# First Hyrbid Solar Thermal Power Plant In Florida!!



## Silhouette

> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plant&#8217;s own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facility&#8217;s estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the world&#8217;s first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building



You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]

Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.

It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.

Well done gentlemen...well done...

Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."  

Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.

For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.

But this is an excellent start.





...


----------



## Shaarona

The Farasan Island solar plant is 500 Watt kW and opened two years ago.

I am very leased for Florida.


----------



## Defiant1

So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.


----------



## Silhouette

Defiant1 said:


> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.



My ass.  Do you know what it means to not burn carbon and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year?  It adds up to more than that pal.  They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years.  Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living.  Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts.  That's what this plant is.  You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.

That's what's happened in Florida.  They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy.  It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..


----------



## depotoo

And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.


----------



## Silhouette

More...didn't realize this was just kicking off in 2012, early 2013.  These plants are incredibly simple to set up and run.  And like I suggested years ago, they decided to tag them onto existing carbon plants to reduce the carbon footprint.  I assume the DOE allows power companies to charge the same rates as before as an incentive to really rake in cash.

Investors take note.  This is the wave of the future.  There is serious money in solar thermal power plants.  And if BigOil succeeds in trashing their reputation or their infrastructure itself by designing faulty generators to switch over to natural gas to make it seem "unworkable", you can build your own solar thermal plant in your own town.  They are unbelievably simple to construct if you have an inkling of an engineering degree.  Moreover, they come with near zero environmetal hazards, unlike the many permits and hoops old-timey last century smudge burners or nuclear death machines have.



> The U.S. Department of Energy announced plans on Monday, December 17, to provide as much as $20 million in funding to help develop a new class of concentrating solar power plants tied in with existing fossil fuel-fired generators. Unlike the more common photovoltaic solar systems, CSP produces power by using sunlight to heat water, which is then used to turn a turbine similar to those used in coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants. The basic idea of these hybrid solar plants is to reduce the infrastructure cost for CSP by attaching them to existing turbines, and then using more easily controlled fossil fuel-fired generators to compensate for the intermittent nature of solar power. - See more at: DOE launches program to support solar thermal hybrid plants | www.genscape.com


----------



## Silhouette

depotoo said:


> And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.



Already sabotage is "suggested"..lol..

Hey, guess what?  Those "panels" aren't panels.  They aren't even a thumbnail as expensive to mass produce as solar photovoltaics.  They are simply mirrors.  Just parabolic mirrors.  Formed steel.  No circuitry at all except their sun trackers, which are also relative easy to construct.

And your solution when that hurricane wipes out the carbon generator sitting right next to this system?  The nuclear power plant?  Should we scrap those too? [we absolutely should for nuclear].  Silly.  If I had to pick a power plant to revamp after a hurricane or increasingly common freak tornado swarms, it would be a solar thermal plant, hands down.  Cheapest by far.

Instead of stewing in sour grapes and obviously schilling for the petroleum industry, why not just invest in a cash cow that solar thermal hybrid plants are and switch over to creating biodiesels.  Guess what?  Creating biodiesels are much less expensive than mining petroleum and the energy you use to create them can be gotten by...*drum roll*.... _solar thermal heaters_!  Right in the Midwest you can set up a biodiesel plant.  Right where the fuels to mix with petrol are made.  Train or truck those down to your Texas refinery, sit back and watch the cash flow in.

You aren't going to roll the clock back on the good old boon days of big tuna boat passenger cars and unending military presence in the Middle East.  

And, recent earthquakes in the Texas town being fracked, right near the well site are alarming.  Particularly because a lateral shear earthquake can shatter a well casing allowing corrosive solvents and deadly chemicals to enter the last reserves of fresh water this nation has underground to use for agriculture.  We are overdue for "The Big One" in the New Madrid fault running down the Mississippi River roughly.  Because of the nature of the strata in the Midwest, the earthquakes there are felt and experienced at a much wider radius than like they get in California.  They are felt for hundreds, sometimes many hundred of miles.  That's within fracking areas.  

Just stop.  Stop it.  The bottom line is your bottom line anyway guys.  Just figure out new ways to corner the market, lobby Congress [you know the drill] to get your monopolies and sleep at night knowing your whores and cocaine parties are at least paid for by doing something good for the world while you're ripping the chumps blind at the pumps.  Fair enough?


----------



## ScienceRocks

The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.


----------



## Silhouette

Matthew said:


> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.



