Thanks, Don, for having your spouse get involved in the canversation. Her comments were well thought out & spot on, friend. Encourage her to continue, if you will, and if she is so inclined.

Good stuff all!
However, I will point out that low grade thermal that would come from the evacuated tube technolgoy is not electricity, and you can't turn on lightbulb with it. I live nearby a parabolic trough solar concentrating array from APS that is used to produce steam that runs some electrical power producing turbines. That is sound CSP as well.

One thing I noticed from my work travels around the world is how many more people in "poorer" countries try to use the sun for heating their domestic hot water than here in the US. That was one compelling reason that I moved back to AZ to start the solar initiative under development (Sorry, no pix or details until the IP is fully protected. As indicated above, there are some who would try to take it.)

One of my selling points is the use of the waste heat for domestic purposes, which would increase the efficiency to the range of 40-60% after the electricity conversion has been maximized. We are in the process of upsizing the vision to compete with few other manufacturers already in the fledgling CSP market, but I will share this thought. The fact that PV requires trackers to maximize their 15% conversion efficiency raises their price to the point where I initially was considering competing for home use. However even assuming a doubling of efficiency with the CSP (despite the record being 29.4% with the Stirling Energy Systems unit at Sandia) would still require about a 16' diameter dish in a person's back yard to produce enough power to run our energy hog homes here in the US. It's the gigantic AC units that cool the whole house that wastes so much energy and required the re-think on the target market.

As I understand the theory of albedo, which remember is roughly 36% for the whole earth, it is across the entire EM spectrum the sun puts out. I found the following exerpt:
"The earth receives about one-third of its heat directly from the sun, but less than 5 percent of the heat from the earth is radiated back to space or about the same amount that is involved in conduction and convection in the atmosphere." at this link:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00082.htm

Ahh So (my attempt at Chinese ;) My earlier point was that there is no way most folks could afford to run a home with central AC using PV. The cost would be too prohibitively high. That is even more evident when one considers the high moisture loads that exist most places east of the Mississippi river. So I'm not inclined to give on the cheaper cost of trackers, or on the 10% avoidance of transmission losses due to this location issue, or the use of low temp thermal panels for electrical conversions. The latter is because low temperature difference stirling cycle equipment starts with low conversion efficiency (carnot cycle says 1-(T cold/T hot) and you have to use Rankine or Kelvin for T, not °F or °C!) and at the low temps, the losses in gas & mechanical friction render them incapable of driving a generator, but they will be able to rotate over your coffee mug or in your hand for a good working example of the cycle. But nice try!

Look, I'm all for dismantling nukes at some point, I just don't think we'd be able to provide the electricity everyone needs without them in the short term, and as I said, I want carbon combustion to stop unless it is fully scrubbed! Capiche?

As for the cold fusion, I'd be every bit as concerned with what comes out of a fusion reaction as a fission reaction, but I promise to do some research to educate myself. Till then I'm non-committal.

Don the Engineer - Even if you're not Chinese, you still rate a reply :)

You said:
"Oh, but I started too late. The first thing that most folks overlook are the cosine losses associated with putting any type of PV on your roof. Start with 15% efficiency (not the cheap cells to start off with), add a coating of dust (add 2-3% reflection losses), partial shade for those in areas like, say the Eastern HALF of the US , and you've lost quite a bit more(drop ~10-40% more of the potential depending on FL to NY range). The roof mounted cells don't track the sun, so there's a large penalty, as the cells will only give you the 15% for 1 hour on a few days of the year, and then additional angular (we still call them cosine though) losses get added (drop 25% from where you thought you were)."

You made good points, and with attitude.

Check it out: The 15% number is indeed an optimum at this point in time, and is certainly going to be compromised by circumstance. However, the systems could track (tracking gear gets cheaper right along with computer cost reductions and mass-mfg'g marginal cost reductions). Next, the power wouldn't get transmitted any further than the house right beneath the collector - that adds back the 10% transmission losses on my side of the ledger, right? Now, what if the "power" collected is simply heat, not electricity? Wow, the efficiency numbers skyrocket, esp. if using evacuated tube technology (which don't need trackers, BTW). Finally, note that I said the energy "bounces back" - not necessarily as *reflected* light, but as re-radiated heat *and* reflected light. If the earth retained that energy, it would soon become intolerably hot, like Venus.

The point is that we are immersed in energy that we are not capturing. You're a smart guy, and you obviously "get" this, or you wouldn't be working on a solar concentrator (awesome, Dude! Post pix & tech summary, pls). So, why not use your prodigious talents to do the tech breakthru on distributed low-power collection?

A prior poster also pointed out that nukes are from the Man-with-the-Meter, and we hereby reject that source, because we've seen the associated price tag.

Therefore, it's time to develop the MeterLess Power Source.

Your serve.

Well, Don. I notice you are not up on cold fusion, as there are reported to be approximately 2000 papers with supported evidence. This is because it is indeed being ignored. Conspiracy? Ah, then I wonder who bought up some 48 identified high efficiency energy devices that were patented that Dr. Tim Binder (World Crisis Foundation associated with University of Science and Philosophy). found years ago? Yes, corporations have teams of lawyers that try to squelch and buy patents and steal ideas on a daily basis. If you don't know this you are certainly being naive. There are a couple of initiatives to protect inventors from this thievery and repression, so let us hope something comes out that is useful, DESPITE the counter forces. I understand you are having trouble getting funding for your work in alternative energy? well... duh! (8-p .

Now, as for the nuclear energy industry, let us be realistic when we assess the corporate corruption in our government at this time. The military industrial complex is at an all time high with now SEVEN TRILLION unaccounted for in 1999 (just for 1994-1999)by an IRS internal audit and ONE TRILLION unaccounted for by the DOD's own inspector general. Do we really believe that we can support a 'transition' with nuclear that our government will then willing convert over to alternative? HA HA HA. :D This is apart from any indication that the NRC ever admitted to flaws in their plants to date - just as an example... and we're talking potential Cherynobls here.

