generated power.

The fact that you don't even care about using made-up numbers indicates that you not only don't understand the problem, but you also lack the ethical standards and credibility to make an honest argument.

If your argument was sound, you wouldn't have to make up lies to prove it.

[kristopher]

45. Without question YOUR STRAW MAN

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my reply the first time you raised your strawman:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"
This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>

Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

58. You obviously don't understand what a straw man is

When I quote YOUR OWN post, that it not a straw man.

To be a straw man I would have to CHANGE YOUR argument.

But I didn't. I QUOTED YOUR argument.

Face it, you got caught pulling numbers out of your ass to support your point.

Now you are trying to make it look like you have some integrity left. OOOPS, to late!

Pulling numbers out of your ass in not a legitimate way to make your case.

So please keep posting. You are only proving MY point now.

Thank you for your support.

[kristopher]

62. Happy to.

You wrote: "To be a straw man I would have to CHANGE YOUR argument.

But I didn't. I QUOTED YOUR argument."

No, you quoted a selected except from the entire argument and gave it a meaning that is clearly lacking when it is in context. That is cherry picking a quote to create a strawman.


From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my reply the first time you raised your strawman:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"
This (the italicized portion) was a prelude to (another poster) endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>

Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

67. You got caught pulling numbers out of your ass

And that's all there is to it.

You can change the subject till hell freezes over, but you got caught pulling numbers out of your ass.

[kristopher]

69. You're full of it.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

70. But you still got caught pulling numbers out of your ass.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

73. You say that but you know it's a lie.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

74. Your ass-------->your numbers.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

75. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

You've yet to offer anything except your straw man and a crude baseless claim about numbers.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

76. Caught ya! Your ass--------->your numbers.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

77. You simply dislike the information conveyed

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

78. No, I love it when I catch you pulling numbers out of your ass!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

79. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

80. That doesn't make your ass numbers smell any better!

:rofl:

[kristopher]

81. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

82. You're stuttering now. I guess you've lost all control.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

83. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

84. But, but, but, but,.....

:rofl:

[kristopher]

85. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

86. Did you know that you are repeating yourself?

I mean, it might not have been noticeable with your eyes so tightly closed.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

89. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

94. That's a really cute tantrum you've got going there

I wonder how many times I can make you repeat yourself?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

95. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

How many time can I get an valid excuse to kick my own thread to the top?

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.




If you want to inform people of something different than showing there is more than ample space to place enough solar to make a difference, then by all means write it.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."


The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.


From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was comment oft said by another poster as a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I also felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar.

If that is what you want, please do it yourself - I'd like to see the results.

[cosmik debris]

96. With tantrums like that, Mommy will never take you to the grocery store.

I can just imagine how you would behave on the breakfast cereal aisle.

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

97. Dude, don't feed it

:eyes:

[kristopher]

98. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

99. I've never seen a tantrum go on this long.

:rofl:

[kristopher]

101. You simply dislike the information conveyed.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

102. Do the rest of the kids in you kindergarten behave this badly?

:rofl:

[kristopher]

107. You simply dislike the information conveyed

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

Here is my response the first time you raise it:
"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar. With nuclear coming in at around $6 a watt (and rising rapidly) just in construction costs and solar poised for a strong decline in the costs of panel production, I think the idea of what constitutes a cost effective solar array is changing as we converse.

I should have made the objective more clear in the OP, however I think it was achieved - the initial objection to wind and solar were shown to lack substance.

>
>
>
Now you can keep making your bullshit claims trying to paint the OP in a bad light, but given the clearly stated intent of the OP and several subsequent explicit (and unnecessary) elaborations, the only credibility and honest argument problems obviously belong to you.

The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

[cosmik debris]

110. I just wanted to see how childish you'd be.

I've got a $10 bet that you will post the same thing one more time.

Help me win the $10.

[bananas]

111. Cool! You kick his post and get paid for it!

LOL! Who'd you make the bet with? Was it kris?
:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

29. It's a popular pastime

The rules are: decide what conclusion you'd like, then make the assumptions that lead to that conclusion. If anyone challenges you, jam your fingers in your ears.

Starting with real data and working towards a conclusion based on that is more rewarding, but a lot harder, which is why some people don't like doing it.

For example: If a typical electric vehicle holds x Joules, with a generation-to-storage-to-use efficiency of y, and you need z left over to get to work in the morning; and if the US uses a Joules per day, with an hour-by hour profile of b, and has c renewable baseload from hydro and geothermal; then you'd need n vehicles for V2G to power the grid over a windless night.

If you fancy a challenge, calculate n. Bonus points for calculating the cost: The raw data are available via google...

[Finishline42]

6. How many utility scale windmills = one nuke plant?

The US is installing 2.5 and 3Mwh large scale windmills by the thousands yearly without any real support by the Bush admin. How many could we install if we were serious about it?

Nuclear = clean? How about the large amount of ore needed to be mined to get to the fuel stage - how about the amount of electricity needed to refine the ore?

Uranium is just another commodity that the Hedge Fund managers would be able to speculate on. First they would buy up the mining companies, merge them to reduce competition, then reduce the amount available to the market to drive prices up. This would happen after the world commits in a major way to nuclear energy as the 'savior'.

[NNadir]

8. A wind plant can never do what a nuclear plant can do - at least without fanciful

make believe stuff involving batteries or other storage devices.

It has been reported in the scientific literature, by Denholm, in Environ. Sci. Tech (I don't have the reference handy but can get it) that the attempt to store wind energy besides its economic expense, makes it about 5 - 10 times worse than nuclear power in terms of external costs (the storage system evaluated in this paper was CAES - compressed air) - batteries are even worse.

The idea that wind power matches nuclear in terms of safety, cost, reliability or any other criteria is ridiculous and is entirely a product of lazy thinking, wishful thinking, and complete fantasy.

There is no "rush" into nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a mature industry that has producing energy on an exajoule scale for decades. It is the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free primary energy.

Nothing else is even close.

[kristopher]

13. There is nothing fanciful about V2G or electric vehicles.

"Emissions and Energy Efficiency Assessment of Baseload Wind Energy System" by Paul Denholm, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 1903-1911

Your citation of Denholm is a hoot. It is a study of the feasibility of using wind and CAES as a baseload system and the effect of that use on the overall potential of wind as a part of our energy mix. In the past estimates of an upper limit for wind have ranged from 10-20% penetration due to its intermittent nature. Denhom states "The creation of baseload wind energy systems using wind generation and storage can increase the economic penetration of wind energy far beyond the 10-20% levels commonly quoted (2). In addition, baseload wind energy systems are easily integrated into power systems with limited operational flexibility, such as those that lack a significant amount of fast-responding gas and hydroelectric generation. These types of power systems are common in the midwestern United States, an area with excellent wind resources."

What Denholm says about nuclear in that article is this: "Nuclear plants produce radioactive waste products and present risk of accidents and weapons proliferation. These concerns have caused many to seek alternative power sources that can provide the same capacity factor, output stability, and reliability of conventional baseload plants.
and
Figure 9 provides the range of greenhouse gas emission rates for the six evaluated cases. Operating at a capacity factor between 70 and 90%, the evaluated cases produce a net GHG emission rate of 66- 104 g CO2 eq/kWh. This rate is higher than the life-cycle emission rate of wind energy without storage or nuclear generated electricity but is substantially lower than any fossil technology. The GHG emission rate from a baseload wind plant is about 10% that of typical coal plants, which provide a large fraction of the baseload electricity in the upper midwestern United States (16).