No, that's not true actually.  They hate the idea because losing their monopoly on energy scares the crap out of them.  But like I said in the last post, they can just switch their monopolies over to green energy and still have their cocaine parties while the chumps pay at the meter and the pumps.  I don't care.  I'm happy to pay their price as they make even more money on the cheaper ways to produce energy that just so happen to be better for the planet.

Good.  Let them make cash.  Just not by poisoning our country forever.  Pretty cool compromise if you ask me.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Silhouette said:


> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Better than nothing I guess, but I'm not as excited as you about it since it's still burning nat gas. If it's doing that at night, or during cloudy days, it's still just a half-as-polluting power plant. So two of these kinds of plants is still as polluting as 1 conventional one. Better than 2 conventional ones, but still screwing up the planet, just not as much.


----------



## Shaarona

Silhouette said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not true actually.  They hate the idea because losing their monopoly on energy scares the crap out of them.  But like I said in the last post, they can just switch their monopolies over to green energy and still have their cocaine parties while the chumps pay at the meter and the pumps.  I don't care.  I'm happy to pay their price as they make even more money on the cheaper ways to produce energy that just so happen to be better for the planet.
> 
> Good.  Let them make cash.  Just not by poisoning our country forever.  Pretty cool compromise if you ask me.
Click to expand...


Funny.. the Saudis have been pouring money into solar research since 1980.


----------



## Defiant1

Matthew said:


> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.



Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.

Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?

And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.


----------



## zeke

Defiant1 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.
> 
> Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?
> 
> *And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, *which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.
Click to expand...



Mirrors and solar panels are not one and the same. This project uses mirrors.


----------



## Silhouette

Defiant1 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.
> 
> Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?
> 
> And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.
Click to expand...


This isn't a partisan topic.  Or, if it is a partisan topic, it's not about partisan politics but rather partisan concepts of capitalism.  

It's very plain and simple.  As simple as solar thermal "technology" itself [really, just pointing mirrors at a tube and reflecting concentrated solar rays..oooooh!..lol..].  BigOil owns the GOP and so it "appears" like the GOP is against solar thermal...though I'm not sure why they would be?  It's like an internal conflict.  On the one hand their blind lust for money should urge them to make it at power companies in the cheapest way they can [solar thermal].  On the other hand their payoffs from BigOil make them shorten their range of thinking to "just today's yacht party".

I tend to think farther out than that.  I tend to like our country.  I also like capitalism.  So that's why I said, let them make the tons more money they'll make by reducing their overhead with solar thermal and still charge us the same.  It's fine with me.  I'd be much happier paying my power bill or my charge at the pump knowing the power came from solar thermal or the fuel from seawater [hydrogen electrolysis] than from forever-death-to-the-planet-so-some-great-apes-could-get-short-term-rich-in-extra bananas technologies.

I mean, c'mon.  Look around you.  See all the horror stories from mining in the 1800s.  The polluted waters with mercury from gold refining.  Just the rampant "stupid" that old-timey profiteers left this country long after they died.  These problems they left can NEVER be fixed.  How much more of that can our pristine natural resources sustain before this is a crappy chemical stew, a 2nd nation, bereft of her once-beauty?  Are we going to leave the US's natural beauty, fresh water and soils like some used up crack whore after just one generation?  Or are we going to preserve her?

That lack of foresight is what I've always called "malignant capitalism".  Benign capitalism is making money with an eye on future generations.  And hey, if the Hindus are right, you many not just be leaving a diamond for future other people, you might just be leaving it for yourself.


----------



## Defiant1

zeke said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.
> 
> Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?
> 
> *And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, *which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrors and solar panels are not one and the same. This project uses mirrors.
Click to expand...


I know they're mirrors.  It doesn't make a difference. How long can they be effective in the harsh sun, wind, and salt air?


----------



## Defiant1

And it only serves 11,000 homes.

That is nothing in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## Silhouette

Defiant1 said:


> And it only serves 11,000 homes.
> 
> That is nothing in the grand scheme of things.



You mean the EXISTING carbon plant only serves 11,000 homes.  The solar thermal reflectors attached to that carbon plant were set up as an augment to the existing service.  Your point is a non sequitor.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Defiant1 said:


> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.



Sounds about right for "green energy".


----------



## Jarlaxle

Matthew said:


> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.



