Skip to main content

It's time for a quickie NNadir "Garbage Diary," a 15 minute special:

I'm sorting through some old papers I didn't get around to reading last year and I came across a swell "solar will save our car CULTure" paper about solar molten salts.

You know about solar thermal plants using molten salts, don't you?

In 1976 Amory Lovins predicted that lots and lots and lots and lots of people - many people would have solar powered molten salt tanks in their back yards "soon."    Amory went on to get rich and famous for this kind of stuff and got better at making money off it - predicting hydrogen HYPErcars would be in showrooms by 2005 - this in 2001.

Um, he doesn't make money I think by selling hydrogen HYPErcars here in 2009 but he does get a ton of money greenwashing Walmart and Shell Oil.

Whatever.   I am always interested in the chemistry molten salts, which must be why I picked up this 2008 paper in the journal Solar Energy this summer which is nominally about the use of solar energy for "The conversion of the high-temperature solar heat to hydrogen...

... (which) has the advantage of producing long-term storable and transportable clean energy carriers from solar energy."

"Clean" energy carriers.

Yeah right...

When you look at two of the biggest loudmouths about how solar and wind energy are going to save us, Amory Lovins and Gerhard Schroeder, you find that they are highly paid by dangerous gas companies to hype hydrogen.

In fact another such loudmouth - a wind power advocate - is none other than T. Boone Pickens, dangerous natural gas mogul.

Some time ago I came here to ridicule a paper about compressed air gas storage of wind energy by Paul Denholm in Environ. Sci. Tech where it turned out that the compressed air wind was simply designed to give an extra kick to um, dangerous natural gas.

Dangerous natural gas is widely advertised as a "clean fuel" although, if you must know, it is one of the most potent greenhouse gases known and when burned it produces dangerous fossil fuel waste - chiefly carbon dioxide - for which there is no permanent repository designed, planned, sited or under construction any where on this planet.

Dangerous natural gas waste is expected to be around for millions of years, and every year millions of people are killed by it.

In the same breath as they are sorting sweeping dangerous natural gas's enormous and intractable problems under the rugs, the "renewables will save us" crowd is trying to pretend that you can keep your stupid car with stuff like solar energy.

Yeah right.

When I criticize the waste profile of solar PV - which is nearly identical to the waste profile of other electronic waste - sometimes I hear about how wonderful solar thermal is, Lovins old "molten salt tank in every back yard" stuff.

Yeah right.

The paper I'm going to reference is:

Solar Energy Volume 82, Issue 12, December 2008, Pages 1145-1153


The paper is by Gakon et al and is called "High-temperature carbonate/MgO composite materials as thermal storage media for double-walled solar reformer tubes."

Some excerpts:

Modern solar concentrating systems of central-tower and dish-type can provide high-temperature solar thermal energy exceeding 800 C at levels up to a few tens of megawatts and a few hundreds of kilowatts, respectively (Johnston et al., 2003; Kalogirou, 2004; Mills, 2004), if the system is built in sun-belt regions. The conversion of the high-temperature solar heat to hydrogen has the advantage of producing long-term storable and transportable clean energy carriers from solar energy.

Wow that sounds great, doesn't it?

Yeah right.

Natural gas reforming is currently the most common
process for hydrogen production...The former two reactions of steam and CO2 reforming are highly endothermic and high-temperature processes, which make them a candidate for solar thermochemical hydrogen production. These endothermic reactions can upgrade the calorific value of methane feed, ideally by 22–28% using solar thermal energy if the process heat is provided by solar high-temperature heat. The solar processed syngas can be readily converted to hydrogen via the water–gas shift reaction.


The solar energy contributed to the hydrogen production is ideally 17%, based on the low heating value (LHV) of H2. From this point of view, the hydrogen production via solar reforming is a current important R&D task in the research field of ‘‘solar chemistry"

Say what?

"Solar will save us" advocates just love that "percent talk" when they talk about how we don't need nuclear energy because solar is so great.

So what's the bottom line here:   Lipstick on the dangerous natural gas pig.

You see the vast majority, 83% precisely, comes from an unacceptable dangerous fossil fuel, for which there is no known form of waste disposal of any kind.

I have, by the way, completed and need only one rewrite on my diary series on the Indian Fast Breeder Sodium Cooled nuclear reactor, part 5, but have not worked out the poll which may be about the wonderful biofuel that will save us, um, well, hemp.

Originally posted to NNadir on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:04 PM PST.


How's that solar thermal molten salt tank in your back yard working out.