While it is true that the paper reports wind with CAES emits more CO2 than nuclear it is good to look at the entire picture:
The typical coal plant in the US produces 900-1100g CO2eq/Kwh
A highly efficient combined cycle natgas plant produces 400-500g CO2eq/Kwh
Nuclear fission yields 10-25g CO2eq/Kwh
Wind with 50 hours of storage offers 67-104g CO2eq/Kwh
And wind with no storage comes in at 5-25g CO2eq/Kwh

As the penetration of wind increases, it will supplant both coal and natural gas production depending on the specifics of the demand and energy mix. So some, but not all, wind will be used in conjunction with CAES. This means that the overall performance of wind relative to CO2 emissions is going to be somewhere between the values for wind with no storage and wind with storage. In both cases the improvement over conventional fossil fuels is dramatic and comes without the negative externalities of nuclear.

A line at the very end of the paper is worth noting: "Biofuels are another alternative to natural gas for the CAES system, if CAES remains economically superior to advanced batteries or other forms of electrical energy storage."

[NNadir]

21. Oh goodie. You went to a library.

Your choice to ignor the operative words are typical.

First of all you treat, as always, the word "could" as the equivalent of the word "is."

There are ZERO CAES wind storage plants on an exajoule scale. None are planned. Thus it is clear that your (and to a lesser extent Denholm's) evocation is nothing more that talk.

Wind has not made a 2% penetration anywhere on the planet and the number of wind based economies on the surface of the planet is ZERO.

Finally, I note, with due contempt that you have explicitly chosen to arbitrarily interpret - in a self serving and morally bankrupt way - the meaning of the word "waste."

Like all dangerous fossil fuel apologists, you ignore the explicitly the difference between 67-104 and 10 to 25, when in the theoretical case, some one tries to force a wind plant to do what a nuclear plant does better. Actually this has not been accomplished on an illustrative and meaningful scale anywhere. You have arbitrarily decided that it is better to release between 42 (in the best case) and 94 grams of dangerous fossil fuel per kwh of electricity because you can't think, and because you couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste.

I disagree with you.

All anti-nukes favor the continued use of dangerous fossil fuels. There are no exceptions. All anti-nuke seek to minimize the impact of dangerous fossil fuel waste and to act as if their distribution is some kind of issue for the future, rather than an on going catastrophe.

Your post is nothing more than a "QED" for these propositions.

The bottom line, is that, not only can't you read, but you couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste, which I have asserted repeatedly and which you prove every time you open your mouth. I note with contempt, that in your attempt to mislead, you have deliberately avoided the portion of this paper that indicates that it depends upon access to dangerous natural gas.

Personally I regard Denholm as being far more informed than you are, far less immoral, and far more insightful, and less dishonest - which is one reason I cite him, although he is not the last word. I use his paper because he is a wind advocate and he, unlike you, is apparently an honest man.

His language refers to "concerns" - meaning "perception." Neither you nor he can produce a single case of a single person who has been injured by the storage of used nuclear fuel - which you call in your ignorant rhetoric "nuclear waste." Your "concerns" about probabilistic events is not quite the equivalent of addressing events that are occurring now. People will die in the next ten minutes from dangerous fossil fuel waste. That is a certainty. The fact that public ignorance focuses on what could happen rather than what is happening is the precise reason why I fight the ignorance that you and others offer.

Have a nice day, gas bag.

[jpak]

27. "Wind has not made a 2% penetration anywhere on the planet" - LOLOLOLOL!!

Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Spain...

gas bag indeed

[oldhippie]

28. V2G is not a current technology .........

It is a concept that has yet to be proven or commercialized at even a small pilot scale. It sounds good in concept, but I can see a number of practical limitations. True, limitations can be overcome, but it takes time, money, and engineering. I'm all for it, but we're a lot of years away from any practical regional or national scale V2G.

We still don't have a good, current technology for nighttime energy storage at the scale required.

[kristopher]

38. That isn't exactly true.

As a means of large scale storage you are absolutely correct, we are years and many obstacles away from that reality. But there are great benefits that flow to the utilities at even very low V2G penetration. That is one of the reasons I'm so confident the technology will eventually prevail; it is a money machine right out of the starting gate.

[oldhippie]

39. Agree that there are great benefits ...............

..... but that still doesn't make it real. It's still a concept that needs to be proven commercially viable, even at a small scale. I want to see it, but it ain't there yet, and I don't think it will be for at least 5-10 years.

[kristopher]

46. A lot closer than you think

Electric car system planned in Denmark by 2011 using surplus wind power

Published: March 27, 2008

COPENHAGEN, Denmark: Denmark's DONG Energy A/S and a Silicon Valley-based startup firm on Thursday said they would install an electric car network in the Scandinavian nation with some 20,000 recharging stations. The grid, which is set to be in place by 2011, will be operated by Project Better Place, an initiative by Israeli-American entrepreneur Shai Agassi, using excess power from DONG Energy's wind turbines.

A similar network is being built in Israel.

A fleet of battery-driven electrical vehicles will be introduced in Denmark after the recharging stations are built at parking lots and outside homes, Agassi said. French car maker Renault will provide the vehicles and Japan's Nissan will make the lithium-ion batteries under a partnership with Project Better Place announced earlier this year. Agassi said other car makers and battery producers would join the project later. The battery would allow a car to drive a maximum of 150 kilometers (90 miles) before recharging, he said, adding that he expects the network to expand to other European countries soon.

"We're in discussion with 30 countries — Europe, America and Asian nations," he told The Associated Press after a news conference in Copenhagen. When Israel's network was endorsed by the government there in January, supporters hailed it as a bold step in the battle against global warming and energy dependency, but skeptics warned that much could still go wrong along the way.

DONG Energy chief executive Anders Eldrup told reporters that the grid would run on excess energy that its wind turbines generate on windy days. Windmills make up around 20 percent of Denmark's electricity production.

"The extra energy we have, we can use in an intelligent way by putting it in batteries," Eldrup told reporters.

However, on days with no wind the grid would need to use energy from DONG's coal-fired plants, he said, adding that it would still be more environmentally friendly than having cars running on gasoline. "The cars' CO2 emission would still be half of what it is today with fossil fuels," Eldrup said. >this refers to the period during coal plant operation only - K<

DONG Energy operates some of the thousands of windmills that dot Denmark, a country of 5.4 million. The small Scandinavian nation began a national windmill program in 1979 under pressure from grass roots organizations demanding new sources of electricity that have less impact on the environment than conventional plants.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/27/business/EU-FIN-Denmark-Electric-Cars.php

[Dead_Parrot]

47. Ahh, yes, that's vehicle to grid alright.

Oh, wait, no it's not. You got it completely arse-wards, in fact.

Just so you are clear on this, "Vehicle to grid" means that energy in a vehicle is fed in to the electric grid.

Stop me if I'm going to fast.

It does not mean filling up your car from a coal-fired plant.

What Denmark are actually doing to keep the lights on is http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/News/Newsarticles/PGNiG+SA+GAZSYSTEM+SA+and+Energinetdk+sign+cooperation+agreement+to+build+a+pipeline+from+Poland+to.htm">putting in some nice new gas pipelines. "When the Danish gas production in the North Sea starts to decline after 2010, it will be necessary to expand the gas infrastructure to provide access to new gas reserves" comments Peter Jørgensen, Vice President of Planning, Energinet.dk who evidently hasn't swallowed the happy pills yet.

Incidentally, your comment "this refers to the period during coal plant operation only" implies that coal plants can be switched on and off depending on whether or not the wind's blowing. This does not actually happen, anywhere, ever.

[kristopher]

48. I can see where you are coming from

But in fact, a large part of the cost structure of these programs is paid for by the provision of the extremely high cost regulation power from the vehicles. It may not be a part of the public discussion, but it is definitely a part of the economic strategy. Sometimes you'll find the keywords "smart grid".

http://www.projectbetterplace.com/faq
How will the subscription-based model work?

Similar to cellular phone companies, Project Better Place will offer consumers several subscription-based ownership models.