So, in conclusion, I applaud your efforts in working with solar and being knowledgable about alternative energy technology, but let us be realistic about the dangers of turning over energy developement to NRC welfare corporations when we should be activating to put more into finding clean efficient energy sources, developing the ones we know better, FORCING with government ANTI-CORPORATE WELFARE programs the car and truck industries to develope more efficiency with bio fuels, etc. (the $10 billion we gave the auto industry for alternaitve fuels development was simply wasted by the way).

And, sure - Americans are spoiled, and now screaming about the price of gas. We have more pain in store, but let us not turn ourselves into sick mutants and make it worse.

Hey now, I'm just dealing with the reality of the situation and saying that the anti-nuclear position is every bit as propagandized as the pro-nuclear.

Boro-hydrides are great storage means for hydrogen, that is certain, but the technology is in its infancy, and still needs years of development. That aside, does anyone know how intensive hydrogen production is?!! Let's just say that the hydrogen economy is much, much farther off than anyone acknowledges. And for today's problems it is not a solution...yet.

As for ozonating oxygen, I have no knowledge, but would ask, what first hand knowledge the writer has? And what of it? What insidious mechanism is being claimed to be at work? Is all the O2 converted to O18 or what? Not really Ozone at surface level is hazardous to humans.

As far as the authoritarian nature of nuclear power: in my earlier posts I stated my being for government providing that service to us citizens. That is actually a good use of the military in my mind.

As an energy industry professional I would agree that there are problems with the nuclear industry. And as I have said before, I believe it is one perfect application of what the government can/should do for us. I see the source of that industry's faults as the "marketization" of it as an energy source. When we are considering things of such potentially significant magnitude to our health, well being and livelihood, standardization and regimented oversight is mandatory.

As I have indicated in previous posts, I am working towards the solar solution, but haven't seen a dime in support from any government local or otherwise. And I also believe that we will need more energy, not less, as we move towards more sustainability. One must decide if it is better to continue spewing CO2 in gigantic unregulated quantities from coal which is 70% carbon, or more, or to go with something that does not combust carbon, in order to bridge the gap to a cleaner, and more sustainable future.

"We can have a bright energy future that is both clean & sustainable. " is just not true at the present world population levels. Period. Now what?!! Everyone alive right now wants to live like an American. It's just now possible with present world resources. Now what?!! Are we as Americans willing to live like folks in sub-saharan africa so everyone can live at the same standard? It is neither possible nor realistic. So now what?

If 2/3rd of the world population would just hurry up and die, then, sure. But that is neither a moral nor reasonable position, and the statement is a lofty ideal that is not achievable with present technology, population & waste. We're all just preaching to the choir here, and the only hope to effect a change is to go get in a republican's face and convert them.

And I'm sorry someone stated that cold fusion has 1000's of references? Saying it is possible?!!! And stating that it is being withheld is pure conspiracy with no substance.

Don the Engineer: I had a good laugh over "elided." Actually, it was a typo -- I meant glided. But back to the problems with your argument.

First, you wrote: "To Adele: The issue that nuclear containment vessels are WMD is a non-starter, as the energy necessary to put a hole in a 4′ thick, steel reinforced structure would not be possible by a large area, hollow structure (a jet aircraft) and the fuel burning on the outside would similarly have no effect because of the type of concrete used." Striking containment vessels is not the potential terrorist attack I was referring to, for the reasons you stated. But most U.S. nuclear plants' control buildings are not "hardened," and if struck by a small plane loaded with plastic explosives would cause a meltdown, since the operators would die. The spent fuel pools are also vulnerable if similarly struck, and according to a nuclear engineer I spoke with at the NRC after 9/11, would produce a massive radioactive fire similar to Chernobyl. (He called it "our worst nightmare" but then decided a civilian shouldn't be in on these things, and hung up on me.)

Second, as Peter Montague, editor of Rachel's Health and Democracy, pointed out on Smirking Chimp (5/29/06), nuclear plants don't make ECONOMIC sense: "Between 1948 and 1998, civilian nuclear power received at least $77 billion dollars of federal subsidies (in constant 2005 dollars). The insurance industry still won't [underwrite] nuclear plants, so Congress limits the industry's liability by law -- a huge subsidy to the nuclear power corporations. Wall Street won't touch it without huge additional federal guarantees and subsidies. This is a technology that falls on its face unless Uncle Sam provides a permanent crutch." That crutch is our tax dollars, Don. If we have to subsidize energy production, we should do it with renewables.

Third, The New York Times editorialized on that same day: "There remains the unsolved problem of what to do with the radioactive waste ... repeated setbacks in efforts to open an underground waste repository at Yucca Mountain do not inspire confidence, but there is no reason why the spent fuel rods can't be stored safely at surface sites for the next 50-100 years. More problematic is the administration's long-term solution ... It wants to recycle the spent fuel in a new generation of advanced reactors that would use technologies that don't yet exist, following a timetable that many experts think unrealistic. Its current approach is apt to be costly and would leave dangerous plutonium more accessible to terrorists." Aren't you concerned with the proliferation issue?

Best of luck with your work on Stirling cycle engines -- my late husband was an electrical engineer who believed that the Stirling engine was a long-overlooked technology with enormous promise.