6%2 votes
12%4 votes
6%2 votes
0%0 votes
6%2 votes
3%1 votes
0%0 votes
6%2 votes
15%5 votes
3%1 votes
6%2 votes
6%2 votes
6%2 votes
12%4 votes
12%4 votes

| 33 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Big fat corroded tanks in your neighbors back (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gchaucer2, Vladislaw

    yard, exploding hydrogen tanks in every garage, melted lines emitting ton quantities of carbon monoxide, thermally formed lye, hidden hand waving, other hide rates, a pure crystalline troll rates formed from the slow cooling of molten salts all go here.

  •  Landfill gas please. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, HoundDog, Translator

    Methane which was gonna go into the air anyway -- burn it and you have a net greenhouse gas improvement.

    Thank you, thank you very much.

    -5.63, -8.10. Learn about Duverger's Law.

    by neroden on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:11:32 PM PST

    •  The scale of availability of this stuff is (7+ / 0-)

      greatly exaggerated.

      The earth produces according to a paper I referenced here recently, produces about 900 million tons of trash per year.

      This is a tiny fraction of dangerous fossil fuels burned each year, never mind the smaller portion that decomposes into dangerous methane.

      We could burn all of our trash and still not match the dangerous fossil fuel output of the planet.

      However, I do agree that where possible, methane from decomposition is better captured than leaked.   But the potential, even under ideal conditions, is tiny.

  •  waiting for NNadir to do part 5 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee, 4Freedom, gchaucer2

    will I need lipstick?

  •  I live by the Cuyahoga River. That burning thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    didn't work out too well.

    "They pour syrup on shit and tell us it's hotcakes." Meteor Blades

    by JugOPunch on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:21:51 PM PST

  •  The car's future is the junkyard (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sravaka, ppl can fly

    Environmental issues aside, there is simply no substitute for the low weight, high energy density, and low overall costs of diesel and gasoline, and therefore there is simply no way to keep cars (and most likely trucks and buses too) going over the long term.

    You say you can't do something because you don't want to do it. Now ask yourself why, and realize you don't have a good reason.

    by Visceral on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:23:55 PM PST

  •  solar thermal to electric (4+ / 0-)

    does not use any of that natural gas or hydrogen, and as a replacement for a portion of coal electric production in the southwest would seem a no-brainer. this is a bit disingenuous to bait and switch between electric and hydrogen.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:44:50 PM PST

    •  The "hydrogen economy" is total crap (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, CParis, Translator, kurt, JeffW

      Solar thermal is great, I agree, but it needs some sort of utility scale storage like compressed air storage in order to truly spread off- and on-peak electricity.

      Personally, the real linkage is between plug-in electrics/PHEVs and nighttime wind power. That way, our cars can take advantage of peaking night-time wind that would otherwise go to waste.

      Hydrogen could theoretically work on a large scale, but the only way I see that happening sustainably is if you use nuclear plants or through gigantic fields of algae undergoing photosynthesis.

  •  Since I'm not a scientist (8+ / 0-)

    because I was dropped on my head as an infant and that part of the brain never developed -- I didn't really comprehend the lead up to the bottom line -- sorry.  I read these diaries so that I can absorb just one more fragment of information in my dotage.

    I am writing a comment because of your reference to hemp.  I've been writing something based on Henry Ford's plastic car.  The "plastic" was a composite of soy, hemp, resin and other stuff (that's scientific talk for chemicals).  The plastic was more durable, lighter and cheaper than steel.  He was also working on a hemp biofuel.  Back in the good old days, before the morans in this country made it illegal, he had a hemp field next to one of his plants.

    Looking forward to that diary.  Sorry I'm such a numb-head in this one.

    You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race. - G.B. Shaw, "Misalliance"

    by gchaucer2 on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 06:48:44 PM PST

  •  Since you don't like (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    natural gas, solar, wind, what do you like? Nuclear?

    •  Yes, it is vastly superior to all other options. (6+ / 0-)

      It's not even close.

      •  what about nuclear waste? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, OrangeMike

        PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

        by RumsfeldResign on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:32:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What about all the dangerous fossil fuel waste (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joffan, bryfry, notrouble, ppl can fly

          that actually kills people?

          Does theory now trump experiment?

          If you can identify even ONE person in the last 50 years of storage of used nuclear fuel in this country, I will be happy to dignify your question with an answer, since the retention of fission products and actinides has a billion year history on this planet and is technically relatively easy to address.