Through these subscription models, vehicle owners will be linked into a nationwide network of charge spots and exchange stations. When a consumer parks his or her car, the network synchronizes the car with the smart electric grid to recharge the battery. When a driver travels long-distance, he or she can swap batteries at an exchange station to get a fully charged battery, similar to how we now stop to fill our gas tanks today.

To match multiple customer segments, Project Better Place will offer several car models and subscription pricing packages that will reduce total cost of ownership and subsidize the car as part of this package.

[Dead_Parrot]

49. Err, no.

I'm coming from the place where vehicles power the grid.

Smart grids are going to be necessary (even if a lot of DUer's seem to think it's actually Dick Cheney's wet dream) but you're still missing the bit where the power is stored in the vehicle and returned to the grid.

[kristopher]

50. Poor feller...

Note the part about "subsidies" at the company FAQ. That is the option to participate in power sell-back for regulation. In the US it is worth about $2-4K/year/car. It has always been envisioned as an optional program that is used to "subsidize" the purchase/lease of an EV while allowing the utility to avoid the capital costs associated with building infrastructure to provide regulation power or purchasing regulation power on the market.

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Err, still no

I see the bit where they subsidise your car if you become a charging station, but I'm not seeing anything about powering any part of the grid from the cars.

Maybe I've got the wrong glasses on, try a direct quote.

[kristopher]

63. There is no reason it would be explicitly stated.

But I'll tell you what. I'll send them an email and ask. It may take them a couple of days to respond, but I'll post it when they do.
Fair enough?

[Dead_Parrot]

64. I would have though it would be quite a coup, but

go for it.

[kristopher]

65. It's geek talk

Very few people outside the utility industry know anything about it. For example, I lurked around here for quite a while and never saw mention of it before I brought it up and explained it. It could be that I missed someone else discussing it, but I don't really think so. The only reason I know of it is that a guy from our local university is the person who developed the concept and I've heard him speak about it.

Anyway, this is the email I sent:
"I've been following your recent developments with great interest and I was hoping you could clarify a point for me. You speak of using smart grid technology and also of subsidies being available to help with the costs of the automobiles.
Is this expected to be an application of vehicle to grid technology? Is the subsidy a return for providing ancillary services to the grid in support of wind?
Thanks in advance,
K"

They warn of a long wait:
Thank you for your interest in Project Better Place. We value your
ideas and support. Due to the high volume of inquiries, we ask for your
patience in our response. Please continue to check back to www.projectbetterplace.com for regular updates.

The Project Better Place Team

Will post again when they reply.

[Dead_Parrot]

66. Seems to a phase-2-ish plan, sort of

After some poking around:

... Taking the concept one step further, the cars and batteries can even feed back electricity to the grid (in a process called V2G - vehicle to grid) used in cases of emergency thus flattening the demand curve without the need to build new generation capacity used for the rare 30 hour of peak demand witnessed by utilities every year.

from http://www.projectbetterplace.com/files/Project%20Better%20Place%20White%20Paper%20The%20Future%20of%20Transportation_FINAL.pdf

Although the "in cases of emergency" bit doesn't sound like a plan for running the grid on a nightly basis just yet. We'll see what they say.

Interesting site, BTW - hope it takes off, we need something like this, V2G or not.

[kristopher]

71. That sounds familiar...

Do you recall my exchange with old hippie elsewhere on this thread?

Do the rough numbers using 100 million vehicles that have a 10kWh reserve available to be sold back to the grid (there are 250million cars in the US). Then recall that this could be backing up a grid with multiple sources of reliable renewables like wave and geothermal. Also, as the costs of batteries is brought down and their storage capability goes up as much as 10X (neither option is more than 10 years out), then it will probably start making sense to use the same battery packs in the home as a buffer and backup; further leveling out the fluctuations in demand and supply.

Two key elements have held back the progress of renewables.
Affordable large scale storage and a grid where supply/demand can be micromanaged. Both of those obstacles have been technologically overcome; all that really remains is to deploy the elements of the system.

Another thing to think about:

Electricity is a "black box" commodity, consumers don't really see anything related to the system beyond the switch on the wall. When produced by a commercial enterprise at a central location it is automatically a part of a system designed to encourage the individual to use ever larger amounts of the commodity. Nuclear perpetuates that model.

there are several aspects to the grid I'm describing that work to reverse that effect: instant locational pricing of electricity for example brings the reality of system demands home to the consumer. Producing for a part of their own load with a few panels works with the pricing to enhance that effect. It is reported that people living in sight of wind turbines become much more aware of energy consumption, especially when they see the turbines stop.
That kind of awareness is important if we are going to really change the fundamentals of our lifestyles.

[Dead_Parrot]

93. I haven't been through that subthread...

...but the numbers you give here sound ball park accurate. Trouble is, they only add up to around 1TWh or storage (ignoring losses): The US curently uses around 27TWh per night (based CA ISO's grid profile and a 2002 study by Lawrence Livermore, and excluding wasted energy from IC engines) so you've only actually made a small dent it. About 28 minutes worth, if you completely drain the batteries.

Unlike the world's supply of lithium, where you've just eaten the next 10 years worth (assuming additional planned production comes on line OK and people still get buy laptops, etc.) Up the battery size by x10, and we can get the gars out at a whopping million or so cars per year, and wrap up the roll-out in 2108 providing nobody has crashed and the batteries last 100 years.

Not quite sure what that will do the price, but I don't think dropping by 90% is in the immediate pipeline.

Fun facts about Lithium from here, BTW.

Now, I'm happy to admit that there are huge improvements being made in Li-ion technology, and this is all very back-of-envelope stuff, but I can see 3 orders of magnitude missing from here: Probably 4 if you add up the extra bits.

[kristopher]

100. That's a 10X increase in storage capacity by weight

I would also need to know more about the nature of your 27TWh to comment on it. I presume it is end user, so if it isn't it could be the same inefficiency problem as ICE one you addressed. Distribution of the load is also important though extremely hard to look at easily.

Then there is this part that you overlooked: "...recall that this could be backing up a grid with multiple sources of reliable renewables like wave and geothermal."

To which I'd add (just to go completely green) biofueled CAES turbine power plants.

Last, your thought that all wind might stop everywhere in the US simultaneously should be examined and I know of people right now working on the problem. However it isn't in the context of "will this be an obstacle that can't be overcome?" It is more along the lines of "which areas should be interconnected by transmission, in order to minimize large swings in generation due to correlated winds?".

So if we narrow the window of concern to wind failure that occurs only at night (bearing in mind the US spans 4 time zones), and when looked at as part of a total system, there is considerable cause for optimism.


They are working on manufacturing technologies for these and estimates I've heard say it is doable but will take about 8 years. The actual performance is about an 8X increase in storage over current tech.:

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n1/full/nnano.2007.411.html

High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires

Candace K. Chan1, Hailin Peng2, Gao Liu3, Kevin McIlwrath4, Xiao Feng Zhang4, Robert A. Huggins2 & Yi Cui2
Abstract

There is great interest in developing rechargeable lithium batteries with higher energy capacity and longer cycle life for applications in portable electronic devices, electric vehicles and implantable medical devices1. Silicon is an attractive anode material for lithium batteries because it has a low discharge potential and the highest known theoretical charge capacity (4,200 mAh g-1; ref. 2). Although this is more than ten times higher than existing graphite anodes and much larger than various nitride and oxide materials3, 4, silicon anodes have limited applications5 because silicon's volume changes by 400% upon insertion and extraction of lithium which results in pulverization and capacity fading2. Here, we show that silicon nanowire battery electrodes circumvent these issues as they can accommodate large strain without pulverization, provide good electronic contact and conduction, and display short lithium insertion distances. We achieved the theoretical charge capacity for silicon anodes and maintained a discharge capacity close to 75% of this maximum, with little fading during cycling.