Well, Mr. Don, this is a spouse noticing this discussion. I would ask you consider this. 1) Union of Concerned Scientists have tried to point out the dangerous conditions of existing nuclear power plants here in the US. There are MANY SERIOUS flaws, including cracks in the water supply lines (thus threatening melt-downs of course, large holes in concrete walls, etc. 2) The NRC is a sham with very poor oversight, as detailed by the UCS in their inspections and reports. 3) We find that the funding process by the US government amounts to billion dollar subsidies that amount to irresponsible corporate hand-outs with a plan that would require something in the neighborhood of some 2 power plants a week to be built for the next - 50 years?! Patently rediculous. 4) There are thousands of verified papers concerning reproduced cold fusion experimental results. The mainstream nuclear people try their best to squash this promising direction of research. 5)There is yet to be a government initiative to match the huge nuclear power effort to get funding to seriously switch to alternative fuels, with some real effort at investigating such areas as cold fusion, safe hydrogen gas storage for fuel cell vehicles etc. (I saw the inventor of a porous metallic substnace method of hydrogen gas storage present his solution on a well known program a couple years ago). 6) We do not understand the long-term and more subtle consequences of nuclear radiation being released on the surface of this planet. I understand that even oxygen cannot 'ozonate' within 1/10 mile of a nuclear power plant. Feel free to prove this wrong by placing a medical oxygen tank close to a plant and then after a couple days, try to ozonate the oxygen. This is only one consideration of which science has yet to investigate - who knows what other more subtle effects there are. I refer you to the work of Walter Russell as example of a visionary scientist - whom Tesla stated was a thousand years ahead of his time. He very strongly advised against nuclear radioactive materials being used for power on the plant's surface.

I'll tell you, Don, what I am doing - besides some bio-diesel conversons on diesel vehicles, is trying to make people such as youself aware of the scope and common-sense understanding of the threat of continuing down the nuclear power path, in addition to efforts at sustainable life style efforts.

There's another anti-nuclear talking point we need to underscore, though it seems obvious.

Namely that nuclear power is inherrently non-local/authoritarian by nature, regardless of what anyone claims about its safety or efficiency. To build and run them they require tremendous technological expertise, federal regulatory compliance, federal management, etc. They take immense outside expertise to build and run. Federally regulated, they require an ongoing non-local government structure, and hence can therefore never be locally-owned. Not to mention managing the waste.

Contrast this to alternative/renewable energy. It's not only conceivable theoretically, but demonstrable in many cases, that communities might form local power cooperatives (wind, solar, etc.) and actually "own" or control the destiny of the arrangement.

Safety -- even efficiency -- arguments can run in circles forever, the pro-nuke propagandists have managed to swindle enough people.

But can anyone find fault with the statement that nuclear power is the most authoritarian top-down form of energy yet divised? For that reason alone, regardless of any other "merit", we should reject it. Particularly in this age, in which authority has descended to mere title, and is not demonstrable or self-evident by integrity, honesty, competence, altruism, etc.

Oops, hit the wrong key, sorry.

Thanks for your post OuterBeltway April 11th, 2007 10:40 pm. It proposes real solutions instead of pissin', moanin', & fighting amongst ourselves. I applaud your efforts.

I would like to point out a few little bits of information I have run across.

1) An article I read a couple years ago stated we use 53% of our energy for transportation needs (a more recent article said 48% so lets just go with 50% for the sake of discussion, ok?)
2) Currently we import about 12-13% of our energy needs from the volitile middle east.
3) The US military consumes approximately 11% of the total yearly world oil production. (I included this last statistic to point out how wasteful warmongering is)

If we improve the efficiency of our vehicles by increasing fuel economy 25% (roughly 6 miles per gallon) we wouldn't need any middle eastern oil at all. This is doable in the short run (far shorter than the 18 years people claim it takes to get a nuclear power plant online).

Without the need for such a huge military presence in the ME additional oil savings could be realized also. The money we would save from reduced military spending could be re-directed toward 'greening' America. (actially there are numerous articles out stating the military budget has about $65 billion that could be trimmed RIGHT NOW WITHOUT EFFECTING OUR MILITARY CAPABILITIES AT ALL).

Where is the fiscal accountability from the Department of Defense? Why have auto makers not been held accountable for adding as much as 3oo pounds of unnecessary weight to some vehicles just so they can be classified as light trucks to meet a lower CAFE standard? Despite record profits for the oil companies why did it take so long to stop subsidizing them for new fossil fuel exploration? Why were (and have we stopped yet?) we giving them money & tax breaks at all even? Shouldn't they be spending their own money for that?

Numerous articles have been written claiming terrorists will eventually, but inevitably, cause a nuclear event in America. Why give them more targets of opportunity by building more nuclear power plants AND transporting nuclear waste across vast stretches of our country for disposal?

Doesn't it make sense, on a number of levels, that the more effort & money we devote toward renewable 'green' research & construction the more we enhance our national security?

On another level I will note a claim made in a recent article I read. It has to do with the other approximate 50% of the energy we consume in this country. Specifically that energy is used primarily to heat & cool our buildings. (please note I am somewhat skeptical of some of these percentages because it allows little for manufacturing & other needs not related to transportation or buildings...more research needed here to nail down exact numbers, but they are probably pretty close and taken only from memory of what I previously read).

Anyway, the writer claimed by enclosing a building in straw bales the energy heating & cooling needs dropped by up to 95%. That number seems a bit high, but even using a conservative estimate of only 50% this is HUGE. The question that comes to mind is would it be more of a savings to 'straw bale' as much as possible rather than direct our growing power toward corn ethanol production? I know the farmers have been drooling excessively over bio-fuel possibilities to fatten their purses, but apparently they are overlooking (or don't care) diversion of crops from food toward fuel has been predicted to double food costs putting many of the world's 2 billion poorest citizens at risk of starvation.

I would have to be inclined to agree with Al Gore that nuclear is a 'small' part of meeting our future energy needs, but don't believe it is the 'silver bullet', any more than the current craze about corn ethanol.