          However if you can not identify ONE such person, I will consider your question arbitrary and wonder why you are not interested in dangerous fossil fuel wastes that actually kill people arbitrary and Pavlovian.

          Nuclear energy is the only form of energy - and I am including the much hyped so called "renewable" energy forms here - that can contain its side products indefinitely.   That is a function of the physical property of extremely high energy density for uranium and thorium.

          •  non sequitir (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wader, KenBee, Translator, kurt

            I know fossil fuels have serious hazards

            I was asking how we deal with the nuclear waste

            PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

            by RumsfeldResign on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:54:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  What in the world does your opening question (0+ / 0-)

            mean?  It makes not any sense at all.


            Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

            by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:42:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I would assume Deaths by (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Plan9, bryfry

              asthma from crap in the air
              lung cancer from crap in the air
              dead miners (self explanatory)
              deaths due to climate problems from global warming

              etc. etc.,

              24,000 premature deaths a year in the USA alone according to the American Lung Association (hardly a group of nuclear supporters) are caused by coal burning power plants.


              It's probably a conservative estimate, because it does not include the deaths from other than lung related causes:

              An analysis released in 2004 attributed 24,000 premature deaths each year to power plant pollution. In addition, the research estimates that over 550,000 asthma attacks, 38,000 heart attacks and 12,000 hospital admissions are caused annually by power plant pollution.7

      •  What about all of the (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, Translator, kurt, notrouble

        dangerous nuclear waste? And every reactor, no matter how failsafe its design, another dangerous, potential Chernobyl? How is that "vastly superior"? Better, perhaps.

        This is my sig line.

        by OrangeMike on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:32:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to see a comparison to coal (6+ / 0-)

          PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

          by RumsfeldResign on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:34:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Coal kills 24,000 Americans/year (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, notrouble

            No deaths have ever resulted from commercial nuclear power in the US.  (This as actually lower than the death toll from US wind power.)

            Natural gas emits ultrafine particulates that are actually more dangerous than the fine particulates from coal combustion.  From all fossil fuel combustion, including diesel, the death toll annually is 70,000.
            Studies cited here.

            We get about 3/4 of our electricity from burning fossil fuels.  Their toxic waste is stored in the environment.  It is not isolated.

            Nuclear fuel throughout its life cycle is shielded and isolated.  It can be recycled many times.

            The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

            by Plan9 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:47:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  No commercial reactor in the country (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LIsoundview, Plan9, Joffan, bryfry

          is a potential Chernobyl. That was an RBMK reactor, not used in the west because if it runs low on water the reaction speeds up and really bad things can happen. The disaster was greatly worsened by the fact that Chernobyl ran without an outer containment system (they where most likely using it for Plutonium production at some point.)

          Capital is only the fruit of labor, [...] Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
          President Lincoln, December 3, 1861

          by notrouble on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 12:28:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, it is not. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It might be a bridge until we develop better sources of energy, but is not the be all and end all.

        I have defended your positions in the past, and do support nuclear energy as a stopgap, but you have gotten just, well, irrational, in your posts lately defending it.


        Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

        by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:54:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What are you waiting on? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Plan9, bryfry

          What do you think is going to come along that will even remotely approach the capabilities of nuclear power, let alone be superior? Do you have a rational basis for expecting some such alternative to manifest?

          •  Some people wait (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LIsoundview, Plan9

            for The Rapture, some people wait for a mythical source of energy that provides boundless energy forever, without any consequences.

            Translator's claim is a statement of faith, and should be recognized as such.

            I expect that it is probable that another source of energy will come along that will be superior to nuclear energy from fission; however, I don't think that we know what that source is today. After all, how many people in 1924 could have predicted that the country would build be building dozens and dozens of nuclear plants 50 years later. Scientists had not even discovered the neutron yet. Nor do we know when this energy source will arrive and be practical.

            So while the possibility exists, I think that it is not rational to assert completely that something better will come along, and it is truly irrational and irresponsible to bet people's lives on it.

            An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
            -- H. L. Mencken

            by bryfry on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 06:20:43 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We urgently need nuclear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, bryfry

              . . . even though some better solution might crop up in 50 years.  Right now greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly increasing.  Right now ocean acidification is rapidly increasing, affecting marine life.

              Every time we can replace 1.5 coal-fired MW with 1 nuclear MW we are helping s?ave the environment and species, including our own.

              So, yes, why not think of nuclear power as a bridge to 2060? And why not act NOW? Nuclear plants built today will last that long.