[kristopher]

104. Re lithium availability

I have heard nothing of a constraint due to lithium availability, so I had to look into it. The paper you provided seems to be raising doubts that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Lithium in Abundance
By Bill Moore

R. Keith Evans sets the record straight on how much lithium there is in the world.


delicious | digg | newsvine | technorati

Atacama high desert dry lakes are rich source of lithium carbonate
PHOTO CAPTION: Chile's Atacama desert currently produces the largest market share of the world's lithium carbonate, which are processed into the lithium used to make advanced batteries, as well as other products including medicine. The brine lakes of this remote desert region are the lithium equivalent to the Ghawar oil fields in Saudi Arabia.
Open Access Article Originally Published: April 15, 2008

In R. Keith Evans view William Tahil should stick to talking about automotive batteries and leave the forecasting of lithium reserves to him.

It was in early 2007 that I interviewed Tahil from his base of operations in France about his white paper forecasting a future shortage of lithium and the potential consequences of having just a few nations (Chile, Bolivia, Argentina and China) controlling most of the production. I titled that two-part article Peak Lithium?.

That interview elicited more requests for reprints than any we've ever published. And according to Evans -- who is Welsh -- Tahil's conclusions also caused consternation in the automotive and advanced battery industries.

I got a tip off of that concern when A123 Technologies' Ric Fulop pulled me aside during a dinner reception at last year's EVS23 in Anaheim and suggested I should look into the question further. He had and came to the conclusion that there was plenty of lithium available, more than enough to meet the needs of all the electric cars the planet could afford to build.

It was Evans' son Jonathan who recently alerted me that his father, a respected geologist who has been tracking professionally the lithium industry since the 1970s had posted a paper contradicting Tahil's reserve estimates. In a private telephone conversation with the elder Evans, I learned that it was Tahil's original paper that spurred him to offer his own educated assessment of global lithium reserves. ...
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1434

There is a link to the original paper by Evans in the EVWorld article.

From the end of the Evans paper:
VI RESERVE AND RESOURCE SUMMARY


In the National Research Council report the authors adopted their own definitions of reserves and resources
ranging from reserves proven by systematic exploration to resources where economic lithium extraction
was probably dependent upon the marketing of co-products or the development of new technologies.

Stricter classifications require that the term ‘reserves’ apply only to material that can be economically
produced at the time of determination. The term also implies that the material can be extracted with
existing technology at a specific price-usually the prevailing market price.

Neither technologies nor prices are ‘fixed’ and this report is written at a time when a major increase in
demand seems a strong possibility.

Potential large scale consumers need to know what could be available over a long period whether a
particular source is fully proven or not.

The report lists a total of 28.5 million tonnes of lithium, equivalent to nearly 150.0 million tonnes of
lithium carbonate – equal to 1775 years of supply at the current rate of demand (approximately 16,000 tpa
Li).

Lithium in pegmatites, continental brines, geothermal brines, oilfield brines and hectorites total 7.6 million,
17.7 million, 0.3 million, 0.75 million and 2.0 million tonnes respectively.

Lithium at current or planned pegmatite operations, assuming that 60% of the Chinese pegmatites are
active, totals 840,000 tonnes and at active or proposed brine operation totals 12.25 million tonnes.




12.





TABLE I PEGMATITES


Pegmatites: Tonnes Li


North Carolina Former operations 230,000
North Carolina Undeveloped 2,600,000 *

Barraute, Quebec 90,000
Bernic Lake, Manitoba 18,600
Others, Canada 147,000

Bikita, Zimbabwe 56,700 *
Manono, Zaire 2,300,000 *


Greenbushes, Western Australia 223,000
Mount Marion, Western Australia 19,800
Mount Catlin, Western Australia 20,000

Koralpa, Austria 100,000
Larritta, Finland 14,000
Various, Russia 1,000,000
Brazil, Minas Gerais & Ceara 85,000

China 750,000

* Tonnages in the 1976 report reduced by 25% for open pit and 50% for underground mining






TABLE II BRINES AND HECTORITE


Continental Brines:

Silver Peak, Nevada 40,000

Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia 5,500,000
Salar de Hombre Muerto, Argentina 850,000
Salar de Rincon, Argentina 1,860,000
Salar de Atacama, Chile 6,900,000

China & Tibet 2,600,000



13.

Geothermal Brines:


Brawley, Southern California 316,000



Oilfield Brines:


Smackover Formation USA 750,000



Hectorites:


McDermitt Caldera Oregon/Nevada 2,000,000



In the 1976 report the figures for pegmatite reserves and resources represented in situ tonnages reduced by
75% for open-pittable deposits and 50% for probably underground operations. The Panel estimated that
these deductions were sufficiently large to cover all mining, concentrating and chemical processing losses.
These sources are indicated by an asterisk in Table I.

In this paper all other tonnages are in situ tonnages.

For other pegmatites the deductions should be comparable but for brines the recoveries will vary
considerably. In the case of continental brines initially processed by solar concentration and involving
precipitation of salts such as sodium chloride and potassium chloride the initial ‘loss’ of brine entrained in
the precipitated salt is substantial. However, this is not a permanent loss. The chemistry and nature of the
precipitated salts varies with the brine feed so the losses will vary at different operations. At the Salar de
Hombre Muerto in Argentina there are no entrainment losses.

Losses associated with the potential recovery of lithium from geothermal and oilfield brines and from
hectorites are not known yet.

Regarding production costs, evidence indicates that those at the Salar de Atacama are the lowest and that
brines with a high magnesium content will incur higher costs. Pegmatites, based on the abandonment of
North Carolina are obviously a more expensive source but with lithium carbonate prices now double those
that were current when the North American producers moved south, Chinese producers may not have to
abandon their pegmatite sources as a result of being uneconomic. Two non-Chinese companies are
considering production from spodumene.

Costs from geothermal brines, oilfield brines and hectorities have not yet been determined.

The tonnages listed are large but they don’t represent the total lithium that may become available. Few, if
any, known pegmatites have been fully explored, more remain to be discovered. Only one oilfield brine is
included in the total, only one geothermal brine and only one hectorite deposit is included.

[Dead_Parrot]

105. I'm not talking about total reserves

I'm talking about annual production of 99.9% pure lithium, for which I've used a next-decade figure 3 times higher than the value quoted in your article.

[kristopher]

106. Where was it you posted that figure and where did you obtain it?

I'm talking about annual production of 99.9% pure lithium, for which I've used a next-decade figure 3 times higher than the value quoted in your article.

You're presenting a black box as if it were available for review. And you have also disregarded the !10X increase in storage by weight I brought to your attention.

In a separate paper Evans concludes that Tahil has an underlying purpose for writing the paper you quoted. Following that is a succinct MArch 2008 version of the resource summary in his paper and following *that* is a very clear statement in the paper's abstract that the shortage you are positing simply doesn't exist.

Now, perhaps the discussion is going astray in two areas - we started with a quick look at gross storage capability of 100M vehicles with 10Kwh reserve available to be sold. So there may be information on ramping up mining and production of Li that is relevant. But the raw resource shortage that Tahil is claiming.... well, there doesn't seem to be that kind of "shortage" at all.

You asserted a couple of numbers in the first response that I questioned the origin of, is there a reason you haven't offered it?
It would also be refreshing if you'd actually continue on a point until there is a resolution instead of jumping to off into a tangent. (System that can be built around battery storage shifted to a weakly supported claim that there is not enough lithium.)
YOu don't seem to be afflicted with ADD so I presume you are merely letting your attention wander a bit. Could we possibly get back to it while more information



Lithium Reserve Rebuttal
By Keith Evans

Keith Evans offers his response to the on-going debate on lithium availability

See Mr. Evan's previous position paper on lithium reserves entitled, Lithium in Abundance.