In the short term conservation gains us a lot, bio-fuels will be necessary, and existing nuclear power plants (with up-to-date inspections, protective measures safety certifications, & constant oversight) are systems we must live with. Fossil fuels must be phased out as rapidly as expedient, for sure. No new nuclear power plants should be built and eventually the existing ones should be de-commissioned. Corn ethanol production should have a limited time frame, also, with acreage eventually returned to food production. True renewables seem the only realistic solution to the long term energy emergency we face in this world.

We can have a bright energy future that is both clean & sustainable. Greed of the current energy system controllers must be dealt with or pushed out of the way. Politicians who put their welfare over the welfare of the people must go the way of the dinosaurs they are...they can be VOTED into extinction. Also, since we are all in this mess together, we must each do our part toward conservation measures. How about let's all get up from our computers for a minute and see if there is just one unnecessary light bulb we can turn off? Can you do this for your country's energy security? (have you seen/heard that by just burning one less light in your house nationwide we save a million gallons of oil?)
pmsinva2@hotmail.comThanks for your post OuterBeltway April 11th, 2007 10:40 pm. It proposes real solutions instead of pissin', moanin', & fighting amongst ourselves. I applaud your efforts.

I would like to point out a few little bits of information I have run across.

1) An article I read a couple years ago stated we use 53% of our energy for transportation needs (a more recent article said 48% so lets just go with 50% for the sake of discussion, ok?)
2) Currently we import about 12-13% of our energy needs from the volitile middle east.
3) The US military consumes approximately 11% of the total yearly world oil production. (I included this last statistic to point out how wasteful warmongering is)

If we improve the efficiency of our vehicles by increasing fuel economy 25% (roughly 6 miles per gallon) we wouldn't need any middle eastern oil at all. This is doable in the short run (far shorter than the 18 years people claim it takes to get a nuclear power plant online).

Without the need for such a huge military presence in the ME additional oil savings could be realized also. The money we would save from reduced military spending could be re-directed toward 'greening' America. (actially there are numerous articles out stating the military budget has about $65 billion that could be trimmed RIGHT NOW WITHOUT EFFECTING OUR MILITARY CAPABILITIES AT ALL).

Where is the fiscal accountability from the Department of Defense? Why have auto makers not been held accountable for adding as much as 3oo pounds of unnecessary weight to some vehicles just so they can be classified as light trucks to meet a lower CAFE standard? Despite record profits for the oil companies why did it take so long to stop subsidizing them for new fossil fuel exploration? Why were (and have we stopped yet?) we giving them money & tax breaks at all even? Shouldn't they be spending their own money for that?

Numerous articles have been written claiming terrorists will eventually, but inevitably, cause a nuclear event in America. Why give them more targets of opportunity by building more nuclear power plants AND transporting nuclear waste across vast stretches of our country for disposal?

Doesn't it make sense, on a number of levels, that the more effort & money we devote toward renewable 'green' research & construction the more we enhance our national security?

On another level I will note a claim made in a recent article I read. It has to do with the other approximate 50% of the energy we consume in this country. Specifically that energy is used primarily to heat & cool our buildings. (please note I am somewhat skeptical of some of these percentages because it allows little for manufacturing & other needs not related to transportation or buildings...more research needed here to nail down exact numbers, but they are probably pretty close and taken only from memory of what I previously read).

Anyway, the writer claimed by enclosing a building in straw bales the energy heating & cooling needs dropped by up to 95%. That number seems a bit high, but even using a conservative estimate of only 50% this is HUGE. The question that comes to mind is would it be more of a savings to 'straw bale' as much as possible rather than direct our growing power toward corn ethanol production? I know the farmers have been drooling excessively over bio-fuel possibilities to fatten their purses, but apparently they are overlooking (or don't care) diversion of crops from food toward fuel has been predicted to double food costs putting many of the world's 2 billion poorest citizens at risk of starvation.

I would have to be inclined to agree with Al Gore that nuclear is a 'small' part of meeting our future energy needs, but don't believe it is the 'silver bullet', any more than the current craze about corn ethanol.

In the short term conservation gains us a lot, bio-fuels will be necessary, and existing nuclear power plants (with up-to-date inspections, protective measures safety certifications, & constant oversight) are systems we must live with. Fossil fuels must be phased out as rapidly as expedient, for sure. No new nuclear power plants should be built and eventually the existing ones should be de-commissioned. Corn ethanol production should have a limited time frame, also, with acreage eventually returned to food production. True renewables seem the only realistic solution to the long term energy emergency we face in this world.

We can have a bright energy future that is both clean & sustainable. Greed of the current energy system controllers must be dealt with or pushed out of the way. Politicians who put their welfare over the welfare of the people must go the way of the dinosaurs they are...they can be VOTED into extinction. Also, since we are all in this mess together, we must each do our part toward conservation measures.

How about let's all get up from our computers for a minute and see if there is just one unnecessary light bulb we can turn off? Can you do this for your country's energy security? (have you seen/heard that by just burning one less light in your house nationwide we save a million gallons of oil?)
pmsinva2@hotmail.com

c

BTW Good job on the energy consumption reduction! We purchased land in the middle of nowhere AZ and our commute (I unfortunately still have to work a day job until the solar thing takes off. It costs a lot of money for development!) somewhat offsets the low energy use house. We do use a bio-diesel fueled VW Jetta, though, and my wife and I both carpool together so that's effectively 88 mpg.

The idea was to get some land where we could put up the solar concentrators and show reliability & proof of concept, then build a manufacturing plant for the engines here on site. And we're still headed towards that goal.

Oh, it must be that just because it's true doesn't mean YOU have to believe it! Seems to be a whole lot of that faulty thought processing going on in this string.