No, stupid.  Many people "hate" solar because it COSTS A FORTUNE and DOES NOT DELIVER!  It really is that simple!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Delta4Embassy said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Better than nothing I guess, but I'm not as excited as you about it since it's still burning nat gas. If it's doing that at night, or during cloudy days, it's still just a half-as-polluting power plant. So two of these kinds of plants is still as polluting as 1 conventional one. Better than 2 conventional ones, but still screwing up the planet, just not as much.
Click to expand...


If it's a steam-turbine plant, it's worse than that: they have to burn natural gas (to keep steam up) even when the solar power plant is running at full capacity!


----------



## Vox

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ass. * Do you know what it means to not burn carbon *and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year?  It adds up to more than that pal.  They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years.  Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living.  Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts.  That's what this plant is.  You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.
> 
> That's what's happened in Florida.  They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy.  It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..
Click to expand...


and what is the problem with burning carbon?

they still burn it - at night 

and how is it "free" if the amount spent exceeds any possible saving 3 times?


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> If it's a steam-turbine plant, it's worse than that: they have to burn natural gas (to keep steam up) even when the solar power plant is running at full capacity!



They were already buring natural gas to run the plant for years.  It was an existing plant that they tacked on solar thermal to augment.



> Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
> 
> The Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center is the second largest solar facility in the world and the largest solar plant of any kind outside of California. *The facility is the first hybrid facility in the world to connect a solar facility to an existing combined-cycle power plant, *providing 75 megawatts of solar thermal capacity in an innovative way that directly displaces fossil fuel usage. NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center



So your criticism is that attaching solar thermal to existing carbon plants, saving tons and tons of yearly carbon use to produce the same amount of energy is "bad bad bad".  

I'm sure the stockholders of that power plant will be sick to their stomachs to learn that their company's overhead just dropped by a truckload and profits therefore, will rise.  Oh, boo hoo hoo!...lol..LOL  $$$$$$$


----------



## Vox

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a steam-turbine plant, it's worse than that: they have to burn natural gas (to keep steam up) even when the solar power plant is running at full capacity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were already buring natural gas to run the plant for years.  It was an existing plant that they tacked on solar thermal to augment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
> 
> The Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center is the second largest solar facility in the world and the largest solar plant of any kind outside of California. *The facility is the first hybrid facility in the world to connect a solar facility to an existing combined-cycle power plant, *providing 75 megawatts of solar thermal capacity in an innovative way that directly displaces fossil fuel usage. NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your criticism is that attaching solar thermal to existing carbon plants, saving tons and tons of yearly carbon use to produce the same amount of energy is "bad bad bad".
> 
> I'm sure the stockholders of that power plant will be sick to their stomachs to learn that their company's overhead just dropped by a truckload and profits therefore, will rise.  Oh, boo hoo hoo!...lol..LOL  $$$$$$$
Click to expand...


it is EXTREMELY bad if it is a waste of money.

repeating the question - what's your obsession with burning carbon?

brainwashed much into AGW?


----------



## whitehall

Five hundred freaking acres to produce insignificant energy? How do they get away with this stuff? You could put more than ten thousand people to work on the Keystone Pipeline if that's what you were worried about. Notice that the hype centers around how much fossil fuel it is alleged to "save" rather than how much actual energy it produces?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it's a steam-turbine plant, it's worse than that: they have to burn natural gas (to keep steam up) even when the solar power plant is running at full capacity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were already buring natural gas to run the plant for years.  It was an existing plant that they tacked on solar thermal to augment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
> 
> The Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center is the second largest solar facility in the world and the largest solar plant of any kind outside of California. *The facility is the first hybrid facility in the world to connect a solar facility to an existing combined-cycle power plant, *providing 75 megawatts of solar thermal capacity in an innovative way that directly displaces fossil fuel usage. NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Projects - Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your criticism is that attaching solar thermal to existing carbon plants, saving tons and tons of yearly carbon use to produce the same amount of energy is "bad bad bad".
> 
> I'm sure the stockholders of that power plant will be sick to their stomachs to learn that their company's overhead just dropped by a truckload and profits therefore, will rise.  Oh, boo hoo hoo!...lol..LOL  $$$$$$$
Click to expand...


Dammit, Silly, *read what I actually posted*!  My point (which you deliberately ignored) is that *the existing gas-burning power plant has to be kept running EVEN WHEN THE SOLAR PLANT IS PRODUCING FULL POWER!*  Steam must be kept up to keep the plant ready to power up quickly, because restarting a cold plant can take hours (or days).