The recent announcement that the Bolivian Government is to finance a pilot plant at the Salar de Uyuni (I assume the sum of $5.7 million referred to is also to cover other evaluation aspects that are necessary in a Feasibility Study) moves the Uyuni reserves into the category of reserves at “active and proposed operations”. In addition, I have been reliably informed that I understated the reserve estimate for the Rockwood Holdings (formerly Foote) claims at the southern end of the Salar de Atacama by 100,000 tonnes Li (thus 600,000 versus 500,000 tonnes).

My revised figures, therefore, are 19.6 million tonnes at current and proposed operations in a total of 28.5 million tonnes Li.

Now I would like to comment on the observations of some of your correspondents. First, Sr. Zuleta who has developed a recent interest in lithium economics. .

He prefers figures developed by Don Garrett in his Handbook which are ‘rather more updated, detailed and documented’ and goes on to compare our respective tonnages for pegmatites and brines. My pegmatite figures are essentially the same as those in the 1976 National Research Council report except for those for China and Russia which was beyond the earlier report’s scope. The figures have not been seriously challenged in thirty years and are restated in the USGS Open File Report 80-1234. Many of the brine figures have become available only very recently - China, Tibet, Argentina and revised figures for Chile. Unfortunately, Dr. Garrett passed away in 2006 and the latest edition of his Handbook was published in early 2004 so any of his figures are hardly up to date.

Zuleta’s comments on Garrett’s greater number of references is because of the nature of his publication which was directed at earth scientists who would be interested, principally in the genesis and geological setting of individual occurrences. For those interested, a similar excellent report is included in the Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc’s “Industrial Minerals & Rocks” written by Dr Ihor Kunasz one of the authors of the 1976 NRC study. It, too, contains plenty of references but doesn’t get into reserves in any detail other than quoting the 1976 report. My report is limited, almost exclusively, to reserves and resources and is based on the NRC report, published papers, company news releases, company annual reports and personal communications with responsible qualified individuals.

As my report makes clear, it was written in response to irresponsible statements regarding lithium availability and was aimed at an audience of potential large scale users who, I assumed, would not be too interested in the detailed geology of individual occurrences.

One final point concerns Zuleta’s comment on the USGS estimate of current demand. If he looks at the figure more closely he will almost certainly find that it includes the tonnages of lithium contained in ores and ore concentrates sold to the glass and ceramic industries and thus nothing to do with chemical demand.

Regarding Dr. Tahil’ observations it is difficult to comment on such statements as “(the report) seems similar to OPEC’s actions in the later 1980’s” and “claiming millions of trillions of barrels of oil in oil shales and tar sands is irrelevant”. I agree that flow rate is of great importance and I am sure that dozens of supply/demand studies exist with varying conclusions. I am not qualified to comment particularly without having a clearer picture of Chinese production aspirations. However, his suggestion that the market is currently undersupplied doesn’t fit with comments in the latest Quarterly Report of SQM, the largest producer, where it states that lithium sales were down by 10% due largely to increasing Chinese production.

Other correspondents have, of course, made the point that existing motor vehicles are not all going to be abandoned overnight, that other battery systems will be developed and that the lithium content of lithium-ion varieties can be recycled. I wish Dr. Tahil more luck in pushing his zinc-air battery. If it is so attractive he should not have to expend so much time on attacking the issue of lithium availability.
http://www.evworld.com/syndicated/evworld_article_1472.cfm

***************************************************

RESERVE AND RESOURCE SUMMARY
Evans
http://www.worldlithium.com/Reserve___Resource_Summary.html



In the National Research Council report the authors adopted their own definitions of reserves and resources ranging from reserves proven by systematic exploration to resources where economic lithium extraction was probably dependent upon the marketing of co-products or the development of new technologies.


Stricter classifications require that the term ‘reserves’ apply only to material that can be economically produced at the time of determination. The term also implies that the material can be extracted with existing technology at a specific price-usually the prevailing market price.


Neither technologies nor prices are ‘fixed’ and this report is written at a time when a major increase in demand seems a strong possibility.


Potential large scale consumers need to know what could be available over a long period whether a particular source is fully proven or not.


The report lists a total of 28.5 million tonnes of lithium, equivalent to nearly 150.0 million tonnes of lithium carbonate – equal to 1775 years of supply at the current rate of demand (approximately 16,000 tpa Li).


Lithium in pegmatites, continental brines, geothermal brines, oilfield brines and hectorites total 7.6 million, 17.7 million, 0.3 million, 0.75 million and 2.0 million tonnes respectively.


Lithium at current or planned pegmatite operations, assuming that 60% of the Chinese pegmatites are active, totals 840,000 tonnes and at active or proposed brine operation totals 12.25 million tonnes.



**********************************************************************

Finally: http://www.worldlithium.com/Abstract.html


ABSTRACT


In 1976 a National Research Council Panel estimated that Western World lithium reserves and resources totaled 10.6 million tonnes as elemental lithium.


Subsequent discoveries, particularly in brines in the southern Andes and the plateaus of western China and Tibet have increased the tonnages significantly. Geothermal brines and lithium bearing clays add to the total.

This current estimate totals 28.4 million tonnes Li equivalent to more than 150.0 million tonnes of lithium carbonate of which nearly 14.0 million tonnes lithium (about 74.0 million tonnes of carbonate) are at active or proposed operations.

This can be compared with current demand for lithium chemicals which approximates to 84,000 tonnes as lithium carbonate equivalents (16,000 tonnes Li).

Concerns regarding lithium availability for hybrid or electric vehicle batteries or other foreseeable applications are unfounded.

[Dead_Parrot]

109. I've already linked to the source

It will be necessary go to back to post 93, click the link and actually read the paper, since it's clear you haven't bothered to do that yet. Endlessly blathering about the quantity of lithium on Earth isn't getting you anywhere.

Now, the other reply seems to have got lost somewhere so I'll repeat it here:

First of, that you can increase the effective area of the anode using nanotechnology does not make lithium ions magically carry more charge. Yes, you can make the cell smaller and/or lighter and/or higher capacity, and do the same with the cathode while you're at it, but nLi⁺+ne^-=nLi whichever way you slice it: A Li-ion cell will never get more than 520.2kJ/mol Li, or 20.82Wh out of a gram of lithium. Not without moving to a different universe, anyway.

Current battery tech. gets ~13Wh/g, so in theory there is scope for a 62% improvement - although I think entropy would argue with me on that point, maybe 50% if we're lucky.

Finally:
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/USEnFlow02-exaj.pdf gives you a breakdown of 2002 energy use, and the profile is from caiso.com's 24-hr chart (I figure the CA electrical grid is large enough to be representative). I have no idea why you think I would be quoting consumed energy ignoring losses, rather that produced energy including them, especially since storing the energy in 100,000,000 distributed battery packs in going to stick losses through the roof: I've actually given you a free ride by ignoring the extra losses so far but we can guesstimate them if you like. The same goes for distributed generation (along with the cost of the required overcapacity and extra grid infrastructure), but that's probably a different thread.

Finally, I had no idea anyone was planning a biofueled CAES. Link?

[kristopher]

112. You're right

I hadn't read the 58 page paper you provided - I only read the beginning and the end. Before investing that amount of time in non-peer reviewed, gray literature, I make it a habit to check who is producing it and why. Other than their bio, I found very little. When I found the paper from Evans, and considering that this is a subject I've heard addressed many times before under the general heading of 'possible constraints' (it wasn't considered to be one) I disregarded the paper. I still do.
It must be asked what is the motive for MIR in the writing of it? It simply isn't possible to take at face value organizations like "Meridian International Research" since there is no information available as to who they are nor what their sources of funding are.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/EVRsrch.htm#ZnAirSoln

Now, at your request, I've scanned the paper full paper and read the section on production and market factors. I find the information contained in their paper to be presented in a manner that agues a point of view; it does not a limit itself to a factual assessment of resource availability. The inclusion of environmental judgments about the possible effects of mining, along with "pristine nature" type photography is a deliberate mechanism that has only one function - to create in the readers mind a negative association with the subject of the paper. I also note that the paper uses argument by implication far too much. For example, in the brief discussion on recycling, it notes a decline in recycling of batteries in 2006. Not a false claim. I'm sure, but it is clearly spin designed to undermine the idea that recycling is a factor to be considered.