OK, you non-engineering types have a lot to learn, ..and so, I attempt to teach. Yes, a major portion of the fuel the transportation sector uses is for commuting. I believe a major "duh!" is in order.

Oh, but I started too late. The first thing that most folks overlook are the cosine losses associated with putting any type of PV on your roof. Start with 15% efficiency (not the cheap cells to start off with), add a coating of dust (add 2-3% reflection losses), partial shade for those in areas like, say the Eastern HALF of the US , and you've lost quite a bit more(drop ~10-40% more of the potential depending on FL to NY range). The roof mounted cells don't track the sun, so there's a large penalty, as the cells will only give you the 15% for 1 hour on a few days of the year, and then additional angular (we still call them cosine though) losses get added (drop 25% from where you thought you were).

And the biggie: you have to pay how much for them?!!!

Now, about your statement that 99% of the solar energy striking the earth is reflected. Sorry, but that is just wrong! The albedo of the earth including water areas is .367 or 36.7% For land it varies considerably depending on the color. i.e. snow reflects 90%, dark green leafy plants closer to 60%.

Now if you think that we'll be putting all the solar cells you in the DC area need (and in TN, as I'll throw a nod to whom I would still prefer to be my next president: Al Gore for wasting so much. Side note to Mr. Gore: lose the carbon credits and buy a more realistic house for god's sake, and rent that one out to many people.) to live as they presently do, the transmission losses would be staggering. Not to mention the resources in wire would help accomplish a lot of the electric roadways I proposed.

The assertion that solar cells are improving at 1-2% per year is extremely over inflated. If you look at where they are today (what is on the market) and what you can afford, i.e. what the earth can provide to 100 million homes, you aren't even close. Sorry.

Now don't get me wrong. I would love to have had this technology be the panacea for all people to wantonly consume like US. But it just ain't gonna happen.

The solar collection that will be viable in the next 5-10 years will be the CSP (concentrating solar power) like I am working on here in the SW.

As for where most of the energy goes, I strongly urge everyone to check out the usdoe web sight.

And for one last question: what makes me chinese instead of italian like my folks?

I really enjoyed the pieces contributed by the eliding Chinese engineer of European descent. I propose to throw down a friendly gauntlet by challenging a few of your key presumptions.

You assert that solar collection won't become efficient enough to be feasible in the short run (e.g. 5-10 years). This notion needs to be whacked.

First, let's set the stage. Consider that the continental U.S. is bombarded every day with 119,000 times the amount of energy we consume (all sources, all uses). Almost all (more than 99%) of that energy bounces right back into space.

Second, consider that solar cell efficiency is rapidly increasing (one or two percentage points per year), while the expense and amount of materials needed to produce those cells is rapidly decreasing (thin film deposition, etc.). It appears to me that solar cell technology is exhibiting all the signs of an industry in early adolescence..sort of where the computer business was in 1975, right about the time Gordon Moore and the microprocessor hit the scene.

Next, you stated that in order to execute any transition to a new energy source, considerable power would need to be used. I agree with that assertion, but I say it can be diverted from current wasteful use patterns.

To wit, consider that in the U.S., much of the transport fuel we use is for commuting. Much of the remaining oil, and most of the natural gas we use is for heating homes and offices.

Last year I cut my gasoline consumption by 90%. I cut my heating gas consumption by 40%. I got a job that enables me to telecommute, and I insulated the bejesus out of my attic and put advanced curtain systems on my windows to retain heat at night (when temps are lowest and thermal loss highest).

Modern communications technology makes it possible for most information workers to telecommute. It's not hard to do, and both the employer and the worker save money. Home insulation products have really advanced a lot in the past few years. It's not hard, and not expensive to do.

To summarize, I don't agree that we need a hugely expensive, somewhat risky, and definitely politically difficult intermediate step (nukes) to get from our current situation to the desired ultimate circumstance (all renewables, 200 PPM CO2). I say develop thin-film cells, put them on every roof in America (and do the insulation at the same time) and teach businesses how to implement teleworking. That's a huge step in the right direction, and the technology isn't more complicated than "perfecting a single, standardized nuke design".

obmaj, why was it propaganda? Because you didn't like it? Better you consider what you are contributing to the future. All of you. Do you know that France's power is sought after by EVERY country in Europe. Why? Because it is reliable, cost effective, and available. How much would y'all be complaining if you didn't have the juice to run your computers to complain on and had to be in the dark now because there wasn't electricity at your wall outlets? Do you even know where that juice came from?

I haven't read that any of you have done something yourselves to reduce your ecological footprint. Sure, the 80 year old woman (who obviously has more money than all of us) got her son to build her a PV house & power system with a few watts to spare, but at what cost and what cost to the environment. The point is we can't all continue living like this.

I'm proud of the house that my wife and I built, with our own four hands but it took 6 years. Still it has AC, a TV, 2 computers, etc. But it also has skylights, fluorescent lights and a lot of thermal mass. It also cost me dearly, in physical damage to both my wrists and thumbs, and back, and I'll probably not live as long as the complaining couch potatoes because of it.

The reason that some of us point out the flaws in the alternative technologies is because we have a clue, not because we are necessarily "fans" of nuke power. If something is inefficient, or can't be a viable solution for the masses, or takes more resources than it can provide, then it too is unsustainable. So it comes down to a matter of personal sacrifice. How greedy are we all right now, and because we all want our creature comforts right now, to heck with the rest of the world, and that isn't sustainable or right!

The world does not have enough resources to allow everyone to live at the Amerikan standard of living. So what are you doing about it?