              The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

              by Plan9 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:51:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think anything beats nuclear... (0+ / 0-)

                This is what I expect our dominant-energy-source trajectory to look like

                The 17th century and earlier - firewood
                The 18th and 19th centuries - coal
                The 20th century - petroleum
                The 21st and 22nd centuries - nuclear fission
                The 23rd century and later - nuclear fusion

                •  That is highly illogical (0+ / 0-)

                  Everybody knows that the power source of choice in the 23rd century will be matter-antimatter reactions. It's what powers the warp drive. Just ask Mr. Scott or Mr. Spock. ;-)

                  An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                  -- H. L. Mencken

                  by bryfry on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:08:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm talking PRIMARY energy sources (0+ / 0-)

                    AFAIK there aren't large quantities of antimatter available anywhere within the solar system.

                    Antimatter could be used as an energy storage system (most likely on high-performance spacecraft), but it will have to be manufactured using fission or fusion as the primary energy source.  It is no more an energy source than batteries or electricity.

                    And by the way, I think we'll have the first commercial fusion plant some time between 2050 and 2150 (barring an apocalypse), but by then we'll have so much fission power installed (most likely either fast-breeder or LFTR) that it will take the best part of a century for fusion to overtake it.

                    Also, if fusion is only available in sizes starting from tens of gigawatts on up, grid electricity may stick with fission because it would be too expensive to upgrade the grid to handle the generation capacity of huge fusion reactors.

                    •  The date of arrival of putative future fusion (0+ / 0-)

                      plants is sort like predicting the reincarnation of the Bhudda.

                      It is well that you placed a hundred year time frame beginning with that magical year that Greenpeace likes to talk about "2050," because even if you're wrong, it will take several generations for people to garner as much.

                      Fusion energy is one of the most well known sources of energy in this universe.   It is, in fact, the major source of primary energy in the universe - and if you consider that all elements heavier than iron and nickel are, in fact, energy storage devices and sinks - the only source of energy in the universe, other than the 3K sigh of the big bang that, for entropy reasons, can never be harnessed.

                      But saying that has no bearing whatsoever on the ability of the human race to make electricity using it.    On this score, humanity - except for making fission triggered runaway explosive devices - as been notably incapable.

                      •  Fission power will allow us (0+ / 0-)

                        to stop using fossil fuels, and give the Third World the standard of living presently enjoyed in the First World.  This will probably happen no earlier than 2050, given that tens of thousands of new reactors will be needed worldwide.

                        Don't we need to go to fusion to advance even further though, because wouldn't fission power be unsustainable once global energy consumption reaches petawatt scales?

                      •  Another point (0+ / 0-)

                        I think that the delays in developing fusion reactors are more due to lack of funding rather technical problems.  I'd expect it would take the order of a trillion dollars to develop fusion power plants, and since fusion reactors aren't vital at the present time (not when we've barely scratched the possibilities of what we can do with fission reactors), no-one's willing to stump up that sort of money.

                        Perhaps by the second half of the 21st century, when we are closer to the limits of what fission can do, more money will be spend on fusion research...

      •  Its not renewable. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, Translator

        Another takes energy to make energy. I personally am not anti-nuke but to think it will be an end all to solve all is short sighted.

        I prefer we take our chances with advancing technology in renewable energy.

        Anti's like yourself that only see problems do serve a use full purpose in that it helps people who are looking for solutions know where to start.

        •  It takes energy to make wind & solar (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LIsoundview, bryfry

          In fact, it takes 5-10 times more coal and steel to make a 1,000 MW windfarm than it does to make a 1,000 MW nuclear plant.

          A nuclear plant takes up about 1/3 of a square mile.  Whereas a windfarm equivalent would take up about 200 square miles.  That's a lot of concrete being introduced into what was formerly an open space.  Wind power is heavy industry.

          But a wind farm operates at only 34% capacity at best.  A nuclear plant, at over 90% on average in the US.

          But the really really really important thing to understand about nuclear power versus renewables is this:  renewables cannot provide base-load.

          Understanding Base Load Supply
          Base load requirement (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply
          system over 24 hours. Base load power sources are those plants which can generate dependable
          power to consistently meet demand. They are the foundation of a sound electrical system.

          Wind and solar cannot meet baseload electricity demand because they are weak, diffuse, and intermittent sources.

          Nuclear power is sustainable, because its spent fuel can be recycled.  Reactors exist that can consume the waste from other reactors while also making electricity.  Nuclear power can even be considered renewable in that certain reactors can make more fuel than they consume.