Conversely, you find no such visual emotionalism nor worry about the effects of mining in the alternative technology the group goes to great lengths to endorse. However, even this paper is largely focused around an argument against lithium; apparently that is their preferred method of promoting the use of a (their?) competing technology.

If there were other, peer reviewed or technical industry assessments supporting the conclusions offered by Meridian, that would be one thing. But there aren't. It is a stand alone piece that contradicts the conclusions of many people who have asked the same question. That puts it in the category of an extraordinary claim. Far from meeting the burden of providing extraordinary evidence to suppor their extraordinary claim, the paper relies on slick packaging and logical fallacies (such as using a rate of increase in production driven by past demand to forecast the rate of increase in production to meet future demand) to promote an obvious agenda.


Now, as to your claims about increases in storage by weight. I'm neither a chemist nor an electrical engineer, so I'll accept your description of the overall capability of Li for the sake of the discussion. However, the conclusion you've arrived at - that only a 62% increase over present technology - is directly contradicted by the article in the peer reviewed journal Nature. "High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires

Candace K. Chan1, Hailin Peng2, Gao Liu3, Kevin McIlwrath4, Xiao Feng Zhang4, Robert A. Huggins2 & Yi Cui2
Abstract

There is great interest in developing rechargeable lithium batteries with higher energy capacity and longer cycle life for applications in portable electronic devices, electric vehicles and implantable medical devices1. Silicon is an attractive anode material for lithium batteries because it has a low discharge potential and the highest known theoretical charge capacity (4,200 mAh g-1; ref. 2). Although this is more than ten times higher than existing graphite anodes and much larger than various nitride and oxide materials3, 4, silicon anodes have limited applications5 because silicon's volume changes by 400% upon insertion and extraction of lithium which results in pulverization and capacity fading2. Here, we show that silicon nanowire battery electrodes circumvent these issues as they can accommodate large strain without pulverization, provide good electronic contact and conduction, and display short lithium insertion distances. We achieved the theoretical charge capacity for silicon anodes and maintained a discharge capacity close to 75% of this maximum, with little fading during cycling."

This has been confirmed to my satisfaction by discussions with an academic expert (no agenda) on electric drive technology who says the technology provides an approximate 8X increase by weight over the current lithium battery packs.

You say you have no idea why I would think you "would be quoting consumed energy ignoring losses, rather that produced energy including them". The answer is that your writing is piss poor. You want to take the credit for an indepth analysis yet you show none of the work that supports such an analysis. Now I'm not saying that you need to write a dissertation, but to make your point it is helpful to show the back of the envelop numbers and the specific sources of those numbers.

It has been my experience that when someone argues like you have been doing in this thread it is because they really don't know if they are correct or not, so they try the "baffle them with bullshit" tactic.

CAES is CAES is CAES is CAES. It is a natural gas style turbine that can work as easily work with biofuels. No one is "planning" one, but that is a result of economic not technical factors.


Added on edit: Your source for the lithium constraint information, Meridian International Research, also endorses the use of battery electric in a big way; they just want it to be THEIR battery.

[Dead_Parrot]

113. Right, so

we've gone from "no one has yet brought an error to my attention" to "I don't like those photographs and skipped high school chemistry"

Goodbye, troll.

[kristopher]

114. I didn't think you could support your statement vs the journal Nature.

Petulance becomes you...

I hadn't read the 58 page paper you provided - I only read the beginning and the end. Before investing that amount of time in non-peer reviewed, gray literature, I make it a habit to check who is producing it and why. Other than their bio, I found very little. When I found the paper from Evans, and considering that this is a subject I've heard addressed many times before under the general heading of 'possible constraints' (it wasn't considered to be one) I disregarded the paper. I still do.
It must be asked what is the motive for MIR in the writing of it? It simply isn't possible to take at face value organizations like "Meridian International Research" since there is no information available as to who they are nor what their sources of funding are.

http://www.meridian-int-res.com/Projects/EVRsrch.htm#Zn...

Now, at your request, I've scanned the paper full paper and read the section on production and market factors. I find the information contained in their paper to be presented in a manner that agues a point of view; it does not a limit itself to a factual assessment of resource availability. The inclusion of environmental judgments about the possible effects of mining, along with "pristine nature" type photography is a deliberate mechanism that has only one function - to create in the readers mind a negative association with the subject of the paper. I also note that the paper uses argument by implication far too much. For example, in the brief discussion on recycling, it notes a decline in recycling of batteries in 2006. Not a false claim. I'm sure, but it is clearly spin designed to undermine the idea that recycling is a factor to be considered.

Conversely, you find no such visual emotionalism nor worry about the effects of mining in the alternative technology the group goes to great lengths to endorse. However, even this paper is largely focused around an argument against lithium; apparently that is their preferred method of promoting the use of a (their?) competing technology.

If there were other, peer reviewed or technical industry assessments supporting the conclusions offered by Meridian, that would be one thing. But there aren't. It is a stand alone piece that contradicts the conclusions of many people who have asked the same question. That puts it in the category of an extraordinary claim. Far from meeting the burden of providing extraordinary evidence to suppor their extraordinary claim, the paper relies on slick packaging and logical fallacies (such as using a rate of increase in production driven by past demand to forecast the rate of increase in production to meet future demand) to promote an obvious agenda.


Now, as to your claims about increases in storage by weight. I'm neither a chemist nor an electrical engineer, so I'll accept your description of the overall capability of Li for the sake of the discussion. However, the conclusion you've arrived at - that only a 62% increase over present technology - is directly contradicted by the article in the peer reviewed journal Nature. "High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires

Candace K. Chan1, Hailin Peng2, Gao Liu3, Kevin McIlwrath4, Xiao Feng Zhang4, Robert A. Huggins2 & Yi Cui2
Abstract

There is great interest in developing rechargeable lithium batteries with higher energy capacity and longer cycle life for applications in portable electronic devices, electric vehicles and implantable medical devices1. Silicon is an attractive anode material for lithium batteries because it has a low discharge potential and the highest known theoretical charge capacity (4,200 mAh g-1; ref. 2). Although this is more than ten times higher than existing graphite anodes and much larger than various nitride and oxide materials3, 4, silicon anodes have limited applications5 because silicon's volume changes by 400% upon insertion and extraction of lithium which results in pulverization and capacity fading2. Here, we show that silicon nanowire battery electrodes circumvent these issues as they can accommodate large strain without pulverization, provide good electronic contact and conduction, and display short lithium insertion distances. We achieved the theoretical charge capacity for silicon anodes and maintained a discharge capacity close to 75% of this maximum, with little fading during cycling."

This has been confirmed to my satisfaction by discussions with an academic expert (no agenda) on electric drive technology who says the technology provides an approximate 8X increase by weight over the current lithium battery packs.

You say you have no idea why I would think you "would be quoting consumed energy ignoring losses, rather that produced energy including them". The answer is that your writing is piss poor. You want to take the credit for an indepth analysis yet you show none of the work that supports such an analysis. Now I'm not saying that you need to write a dissertation, but to make your point it is helpful to show the back of the envelop numbers and the specific sources of those numbers.

It has been my experience that when someone argues like you have been doing in this thread it is because they really don't know if they are correct or not, so they try the "baffle them with bullshit" tactic.

CAES is CAES is CAES is CAES. It is a natural gas style turbine that can work as easily work with biofuels. No one is "planning" one, but that is a result of economic not technical factors.