I am not wasting my time complaining, though. No, I try to educate when I can. I also usually spend every minute of my spare time now working on developing a solar stirling engine with similarly minded engineers who do care about our future, to hopefully provide complaining weenies with enough solar energy to continue living in at least something close to the wasteful lifestyle they are now enjoying. And yet while we don't necessarily like that we have to rely on the Palo Verde nuclear plant for our baseload power we understand that it is a means to an end, and we're doing something to get us closer to that end. What are you doing? Do any of you know how many kilowatt hours of energy your house consumed today? Or yesterday? Today, my house used 6 kWh. And yes, it came from the same grid that Palo Verde is connected to. The same grid I hope to one day provide power back on.

What are you doing?!!

We won't need nuclear power if we reduce our energy consumption to a sustainable level. It's true - wind, solar, etc. won't allow us to use energy at our present rate. But our present use is hugely wasteful. We can reduce. No more suburban sprawl; mixed use zoning laws, not single-use zoning. Bring the corner store to the suburbs. No more driving a huge SUV to the mall. Instead a massive investment in passenger rail and electric-powered buses. Dry your laundry on a clothes line. We had fuel rationing during WWII. It can be done. And it might actually be a much more pleasant way to live.

The problem with technological solutions is that they almost all require building infrastructure that can take decades and must be done with fossil fuels. Even solar and other forms of distributed generation require mining, manufacture and shipping before they can begin producing "clean" energy. All of that will be done with fossil fuel. Toxic chemicals will be created at every step in that process and will further damage the environment. The clean-up process will generate more CO2. Like computers, all of our high-tech solutions will have a shorter life cycle than we anticipate and will need to be replaced. That will begin another cycle of burning more carbon to manufacture products that produce "clean energy". There is no free lunch here.

As for conservation, our economy is built on consumption. Capitalism is a debt and interest based system that requires continual growth to survive. That's why Wall Street and businesses chant the mantra of "growth" a million times a day. The amount of conservation needed to put a dent in global warming would crash the world economy. Massive economic dislocation will trigger massive political instability with ensuing warfare between nations and within nations, which will further damage the environment.

There are no good options, simply stated, there too many of us and we create more waste products than the planet can neutralize. Population experts have a clever term for over population, it's called "overshoot"; we've overshot the carrying capacity of the planet. They also have a name for the solution, its called die-off.

Can someone explain how we are going to avoid this unpleasant scenario when every solution requires massive fossil fuel inputs and/or extreme conservation? Even if we had the political will for conservation, economic stagnation would likely trigger worldwide depression and warfare. Remember the economic and political situation in Nazi Germany between WWI and WWII. Warfare can be a quick solution for a stagnant economy; However, reruns can be so depressing.

Did anyone see the most recent 60 Minutes? It was almost a total whitewash of the nuclear industry. They did not have anyone as a spokesperson from the anti-nuclear side at all. They gave the example of France whose energy is almost entirely nuclear based and how clean, cheap, independent blah, blah it is. Does anyone have any ideas how we can counter this propaganda?

Why are fans of nuclear power so quick to point out the problems associated with alternative power such as wind, geothermal and PV cells as the reason they could never supply our power needs? All new, or not so new but largely ignored, technologies have challenges to overcome. I'm sure with todays and tomorrows talented scientists and engineers those challenges can be overcome. Nuclear power, on the other hand, has been around for nearly 50 years and no one has been able to solve the problems of radioactive waste. In my book that makes nuke power a failure. Let's give the others a chance.

Realists know this.

We are running out of natural resources at the same time we are suffering from population explosion and dramatic loss in habitation.

There were two ways to work with this inevitability.

1) The world in a spirit of sharing to avoid conflict would work out a plan to share diminished resources and at the same time find solutions to both controlling population and alternative sources of energy.

2) Or do what we've always done. Seek out what we needed and crush with the use of deceit and brutal force any and all that would get in our way not really caring that the consequences of our actions would seal the world to a horribly, miserable fate.

We picked #2 - again. I've never been a big fan of mankind.

So, we've blown it. We crawled out of the cave and never let go of the club and we wound up beating ourselves to death with it.

It's why I drink and spit on SUV's.

Here's another couple of ideas to follow on the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions:

Let's take a closer look into the systems need to keep our society mobile. Point sources of CO2 are the hardest to control, and carbon in the fuel is the source of that.

Remember this: 6 pounds of gasoline burned = 19 pounds of CO2. Coal is by far dirtier. Hence the need to mandate scrubbers on all power plants, but I digressed.

What I would propose is an upgrade of our Eisenhower era highway system. I propose that we Hybridize the highway-railway ideas to achieve a synergy.

Here is the idea: all cars could soon be hybrids. This would be mandatory, because not only would that improve their mileage to the order of 40-60 mpg (the latter for diesel powerplants), but it would provide them with the means for achieving the end goal. This goal is simply: replacing mobile sources with single large point sources. Whatever is convenient to your local area (coal in the East & north central US, Solar here in the SW, natural gas in TX, nuke intersperced in other places. And we mandate that they achieve 90+% emissions scrubbing efficiency that absolutely must include CO2. Anyone saying that such efficient scrubbing of a point source is impossible due to financial reasons is just plain greedy. It is possible, and it's a hell of a lot easier to do at the point source, than after it is diluted in our atmosphere from 10% concentration to 380ppm!

Now stay with me here, because this is where our technology actually helps us out. With present computer and high speed switching technology (like what is used with mag-lev trains) we can electrify our roadways, starting with interstate highways and going down to state highways & major city arteries later. We would drive our hybrids to the electrified roadway and then take the power from that roadway, similarly to what powered your slot car race set in your youth. There are other methods available as well that could be employed, but this is one that is easier for people to get their heads around. This would provide high tech construction, maintenance and engineering jobs well into the future, and improve the safety of the roadways at the same time.