----------



## Jarlaxle

whitehall said:


> Five hundred freaking acres to produce insignificant energy? How do they get away with this stuff? You could put more than ten thousand people to work on the Keystone Pipeline if that's what you were worried about. Notice that the hype centers around how much fossil fuel it is alleged to "save" rather than how much actual energy it produces?



I wonder whose brother got the contract to build it............


----------



## Silhouette

Vox said:


> it is EXTREMELY bad if it is a waste of money.
> 
> repeating the question - what's your obsession with burning carbon?
> 
> brainwashed much into AGW?



 
Yeah, not burning carbon for most of the year and getting free steam energy from concentrated mirrors from the sun, while charging the same price as if your overhead was still high just has to add up to losing money, right?..lol...  

It's EXTREMELY bad to not know how to do basic math.  What's your obsession with burning carbon?  Do you have a recessive cave man gene that requires smudge and black soot from a camp fire in order to produce energy?


----------



## Politico

Yay now they can still jack everyone on their bills and make more profit


----------



## Decus

The nuclear power plant on Hutchison Island (St. Lucie Power Plant) provides enough electricity to power some 1 million homes and runs 24/7 on a single fuel source versus the Martin Solar Energy Center ability to power 11,000 homes. 

If the Martin Solar Energy Center were to equal the the energy output based on their present levels of energy production, they would have to build approximately 90 Solar Energy Centers. 90 x $476 million = approximately $43 billion dollars. A $43 billion investment for the equivalent power production of just 1 nuclear power plant does not make sense.

Disadvantages of Martin Solar Energy Center:
- Produces carbon
- Large land area required to meet production needs
- Very expensive

The economics are interesting:
Economics of nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If carbon-free electricity generation is really the objective than the Martin Solar Energy Center is not the solution.


----------



## Silhouette

Nobody complained about Martin Solar when it was Martin natural gas...lol...  Suddenly you have a problem with that power plant's output when it matches the one it always had from gas?

Nuclear?  Really?  Would you like me to start posting Fukushima updates again?  One core meltdown can ruin your whole...240,000 years and your country's food and drinking water supply forever.  Children of Chernobyl?  Is it time to dig those photos out again?  I mean, I can if you want...



Politico said:


> Yay now they can still jack everyone on their bills and make more profit



So?  People pay what they paid before.  You think all of a sudden people will sit up and start complaining that the energy they consume at the same rate they're used to is less harmful to our atmosphere now?  

What strange spinning y'all are involved in.  Just give up the horse and buggy already.  It's a new century and new innovations mean new sources of money.  Do they always have to necessarily be destructive to the environment?  It's like a _cult_ with you guys; the cult of soot, sludge and destruction.  It's the oddest thing...


----------



## Silhouette

Here's more on the "horrible financial demise" of installing a solar thermal augment to your existing carbon plant:



> *FPLs new solar plant in Martin County will be doing more than producing clean energy from the sun for customers  it will also help directly create local jobs for years to come*.
> 
> FPLs *Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center will create substantial tax revenue for Martin County. In order to make the most of the extra funds, the Martin County Board of County Commissioners will use up to 50 percent of the funds to directly fund a new Job Creation Toolkit*, designed to support future business growth and jobs in the area.
> 
> "We are the Sunshine State," Commissioner Doug Smith said. "*The sun is transitioning into a huge amount of revenue  we got dollars from a bunch of mirrors harnessing the power of the sun. We are now taking sun and turning it into job creation*. What an amazing sustainable source this sun gives us."
> 
> Learn more about the Toolkit on the Business Development Board of Martin Countys website. Martin County Solar



Yes, just a terrible calamity, installing mirrors to cook some oil in a tube that heat-transfers to boiling water turbines..terrible...especially in sunny places where you can rely on that lowered overhead for about 300 days a year.  Just terrible, horrible, wasteful idea..

..lol..


----------



## hazlnut

depotoo said:


> And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.




Yeah, they never thought of that.

Darn, wish they had you.

Best just stick with the oil drilling rigs in the ocean, they never have problems.


----------



## Vox

Silhouette said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is EXTREMELY bad if it is a waste of money.
> 
> repeating the question - what's your obsession with burning carbon?
> 
> brainwashed much into AGW?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not burning carbon for most of the year and getting free steam energy from concentrated mirrors from the sun, while charging the same price as if your overhead was still high just has to add up to losing money, right?..lol...
> 
> It's EXTREMELY bad to not know how to do basic math.  What's your obsession with burning carbon?  Do you have a recessive cave man gene that requires smudge and black soot from a camp fire in order to produce energy?
Click to expand...