          The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

          by Plan9 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 11:58:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hydro is also a good base load supply of energy. (0+ / 0-)

            Molten salts is also a base load supply of renewable. Again I am not anti nuke, but nukes will not solve everything.

            •  The question is can ANYTHING solve "everything." (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LIsoundview, Plan9, bryfry, Mcrab

              I am tired of hearing that a solution exists.

              Most likely it doesn't.

              Thus far the only system of climate change gas free energy on a ten exajoule scale that can be scaled up by a factor of 3 or 4 (or more) is nuclear energy.

              The solar industry has had 5 decades to get to an exajoule scale and has consistently failed to do it.

              Humanity's demand now stands at 500 exajoule, with 80% coming from three dangerous fossil fuels.

              I do not believe that nuclear energy can "solve" everything, but it can do more than anything, which, by the way, may not be enough.

              What is important that people who are inclined to do hand waving in the face of this emergency have the nerve and ignorance to oppose not dangerous fossil fuels, but the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy.

              That's the real problem with solar, not solar itself, but the wishful thinking and willful obliviousness it draws out.

              •  I agree somewhat. (0+ / 0-)

                But I do believe that resources that would move other alternatives forward to a point where they where viable have been intentionally blocked.

                No silver bullet, but nuclear is not "the answer" anymore than tidal is "the answer". It will take a diversity of power sources to get to where we need to be. Including "clean coal" that currently does not exist but will never exist without investment.

                There will also be a point where acceptable levels of emissions will exist. The energy supply will never be 100% clean, but it will be clean enough.

            •  Hydro in the US: 6% (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              And we are maxed out on hydroelectric dams.  Hydro cannot easily be increased.  If climate change continues to cause drought, especially in the western states, hydro will be diminished.  Already in the Pacific Northwest they are talking about building more gas-fired plants as backup.  But I agree that hydro provides base-load.  But not on a large scale in the US.

              And I don't believe I said nuclear can "solve everything".  I would not say that because I don't believe it. We need a whole spectrum of solutions. But nuclear power is expandable and it can meet electricity demand on a large scale without destroying the environment and impacting health.  

              The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

              by Plan9 on Sun Feb 15, 2009 at 05:11:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  just here for the poll ma'am (0+ / 0-)

    PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

    by RumsfeldResign on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:07:35 PM PST

  •  You are out of your head, once again. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    A few kernels of fact, contaminated with hyperbole and nonsense.  Your recent posts set those of us who actually want more progressive energy sources back a lot.

    Please THINK before you post the next time.


    Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

    by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 07:43:44 PM PST

    •  Look Doc. I write MY diaries the way I want to (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joffan, Finrod01

      write them.

      I am beginning to resent your claim that I don't THINK.

      If you don't like my diaries of this type, you do not need to read them.

      We're generally friends, but you are out of bounds here.

      The fact is that I know what I am talking about on this score, and I am addressing more than 50 years of wishful thinking that as been toxic.  Solar energy consumes more energy in its promotion than it produces to address climate change.   This has been true and that's been true for more than 50 years.

      My diaries are written to address what I regard as a religious contention that the assumptions of solar energy cannot be addressed because somehow it's sacred.


      Either it produces on an exajoule scale per annum or it doesn't.    There is nothing "progressive" about it.

      If it doesn't produce an exajoule - it follows that its external cost is obscure.   We saw that with biofuels and we're seeing that with wind now.

      You're a scientist and you damn well that energy is measured in joules, and on a grand scale exajoules.  

      You also know damn well that science involves considering what is observed and not what one wishes were true.

      My contention - whether you like it or not - is that it is handwaving hyperbole that has wasted resources we no longer have hyping shit that doesn't work

      on scale.

      Scale matters.


      The price of solar energy in this country is reported not by mean old NNadir but by the solar energy industry itself.  

      Solar Energy prices.

      For the rest of the world, here are electricity prices for people who are hoping their electricity isn't turned off because they can't pay.

      It's a yuppie affectation to assume that there is anything "progressive" about electricity that is 4 times as expensive as the busbar cost of dangerous natural gas energy even excluding external costs - particularly when more than half of the world lives in what can only be considered poverty.

      "Progressive" in my definition involves concern for those who are not living in 2,900 square foot houses, with a media room and master bedroom with bath.

      "Progressive" to me is caring about the more than 2 billion people on this planet who don't have access to clean water, not even a liter of it - in part because some of it is contaminated from recycling yuppie electronic trash.