I heard this idea back in the 80's, and I think it's about time we started thinking outside the box! To get a critical mass of similar thought, consider the box I'm speaking about to be your lame, time wasting, intellect wasting, TV set.

First let me say that I am a descendant of Europeans, not Chinese :). And now to weigh in on the discussion since yesterday. We do own LED light bulbs (3, which are not very good at putting out lumens just yet, however we did want to do our part to help that fledgling industry and see great promise for their future. However $40 light bulbs is a non-starter.) and agree that conservation is a necessary first step.

I am a Certified Energy Manager with the AEE, so I know a bit about energy and those markets.
To Adele: (Elide is not quite an appropriate word since I dropped no vowels, now, is it?) The issue that nuclear containment vessels are WMD is a non-starter, as the energy necessary to put a hole in a 4' thick, steel reinforced structure would not be possible by a large area, hollow structure (a jet aircraft) and the fuel burning on the outside would similarly have no effect because of the type of concrete used.

What do I know about construction to make such a claim? I grew up in construction, worked it through my engineering schooling, and then designed and built an energy efficient rammed earth house in the AZ desert.

To the issue of the longevity of the hazardous waste, I say let's put first things first. We can use the soon to be vacant NORAD mountain site with its huge blast doors as a better temporary, yet long term storage container than Yucca mtn.

I believe it is the military & our governments responsibility to address the CO2 emissions issue, and since Nuke power will do it fast and relatively affordably in the meantime, we need to follow the French example and standardize on one single configuration of plant, and have the military maintain the fewer spare parts necessary with such a scenario. They would also train nuke engineers and maintenance folks (good jobs and relevant after service I assure you) and handle the security from cradle to grave, so to speak.

However while we are going down this temporary path (in my world) I would have everyone contribute to the development of new Stirling cycle engines such as the one I, and a team of similarly highly qualified engineers are now undertaking. But this is not cheap. Google CSP and look at how long Sandia has been testing a unit with 29.4% overall efficiency with no thermal use for the waste heat. Such additional usage could push the efficiency up over that of combined cycle powerplants.

Long term, and I'm saying this so no one misunderstands my position, I want to reduce all non-scrubbed combustion of hydrocarbons. The only way I see to do this is to develop nuke plants for a transition to solar, which will require energy resources to manufacture in sufficient quantity to be a replacement. However we can not continue with our rampant consumption (waste) of resources. Stop buying individually packaged stuff! Convenience Shmonveniece! Stop being lazy. Stop driving 2 blocks around the mall to go to a store on the other side!

I posted this yesterday regarding the following article, but I see it is appropriate for this discussion also:

Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/09/399/

After seeing the 'solution' Clinton, Obama, and Pelosi have come up with for our energy needs I am very thankful I have two brothers who were smart enough to invent the NukAlert (www.nukalert.com). With the looming inevitable radioactive disaster(s) on the horizon you can best believe I will clutch mine ever closer to me as time goes by.

I recently saw a program that said the residents of Iceland (or maybe it was Greenland) get 90% of their home electricity needs met through geo-thermal. My geology professor 35 years ago stated there is enough geo-thermal energy in using just one southwestern state for a source to power the whole US. My brother assures me transmission from source to the end user is the problem, so directing funding into transmission issues seems more prudent, to me, than funding nuclear power options.

Either last year, or the year before even, an article came out that said renewables were now providing more electricity worldwide than all the nuclear power plants (and this didn't even include massive power generating dam projects). Why waste funding on long term dangerous nuclear projects when a more viable option like this is proven & available…and safe…and green?

For all of those who posted the question about the need for an Apollo like project for our energy needs I can answer there IS such a project, and has been for several years (Google Apollo Alliance for info).

More info gathered/seen/read was a statement that a ten square mile wind farm would power the whole US. The same source stated a ten square mile solar location would do the same, and locations were proposed for both. Why aren't one or both currently under construction (especially since technology for producing PV cells now allows them to be extruded in mass quantities relatively inexpensively)? Big oil wants the status quo unchanged, Big Agri wants money from ethanol production, nuclear also has their greedy hands out, and our representatives are 'bought off' by all.

"Money talks and BS walks", but it looks as if we all will be walking unless we collectively stand up shouting, "We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"

I'm reminded of an expression from the days of the American far western frontier (with a slight twist), "The only good nuke is a dead nuke"

PS-Regarding post by Norma H. Dean April 10th, 2007 4:01 pm---Thankyou for voicing yourself. You and your son seem very wise.

Harvey has been making sense for a long time.

The corporate media refuses to discuss conservation because that would put a squeeze on advertising revenues. Conservation is ultimately what we will be forced to practice.

A straw bale house removes the need for 95% of heating and cooling costs for the life of the building. Wrapping an existing house in straw bales does the same.

Railroads, electric trams and bicycles use 1/10 the energy per person to move people and goods that cars and aircraft use. Railbeds are cheaper to maintain than roads.

Russian, Scandinavia and Canada have ample geothermal resources to provide for heating and wind and solar could handle the rest of the grid if heating loads were reduced.

Stirling generators tied in to geothermal resources would actually make more electricity in the winter than in summer as they rely on a thermal gradient to generate power. The colder it was outside the more energy you would get from your thermal tap. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/ The systems outlined here could store thier waste heat in the ground in the summer and use the stored energy in winter to heat nearby buildings.

Steel is recycled using electicity right now.

Conservation is always cheaper than nuclear power and nobody holds mass demonstrations against LED lightbulbs and triple-paned windows. The problem with conservation is that acts of conservation remove money from major corporations.

Australian research has created PV cells using a sliver technique that uses a fraction of the materials. No doubt the technology will be sold overseas while we try to make coal 'clean'.