It is YOU who have obsession with carbon - that was your point in considering this plant's major advantages  - will burn less carbon - why on earth is this good? are you brainwashed much with AGW?

I have nothing against solar - if it is COST EFFICIENT, which this one is NOT - and therefore it is extremely BAD and will fail.

What IS cost efficient and what is the best from ecology standpoint is nuclear power, and so far nothing has surpassed it.


----------



## Silhouette

Vox said:


> *It is YOU who have obsession with carbon *- that was your point in considering this plant's major advantages  - will burn less carbon - *why on earth is this good? are you brainwashed much with AGW*?
> 
> I have nothing against solar - if it is COST EFFICIENT, which this one is NOT - and therefore it is extremely BAD and will fail.
> 
> What IS cost efficient and what is the best from ecology standpoint is nuclear power, and so far nothing has surpassed it.



Someone sounds a little grumpy that stockholders of Martin Solar will be making more money from not having to pay for fuel to burn most of the year.  Just adjust your investment portfolio bro instead of expecting the world's atmosphere to take a nose dive because you're too lazy to sell and rebuy in another progressive trade with a brighter future in dividends.

Your stupid cannot be the world's responsibility.

I was "brainwashed" in college chemistry.  I know what happens to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and methanes associated with burning carbons when they mix in the atmosphere, the dynamics of specific heat and the blanket properties of gases that trap heat in the upper atmosphere that normally would escape.  

Plus, on a vacation this year I noticed that the Ocean that used to sit way way off shore at my favorite beaches is now lapping at the ramparts along the board walk at high tide.  A large stretch of highway that used to be high and dry now sits snugly up against the lapping high tide just ready to breach the levees.

You don't need an advanced degree to see the ocean encroaching closer and closer and closer...


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> Nobody complained about Martin Solar when it was Martin natural gas...lol...  Suddenly you have a problem with that power plant's output when it matches the one it always had from gas?
> 
> *Nuclear?  Really?  Would you like me to start posting Fukushima updates again?*  One core meltdown can ruin your whole...240,000 years and your country's food and drinking water supply forever.  Children of Chernobyl?  Is it time to dig those photos out again?  I mean, I can if you want...
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay now they can still jack everyone on their bills and make more profit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  People pay what they paid before.  You think all of a sudden people will sit up and start complaining that the energy they consume at the same rate they're used to is less harmful to our atmosphere now?
> 
> What strange spinning y'all are involved in.  Just give up the horse and buggy already.  It's a new century and new innovations mean new sources of money.  Do they always have to necessarily be destructive to the environment?  It's like a _cult_ with you guys; the cult of soot, sludge and destruction.  It's the oddest thing...
Click to expand...


You must not be in the group of scientists concerned about carbon dioxide and global warming. Fukushima is an older Generation II design, and improvements are continually being made - google Generation III plants if in doubt.

Here is part of an open letter released by a group of energy and climate scientists back in November 2013:


_"As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change."_

Top climate change scientists issue open letter to policy influencers - CNN.com

_"The point being that Fukushima went through absolutely the worst natural disaster that the world could throw at a nuclear plant: and yes, that plant was wrecked but wrecking the plant hasnt killed anyone and wont do. The amazing thing about nuclear power is not how dangerous it is but how safe it is. And given that we do indeed need to have some power if were to keep this civilisation thing on the road, given that renewables simply cannot scale up in time, *were going to have to replace some of our fossil fuel fired generating capacity with more nuclear. Which is exactly what Hansen et al are pointing out.*"_

Despite Fukushima Nuclear Power Really Is The Only Way To Beat Climate Change - Forbes


If it's good enough for the climate scientists, than nuclear deserves serious consideration.


----------



## Silhouette

Decus said:


> If it's good enough for the climate scientists, than nuclear deserves serious consideration.


The risks, permitting process , waste processing and monitoring for 200,000 years [how many societies in your history class lasted that long intact enough to monitor nuclear waste continuously?] and unspoken costs of nuclear make the endeavor a loss for any country who is foolish enough to substitute radioactive plutonium/uranium to boil water instead of just using the sun with a carbon backup like Martin solar.