[Nihil]

115. Hmmm ...

> It has been my experience that when someone argues like you have been
> doing in this thread it is because they really don't know if they are
> correct or not, so they try the "baffle them with bullshit" tactic.

... now where have I encountered that tactic before ... :think:

[Nihil]

55. Eat! Eat damn you!

> Stop me if I'm going to fast.

That was just in case you were thinking of it! :hi:

On the main subject, I believe that dyslexia comes into it and that
most people using that acronym *really* mean G2V ...
:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

57. Beats me

:shrug:
I thought V2G was a nice simple concept. Well, apart from being complete bollocks in reality - flick up to post #22 and feed the beast some numbers...

[Kolesar]

9. Electricity can also be generated with waste heat from industrial processes

Another way to look at it is that buildings can be heated and industrial processes can be run with "waste heat and energy" from on-site electrical generation. It is called "combined heat and power". There is another source to add to photovoltaics and wind.

For that matter, architects can design buildings of all sorts with heat and electricity demands that are less than half of what current buildings use. Makes a good reason for new development.

[PATRICK]

10. We may need anything

we can get our hands on but what is leading this rush is still Bush type cabal of corporate geopolitical crap for ends far other than solving the problem. Where the plants go is critical if they are sops to governments wanting nuclear prestige and possible gateways to prestigious weaponry. Who is making the plants is critical and best technology like the best flak jackets may be kept on the shelf. There are as many issues as there is storied waste and corruption.

The simple point that we need to replace oil has us scrambling destructively for corn we need to eat and nuclear blowback we need to avoid. it will get much worse especially with the current state of world leadership and corporate skewed judgment and denigrated, divided science.

[Nederland]

25. We need to pursue all options

We should be investing in all carbon free sources of energy, not just the ones that proponents of particular technologies are pushing. Nobody is ever right about everything, and we simply can't afford to put all our eggs in one basket on the assumption that one group's analysis of the problem is correct. We should be trying everything we can, keep what works, and throw out what doesn't. It's like FDR said: "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will."

[AdHocSolver]

43. Nuclear power is a bad way to go because it leaves us dependent on the "energy" companies.

The nuclear plants require lots of water to cool them so that they won't melt down. They are built next to lakes or rivers and they damage the environment by raising the water temperature to levels where it endangers aquatic life.

You all approach the problem from the wrong angle. The first thing to consider is how much energy production is wasted due to inefficiencies. The internal combustion (IC) engine wastes as much as 70 percent of its fuel in the form of heat. The IC engine has to be operated at around 200 degrees F. and then most of that heat has to be extracted by the cooling system to prevent the engine from destroying itself.

Electric motors can run at around 80 percent efficiency. Electric vehicles would save enormous amounts of fuel.

Mass transit is another way to save lots of fuel. Instead of building more nuclear plants, how about using the billions of dollars to rebuild our mass transit systems. Then we wouldn't need any more nuclear plants, as energy wastage would drop tremendously.

Then there is the hype about fuel cells. In his book "The Hype About Hydrogen", Joseph J. Romm explains that the use of fuel cells to power vehicles is years away from commercial viability. On the other hand, stationary buildings could be powered by fuel cells economically.

The key to our energy problems is not to figure out how to sustain the energy wastage that exists today. Rather the key is how to re-engineer our environment to conserve energy so that we can sustain ourselves by intelligently using what we currently have.

[Dead_Parrot]

44. So, your solution is

to replace individual vehicles with mass transit, switch the engines to electric power, then shutdown the power production.

Interesting.

Out of interest, how long did you spend thinking about this?

[madokie]

53. So your solution is to shut down any discussion of anything energy

that isn't nuclear energy. Such shallow thinking is part of the problem, if in fact, its not most of it.

Out of interest, how long did you spend thinking about this? and this question is to encourage more dialog I suppose? Well, Of course not.

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Umm, no

If you want to pass judgment on my posts, at least do yourself a favour and read them first. Like http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=161089&mesg_id=161136">this one, for instance.

Otherwise, you'll just wind up looking a complete tit.

[madokie]

56. I like tits

big ones, small ones, in between ones, all of them. But in all seriousness I do read your posts and I came to my conclusions because of that which I have read.

[Dead_Parrot]

59. Me too, oddly enough...

Apologies for being overly rude and snarky, and fair enough if that's really how I come over - but what I'm actually for is getting the fuck off fossil fuels as fast as possible - using renewable energy where practicable, and nuclear where it isn't: I am fundamentally opposed to a) the continued use of shit like natural gas to fill in the gaps, and b) the sort of thinking that says if we do more research, a third alternative will turn up eventually. Yes, it would be nice, but we don't have time.

Unfortunately, there are some people who actually think that increased use of nuclear power is worse than the total destruction of the entire biosphere, and they tend to wind me up for some reason.

:hi:

[madokie]

60. I know that fossil fuels are killing us and have for many years

in fact I have lessened my carbon footprint starting with the purchase and use of wood pellets for heat starting in the winter of '91 - '92. the pellets are made from waste btw not ground up trees for the purpose of making them. We can get there where we both want to without poisoning the earth with radioactive waste. Once a solution is in place to deal with that nuclear waste I'll change my whole tune about nuclear energy. Because of my boldness, at the time, in buying a pellet stove back in the fall of '91 has encouraged several of our friend to follow suit. Our son and his family still have and use the first pellet stove we bought. Some of my friends thought I was nuts to spend 1200 bucks on a pellet stove when they hadn't even heard of them yet and I heard a lot of 1200 bucks will pay for a lot of propane or electric etc, our other options.

I've been concerned and doing something about my carbon footprint since long before it became popular to do so.

I will not sit by today and do nothing about the ideas of ramping up the use of nuclear energy until there is a viable solution to the waste problem. Its always been my concern and it remains my deepest worry. All the while this argument is going on there is more and more of it being made and yet all I hear is lies and out right bullshit. I don't come here trying to prove or pass off that I know anything about nuclear unlike some here do. You can trust me on this, I too get wound up a tad myself when it comes to being lied too and nuclear energy as it stands today is a lie.

[Dead_Parrot]

61. You personal footprint isn't the problem

Neither is mine. Nor, I suspect, is any of the E/E regulars. The problem is the large scale stuff that we tend to skip over.

Look, here's my usual example, and apologies if you've seen it before: In the town of Alloy, WV, is a silicon smelter. Given that most silicon now goes into PV production, you could (almost) call it a PV smelter. The beast is powered by coal - hundreds of rail trucks per day, enough to the power the city of Charleston, and it runs 24x7 because these things can't just be switched off - it takes at least a week to warm up the furnaces. Convince me it (or, if you prefer, Charleston) can by powered by renewables alone.

There are thousands of plants like this - not all silicon smelters, of course, but aluminium, copper and and steelworks, cement factories and a hundred other power applications : There's the national rail network that you haven't built yet, but damn well need to, the LA sewerage system, the NY subway, the telecomms system...

Convince me you could switch them to 100% renewable power using current technology, in a meaningful timeframe, and without breaking the bank and I'll happily say balls to nuclear power. We can roll out the magic mix to the other applications in the next 10 or 20 years and maybe save our arses.

Problem, is, no-one has managed to convince that it is vaugly do-able. We're still buring fossil fuels: Hell, the US has dozens of new coal plants in the pipeline, is digging new NG wells and gearing up for LNG terminals, and is looking at ANWR with malicious intent.

Meanwhile, the nuclear waste is just sitting around in storage being boring. A problem, yes, but not actually a very big one in comparison.