The rush to nukes is a desperate attempt to keep electricity generation in the hands of large businesses. They don't want to see decentralised power generation that doesn't enlarge their coffers. Decentralised power generation can still be part of the grid.

Since the human population is over six billion and growing, and global warming is already self-sustaining, we don't have many good options, or much time to implement them. Like it or not, we will probably need to pursue the nuclear option, plus wind, solar, and geothermal just to meet our needs.

If we don't limit our population, and soon, and say good bye to consumption for the sake of economic growth; and intellectually and emotionally we are no where near that point, natural forces on this planet may complete the necessary reductions for us. Think about that "option" and see how well you sleep tonight.

Don The Engineer:
Are you Chinese? You speak coherently and understand engineering. Just kidding.
Alas, we in this country have military strategists more experienced with shooting former judges, and energy strategists more familiar with lofty slogans than with physics, engineering and logistics. How otherwise one would advocate PV cells for Canada, Russia, or Scandinavia to name just a few. Wind is great but few people think in terms of mass of material needed to produce and maintain a unit of energy. They propose thermal energy and big crowds crying Hurray never asking what is the speed of rusting of pipes, equipment and etcetera. Iceland is good example; their main industry to-day is tourism. Try to provide China's 1,400 million people with thermal energy, how many hundreds of millions of metric tons of steel will it take? And where do you put CO2, a byproduct of steel production?

Of course, conservation and freezing of consumption is THE ONLY solution, including freezing of conception. But if anybody thought about inertia of 6.5 Billion strong body of humankind? Everything takes time, and Nukes are the fastest way to start U-turn. Nukes will come in two ways: As nuclear power plants or as nuclear bombs. The longer we stick to our old ways, the more chance we give to bombs. Mark my words, please.

Don the Engineer, you wrote "As an energy engineer interested in slowing global warming I have to ask where the statistics some anti-nuclear folks spout are coming from. The efficiency of nuclear power is comparable to that of coal and it doesn't emit as much CO2."

But even if that's true, there are two other crucial parts of this debate: One, you ignored the impossibility of safely storing the high-level radioactive waste for 50,000 years or more; and Two, you elided past Wasserman's chilling point -- "All reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass radioactive destruction for any willing terrorist. Had the jets that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 hit nukes instead, the death toll and the (uninsured) economic losses would be beyond calculation."

I know this is a progressive website, where the very real dangers of another mass attack are rarely mentioned -- but some of us progressives are just as worried about THAT as we are about the destruction of our civil liberties under the Bush/Cheney regime.

As an energy engineer interested in slowing global warming I have to ask where the statistics some anti-nuclear folks spout are coming from. The efficiency of nuclear power is comparable to that of coal and it doesn't emit as much CO2.

We need to reduce combustion in this world if we are to control CO2 emissions. We need to do this first and get developing solar energy (not PV either. Sorry, but it's too inefficient and resource intensive to bank on. There's just not enough glass manufacturing capability in the world to make the terra-watt PV dream a reality).

The wind folks aren't being honest when they claim the cheapest prices of wind energy because most units magnetize their generator fields currently from the grid. No grid, no wind power. The FERC is just now making them provide their own reactive power.

Also, not all coal plants or gas turbines that do much peaking power generation in this country are combined cycle, so they are not as efficient as they could be.

Standardize on one plant design (investigate the high temp helium cycle.) like the French and work to develop better solar concentrating power alternatives. At the same time, push conservation.

Richard Posner:
"Anyone who continues to insist that nuclear power is even a partial solution to our climate change problem is delusional at best."

Anyone who continues to insist that Rupture is not preordained is delusional at best and Commy for sure. Welcome to the club of divine certainty! I am all for atheistic religion, provided that even Satan, nuclear or otherwise, is subject to open debate, not preaching and/or sloganeering.
Mr. Posner, your slogans do not hold wasser either.

At 83 I am enjoying a new solar home in Nortern CA with more electricity than I need and I only pay approximately $6 a month, which is just for metering it. My son retrofitted an older house with solar voltaic cells in the same communty. Why would anyone want to build new nuclear plants when there is no solution to the waste disposal problem, let alone all the other serious problems involved in nuclear plants?

I say NO NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS!

Mr. Wasserman, your diatribes do not hold wasser, er, water. And they ere most likely were not intended to do so.

"The first commercial reactor opened in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957. America was promised electricity "too cheap to meter." That was a lie." That was hope we all hold when the baby is brought home. Compare 10000 years, the age of conventional fuels technology with 50 years of nuclear one, and you crying wolf look like GOP demagogues fighting against embryonic stem cell research. Tone down, Sir. Do look like kommissar.

Nuclear power plants take 18 years to recoup the energy sunk into them, and that does not count the engineering, security, maintenance and disposal costs.

Nuclear power technology can't be scaled, can't be adapted, can't be shared. This means we can't harness the waste heat to trim our industrial energy consumption. 3/4 of the plant energy is dumped into the environment as heat pollution instead of harnessed. It's a dead-end approach that developing countries cannot afford. We can't share this technology because it's so mind-boggling dangerous and expensive!

They are talking about new nuclear plants because they don't want to talk about conservation. They think that is going to hurt the economy. Hogwash. It will only hurt the economy of energy gluttony and nuclear welfare. No new nuclear plants. Let them figure out how to contain the current waste.

As always the multi-pronged strategy entails boycott/strike. We keep buying what the capitalists sell, we accumulate ownership of their catastrophes.

The reason they will all endorse new nukes is that what they fear the most is a disburbance of our blissful consumerism. Good heavens! What if Americans wake up? - we'd all be screwed!

Remember the record playing in the bar in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? "Merry-Go Round Broke Down"

Yeah Harvey! F--- Nuclear power. We should get Congress to enact a law banning the use of any form of energy that the President cannot pronounce :-)