      And there's no "kernal" in that.   If you don't get what I'm trying to do here, tough.

      You write fine diaries - I generally like them - but I would appreciate it it you stop insisting that everyone write diaries like yours because you are you and you claim editorial privleges for everyone else.

      I do not consider all of your diaries to be important and relevant to world issues, and if I see one like that I just skip it.   So cut me a little slack in the name of our friendship and simply do the same.

      I enjoy many diaries here that are completely different than yours and many of them are written by scientists.   You are not the only scientist on this website.

      I do not regard any scientist as having the right to assume that he or she has the right to tell other scientists how to think or how to proceed in their work.

      You're pissing me off with these pissant criticisms.

      Say what you want, I am well informed and I am not going to apologize for it to anyone.

      Back off.

      •  Wow, ytou think that I am harsh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Try publishing a a peer-reviewed journal.  I would be your most avid supporter in that case.

        I am sorry that you think that my criticisms of your posts are personal, by no means are they.  BUT I will have to come out for science and let the community know that you are, well, just wrong, in many cases.


        Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

        by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:39:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I feel for you. It is sad to be pretty much (0+ / 0-)

        a raver to whom no one with any sense gives any truck.


        Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

        by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:46:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Boy NNadir Good Point (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drewfromct, Translator, kurt

    about PV's waste steam...
    So what is the half life of nuclear waste stream?  Boy you made a good point how all the alternatives have some problem or another, but just glossed over the minor point of the nuclear waste stream.  Yea lets bury it, that is a good idea!

    •  I do not favor "burying" used nuclear fuel. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ppl can fly

      I have made that clear many times on this website.

      Used nuclear fuel is way too valuable to be thrown away to benefit those who have a waste mentality.

      The so called "waste stream" of spent nuclear fuel is easy to manage, which accounts that there is not one yokel anywhere who has a "concern troll" attitude about only nuclear's byproducts who can identify even ONE person who has been injured by the storage of used nuclear fuel.

      Solar PV is garbage, and the fact is that its external cost is missed - including it's highly toxic waste stream associated with its low energy density - because it is trivial and does not work on a meaningful scale.

      In case you missed it the first time.

      •  Please explain how spent nuclear fuel can (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        be reprocessed, in three paragraphs.

        I can, because I know the science behind it.  To write the Standing Operating Procedures to do that would take at a ream of paper.  I know of what I speak, and I think that you might.

        I am just more honest about it than you are.


        Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

        by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:52:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I do suspect Earthlings will use (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, kurt

    nuclear energy for the next several centuries. I am worried that we may not learn how to manage the wastes well for another 30 years, leaving us facing considerable risks in the meantime. Ducking and cracking a cold one.

  •  My solar thermal home works great (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RumsfeldResign, wader, KenBee, Translator, kurt

    and it has for 16 years. It has saved tons of carbon and thousands of dollars.

    nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it. - Barack Obama

    by Lefty Coaster on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 08:18:04 PM PST

    •  I forget... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, kurt

      have you written a diary about it?

      PLEASE donate to a global children's PEACE project: Chalk 4 Peace

      by RumsfeldResign on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 08:19:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We Swedes Invented The Solar Airplane You Know (0+ / 0-)

      They don't call us smarter than Finns for nothing.

      [We prefer to call ourselves Finns but that is another story.]

      If some day we get richer than 99% of humanity like yourself, we will fly down to see your expensive solar home in our solar airplane while praying all the while there is not a cloud in the sky.

      Bet there won't be another kid in our neighborhood with a solar airplane.  It is so cloudy in these parts that when the sun comes out, most people think they accidentally turned on the street lights.

      Nnadir is absolutely right that nuclear power is safe and cheap but only if it's geothermal.

      Geothermal works fine even where there is no sun at all ever.

      There often is enormous heat without light on DKos.  

      Best,  Terry  

  •  Have you (or anyone else) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, kurt

    written a diary or can point me to information about the costs versus benefits of current photovoltaic technology?

    -3.88, -6.36
    Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who - This is supposed to be a happy occasion!

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:18:00 PM PST

  •  I read your post very closely, three times (0+ / 0-)

    now, and think that I see the trouble with your logic.

    It is the hemp.

    Try to stay away from it, and in few years your mind might begin to function properly once again.


    Can you see the Real Me? P. Townshend

    by Translator on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 09:58:00 PM PST

  •  A bunch of arrogant, nuclear industry (0+ / 0-)

    gas-baggery cannot serve the public good.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site