*sigh*  I didn't want to do this but here we go.  It's all so depressing to boil water this way..:






Fun fact, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl where no person is allowed to go or at least not live is larger than the country of Japan.  Fukushima was many times more deadly and disasterous than Chernobyl.  Notably, Russia quickly evacuated all towns within the exclusion zone immediately upon the disaster.  Japan still tells residents of Tokyo that everything is just fine.

It isn't.  And it will never be, forever.  Don't EVER bring up nuclear water boilers again.  They are a dead proposition.


----------



## Vox

Silhouette said:


> Fun fact, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl where no person is allowed to go or at least not live is larger than the country of Japan.



are you an idiot or you have no idea about basics in geography? 

Japan's territory is 377,923.1 km2

The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2

are you really THAT stupid?


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> Don't EVER bring up nuclear water boilers again.  They are a dead proposition.



Sounds like you really should fire off an angry letter to the climate and energy scientists who are advocating nuclear. 

Seriously - if you are going to sound off on solar and "environmentally friendly" solutions you will have to face a disturbing reality:

_"The letter admits "today's nuclear plants are far from perfect." However, "... *there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power.*""_ 

Environmental scientists tout nuclear power to avert climate change - CNN.com


----------



## hazlnut

Defiant1 said:


> I know they're mirrors.  It doesn't make a difference. How long can they be effective in the harsh sun, wind, and salt air?




They didn't think of that either??

What's with these scientists, they're as dumb as Tea Partiers.


----------



## Spiderman

500 acres to power 11000 homes?

One small molten salt reactor buried underground in a footprint smaller than a football field would power more than twice that many homes.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> 500 acres to power 11000 homes?
> 
> One small molten salt reactor buried underground in a footprint smaller than a football field would power more than twice that many homes.



Yes, but why boil water with technology that if one thing goes wrong will wipe an area this size off the globe for human habitation?  The risks are not worth it when we have so many other ways of boiling water.  Again, when this plant was powering just those 11,000 homes with natural gas, where was your criticism of it then?  Hmmm?


----------



## Roguewave

I question the photograph accompanying the article. What is shown does not resemble a concentrated solar facility, which should have a collection tower. The photo appears to be of some photovoltaic collection facility.

Regardless, the article has the usual negative for making any realistic judgement beyond the puff in the piece. The only real helpful and meaningful information is cost per kilowatt/hour of electricity produced and how that measures up to conventional plants. This plant configuration apparently has been in operation since sometime in 2010 according to the referenced article at the bottom of the page. That the real costs now versus the costs of the old gas only plant existing before could, but were not supplied, can be taken as a tip-off that the thing is not competitive. The usual ratio of competiveness of solar v. conventional is somewhere around 5 to 1 with solar on the bad side. If this configuration beats that significantly, we would be seeing that in this puff piece...prominently.

Give us the bottom line, if you are to be taken seriously. That, and only that, is what the cocaine-sniffers in the board room look at. Me too, plus I want the real cost excluding government subsidies, which we eventually pay.


----------



## Old Rocks

Defiant1 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> The republicans hate solar because the left supports it. Honestly the only reason they're against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.
> 
> Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?
> 
> And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.
Click to expand...


Why you certainly are. Like invading nations because of WMD's that don't exist, losing over 4000 lives in the process, and spending 3 trillion dollars in the process for no gain at all, not for us, not for the Iraqi's.

Things that make sense like 40+ useless votes on the ACA. Like shutting down the government for no reason at all. 

Lordy, lordy


----------



## Silhouette

Noting the comparison of the exclusion zone at Chernobyl as the size to scale of the area surrounding the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York..

...Sometimes I tune into that show "Long Island Medium".  Ok, to be fair, I've watched it quite a bit as it is a particular hobby/interest of mine, that stuff.  Anyway, I'm stunned at how many of the people who she has contacted and many of her friends still alive that have cancer.  They are after all, just down stream from the East River where the effluent from Indian Point washes out all over that sound.  

There just seems to be an ungoldly amount of cancer per capita on Long Island NY.

The only sane discussion of nuclear power should be how quickly to shut down and switch over to other forms of boiling water, every single nuclear plant on the earth.  The discussion should only be one of "what the hell are we going to do with the most dangerous substance known to mankind [plutonium] for the next 240,000 years of its death-causing life?...all that waste.

Otherwise the discussion on nuclear power is over.  It just boils water.  That's all they do with it and we have many other different ways to boil water as clearly demonstrated at the Martin Solar plant that is the topic of this discussion.

Also geothermal heat resources.