[madokie]

68. Personally I wish we could switch to a more efficient way of burning the coal

but when I mention that I get called all kinds of names, most of which supposedly is alluding to my stupidity or some such. I'm not the one who makes the decision and if I was we would begin and would have been using all along a gasifier rather than direct burning as a gasifier produces somewhere around half as much co2 to begin with. I don't like the idea of sequestration as I see it being promoted, tied to gasification if you will, to keep the fires burning for why not to use the gasifier technology not as a solution to the co2 problem. Sequestation has not been proven whereas the gasifier technology is tried and true. We can use the coal in a much better, for the environment, way but the questions about the sequestration keeps that buried.

Nuclear waste does not set around in storage doing nothing or being boring, its scary as hell. Just read about what low levels of radioactive DU is doing to the children being born in Iraq and especially in Fallujah and tell me that radioactive material is harmless. Read about the effects of radiation felt downwind from three mile island, or that other place, you know, chernobyl.

I don't believe in God and heaven and hell, so I don't have the luxury of believing in the long run it don't matter because Jesus is going to come and save us anyway. So I worry about the long term increased use of nuclear energy because of that very dangerous long time keeps on giving waste

The continued use of coal and nuclear at this point should be only to enable us to continue our ways as we increase our use of the other means of producing energy such as wind and solar. Heat from the earth is another option that I read very little of and we have much potential in that area and its relatively benign. Nuclear energy will never be the saviour that some thinks it will. imo

I worked for 12 years in a grey iron foundry converting it over to a process controller operation from relays and one of the changes we made allows the local coal power plant to control the minutes each hour that that foundry can use the furnaces. The foundry puts in a request for smelting and the coal plant turns the furnaces on when they can best produce the energy, this is all done on pretty much an hourly basis. At first the folks at the foundry worried if that would work but quickly found that it is not only possible but also saves the plant a substantial amount of money. It just goes to shoe that there are many different ways to look at the problems we have without jumping into the nuclear fires just yet. If and when its shown there is no other way then I will be ok with it, but not until.

[Dead_Parrot]

72. I find coal waste a hell of a lot more scary than nuclear waste...

...and I'm puzzled why you'd want to keep going when you've already said you know they are killing us, but maybe we'd best agree to disagree, for civility. :) I'm going to call it a night, but a couple of parting shots, if I may:

- Perhaps I should of said nuclear waste can sit around being boring. It's not the first time I've heard the 'nuclear power = weapons' line, and I doubt it will be the last, although I notice The Japanese seem to avoid glassing islands in the Pacific or pumping DU rounds into Fallujah, so I'd gently suggest it's possible to do without. Yes, it can used to kill, but as a species we seem to have a knack for doing that with anything. Ho hum.

- Again, I'm all for increasing the amount from wind and solar (PV irks me because it's a particularly nasty process to generate huge slabs of semiconductor, but solar thermal is nice) and also the amounts from hydro and geothermal - which I'd agree doesn't get the attention it deserves. I just can't see any way of getting all our power that way anytime soon.

- I'll stand corrected on ironworks. :)

[Fledermaus]

87. Where do you get the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight???

[kristopher]

90. That is the US national average as reported in NREL Report No. NREL/FS-520-24619 n/t

[Fledermaus]

91. Assuming no shading obstructions, for a flat surface facing what direction and at what angle?

Perhaps you should take a solar design class. You would probably enjoy it.

A good class will teach you how to build an accurate mathematical model. And if your smart you can make a mathematical model for Evacuated Heat Pipe collectors.

http://www.thermotechs.com/tec_index.htm





"Put that in you hat and smoke it!"

[kristopher]

92. Another jit wanting me to write what *he* feels should be written.

If you want to inform people of something different than showing there is more than ample space to place enough solar to make a difference, then by all means write it.

From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."


The conclusion stands - if we deploy an amount of solar panel equal to the approximate roofing area of the residential buildings in the US it would produce 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production - much more than required to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.


From the first line of the OP:
"I posted this in response to a piece endorsing nuclear energy because "where will we find the space for wind and solar?
This is a rough calculation and I welcome checks on my arithmetic; I did this quickly. The calculations are based on 8760 hours per year."

"we need to replace 2000 fossil-fuel power stations in the next 40 years, equivalent to a rate of one per week. Can we find 500 km2 each week to install 4000 windmills? Or perhaps we could cover 10 km2 of desert each week with solar panels and keep them clean?"

This was comment oft said by another poster as a prelude to endorsing nuclear power. I consider the question to be framed in a way prejudicial to understanding the issue. I also felt that the ubiquitous nature of siting opportunities and the actual manner of deployment would be more clearly conveyed by relating the area required to a familiar part of everyone's environment such as houses or telephone poles. I used coal as a convenient yardstick to give scale to the problem.

What I wasn't doing was trying to derive the amount of square footage of south facing roofs that would provide optimum, least installation costs platforms for solar.

If that is what you want, please do it yourself - I'd like to see the results.

[Fledermaus]

103. O, I see,...and homeowners, will they still be resposible for cleaning this array?

From your original post

As for finding the space for solar - why don't we start with roofs?
As of 2000 in the US residential sector alone there were about 83 million buildings with a combined square footage of roughly 170 billion square feet or 18 billion meters^2 or 1.8 billion km^2.

Using an average capacity factor of 14% against the average 1800Kwh/1m^2/year of sunlight gives us 252kWh/year/m^2.

18 billion meters X 252kWh = 4,536,000 Twh/year of actual production to replace the 2,698,080 TWh/year coal is presently generating.

And we can let the homeowners be responsible for cleaning them.

If they are not going to go on peoples roofs then where are they going to go?

[Fledermaus]

108. Any realistic assessment of renewable potentials leads to the same conclusion

We live a horribly piggish life style.

5% of the world population consuming 25% of the natural resources is unsustainable.

I make no moral judgments. Its just a fact.

[napoleon_in_rags]

116. I think the space argument is BS, but there are other potential arguments for nuclear.

The main one, is where is the materials going to come from for all the solar? I have been seeing things like this:
http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0806/ref.shtml
And realizing that peak oil isn't the only resource shortage we are contending with. Constuction cost, not current but TOTAL for these kinds of projects needs to be factored in.

I do agree with you that non-nuclear is the way to go, and there is a lot of interesting hope from things like the bio-fuels from algae, which I calculated to be competitive with solar for watts per acre without the construction costs. But I wonder if we shouldn't bundle these arguments with the fact that we need to find ways to use less energy, to be more efficient. At least, we need very structured arguments on resource costs and return for this sort of thing.

I commend your work here BTW, and I hope you keep it up. Its nice to see some scientific thinking here on DU.

[kristopher]

117. Perhaps a better source for this data would be NREL

The National Renewable Energy Lab is a part of DOE that focuses on issues like this related to renewable energy. I've stumbled across a couple of documents over the last few years that provide analysis of various possible constraints. Tellurium, of example, is a key element where the incident production from other processes has always been more than enough to fill our needs. So the analysis looked at the entire picture and concluded that yes, more would be needed, but that it would not be that difficult to get if demand justified the investments.

Going strictly by the fact that I think I would have heard if a material constraint were part of picture (such as platinum for fuel cells is) I don't have a great concern in this area. It isn't my specialty but it is the specific area of expertise of some of the people I frequently work with.

[napoleon_in_rags]

118. That's good info. I just think its an important thing to keep an eye on.

The cost of installing solar is still prohibitively high, but I believe with the will and resources it can be done cheaply. That's why I'm emphasizing watching the natural resources though. No amount of of R&D or scaled production would put more Tellurium in the ground if there were a shortage...

[kristopher]

119. You are absolutely correct.

Just be sure that the source of your information is valid. There are a lot of people with large financial interests at stake and they go to great lengths to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the minds of the public regarding valid alternatives that will cost them money.

For a good example of the lengths they will go to, go to the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists and search for "Smoke Mirrors & Hot Air", it is an enlightening 30 page read of the disinformation campaign run by Exxon Mobile against climate change science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/