----------



## Politico

Silhouette said:


> Nobody complained about Martin Solar when it was Martin natural gas...lol...  Suddenly you have a problem with that power plant's output when it matches the one it always had from gas?
> 
> Nuclear?  Really?  Would you like me to start posting Fukushima updates again?  One core meltdown can ruin your whole...240,000 years and your country's food and drinking water supply forever.  Children of Chernobyl?  Is it time to dig those photos out again?  I mean, I can if you want...
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay now they can still jack everyone on their bills and make more profit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  People pay what they paid before.  You think all of a sudden people will sit up and start complaining that the energy they consume at the same rate they're used to is less harmful to our atmosphere now?
> 
> What strange spinning y'all are involved in.  Just give up the horse and buggy already.  It's a new century and new innovations mean new sources of money.  Do they always have to necessarily be destructive to the environment?  It's like a _cult_ with you guys; the cult of soot, sludge and destruction.  It's the oddest thing...
Click to expand...


The whole green scam is all about how people will pay less money for energy. That is BS. It's always been about business. As far as your stupid horse and buggy comment it just shows you have never read any of my posts. I already am using solar. And it's not because of the environment. I don't give a shit about the air some progressive tool will be breathing 100 years from now. I do it to save money. So if you want to label me as part of the Rightyloon cult go ahead. Just read my sig first.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Man. Nutters would piss on a 6 year old's birthday cake if it advanced an agenda. 

This is a good thing, nutters. Private industry taking steps toward the future.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 500 acres to power 11000 homes?
> 
> One small molten salt reactor buried underground in a footprint smaller than a football field would power more than twice that many homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but why boil water with technology that if one thing goes wrong will wipe an area this size off the globe for human habitation?  The risks are not worth it when we have so many other ways of boiling water.  Again, when this plant was powering just those 11,000 homes with natural gas, where was your criticism of it then?  Hmmm?
Click to expand...


You don't know anything about molten salt reactors if you're comparing them to an old breeder style reactor.

Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors | Video on TED.com

Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor - Business Insider


----------



## aoxomoxoa

Silhouette said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already sabotage is "suggested"..lol..
> 
> Hey, guess what?  Those "panels" aren't panels.  They aren't even a thumbnail as expensive to mass produce as solar photovoltaics.  They are simply mirrors.  Just parabolic mirrors.  Formed steel.  No circuitry at all except their sun trackers, which are also relative easy to construct.
> 
> And your solution when that hurricane wipes out the carbon generator sitting right next to this system?  The nuclear power plant?  Should we scrap those too? [we absolutely should for nuclear].  Silly.  If I had to pick a power plant to revamp after a hurricane or increasingly common freak tornado swarms, it would be a solar thermal plant, hands down.  Cheapest by far.
> 
> Instead of stewing in sour grapes and obviously schilling for the petroleum industry, why not just invest in a cash cow that solar thermal hybrid plants are and switch over to creating biodiesels.  Guess what?  Creating biodiesels are much less expensive than mining petroleum and the energy you use to create them can be gotten by...*drum roll*.... _solar thermal heaters_!  Right in the Midwest you can set up a biodiesel plant.  Right where the fuels to mix with petrol are made.  Train or truck those down to your Texas refinery, sit back and watch the cash flow in.
> 
> You aren't going to roll the clock back on the good old boon days of big tuna boat passenger cars and unending military presence in the Middle East.
> 
> And, recent earthquakes in the Texas town being fracked, right near the well site are alarming.  Particularly because a lateral shear earthquake can shatter a well casing allowing corrosive solvents and deadly chemicals to enter the last reserves of fresh water this nation has underground to use for agriculture.  We are overdue for "The Big One" in the New Madrid fault running down the Mississippi River roughly.  Because of the nature of the strata in the Midwest, the earthquakes there are felt and experienced at a much wider radius than like they get in California.  They are felt for hundreds, sometimes many hundred of miles.  That's within fracking areas.
> 
> Just stop.  Stop it.  The bottom line is your bottom line anyway guys.  Just figure out new ways to corner the market, lobby Congress [you know the drill] to get your monopolies and sleep at night knowing your whores and cocaine parties are at least paid for by doing something good for the world while you're ripping the chumps blind at the pumps.  Fair enough?
Click to expand...

I hate to burst your bubble but you might want to read about the experience in Germany with solar and wind power. 

I can't post a link yet as I don't have 15 posts under my belt. Watch this space.


----------



## aoxomoxoa

aoxomoxoa said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already sabotage is "suggested"..lol..
> 
> Hey, guess what?  Those "panels" aren't panels.  They aren't even a thumbnail as expensive to mass produce as solar photovoltaics.  They are simply mirrors.  Just parabolic mirrors.  Formed steel.  No circuitry at all except their sun trackers, which are also relative easy to construct.
> 
> And your solution when that hurricane wipes out the carbon generator sitting right next to this system?  The nuclear power plant?  Should we scrap those too? [we absolutely should for nuclear].  Silly.  If I had to pick a power plant to revamp after a hurricane or increasingly common freak tornado swarms, it would be a solar thermal plant, hands down.  Cheapest by far.
> 
> Instead of stewing in sour grapes and obviously schilling for the petroleum industry, why not just invest in a cash cow that solar thermal hybrid plants are and switch over to creating biodiesels.  Guess what?  Creating biodiesels are much less expensive than mining petroleum and the energy you use to create them can be gotten by...*drum roll*.... _solar thermal heaters_!  Right in the Midwest you can set up a biodiesel plant.  Right where the fuels to mix with petrol are made.  Train or truck those down to your Texas refinery, sit back and watch the cash flow in.
> 
> You aren't going to roll the clock back on the good old boon days of big tuna boat passenger cars and unending military presence in the Middle East.
> 
> And, recent earthquakes in the Texas town being fracked, right near the well site are alarming.  Particularly because a lateral shear earthquake can shatter a well casing allowing corrosive solvents and deadly chemicals to enter the last reserves of fresh water this nation has underground to use for agriculture.  We are overdue for "The Big One" in the New Madrid fault running down the Mississippi River roughly.  Because of the nature of the strata in the Midwest, the earthquakes there are felt and experienced at a much wider radius than like they get in California.  They are felt for hundreds, sometimes many hundred of miles.  That's within fracking areas.
> 
> Just stop.  Stop it.  The bottom line is your bottom line anyway guys.  Just figure out new ways to corner the market, lobby Congress [you know the drill] to get your monopolies and sleep at night knowing your whores and cocaine parties are at least paid for by doing something good for the world while you're ripping the chumps blind at the pumps.  Fair enough?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble but you might want to read about the experience in Germany with solar and wind power.
> 
> I can't post a link yet as I don't have 15 posts under my belt. Watch this space.
Click to expand...


German Energy Expert Argues Against Subsidies for Solar Power - SPIEGEL ONLINE


----------



## Jarlaxle

Vox said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun fact, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl where no person is allowed to go or at least not live is larger than the country of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you an idiot or you have no idea about basics in geography?
> 
> Japan's territory is 377,923.1 km2
> 
> The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2
> 
> are you really THAT stupid?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Yes, she is.  Silly is basically a 2-note human spambot.  When caught in her lies, she responds by reposting the same images (despite many having been proven bogus) and regurgitating pages and pages of the same copy-pasted BS over and over and over and over.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 500 acres to power 11000 homes?
> 
> One small molten salt reactor buried underground in a footprint smaller than a football field would power more than twice that many homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but why boil water with technology that if one thing goes wrong will wipe an area this size off the globe for human habitation?  The risks are not worth it when we have so many other ways of boiling water.  Again, when this plant was powering just those 11,000 homes with natural gas, where was your criticism of it then?  Hmmm?
Click to expand...


Your complete ignorance about how generation V reactors operate is not news, Silly.

500 acres for 11,000 homes is ridiculously inefficient.  Offhand, Millstone (Waterford, CT) is about the same size...yet produces more than *2,000* megawatts.  (That is more than TWENTY SIX TIMES the power.)  When making 75MW with natural gas, *you do not need 500 acres!*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 500 acres to power 11000 homes?
> 
> One small molten salt reactor buried underground in a footprint smaller than a football field would power more than twice that many homes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but why boil water with technology that if one thing goes wrong will wipe an area this size off the globe for human habitation?  The risks are not worth it when we have so many other ways of boiling water.  Again, when this plant was powering just those 11,000 homes with natural gas, where was your criticism of it then?  Hmmm?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about molten salt reactors if you're comparing them to an old breeder style reactor.
> 
> Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors | Video on TED.com
> 
> Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor - Business Insider
Click to expand...


Silly The Human Spambot is *uninterested* in FACTS of any sort.  She hears the word "reactor" and immediately shrieks "*THE SKY IS FALLING!*"


----------



## ScienceRocks

I hope in 40 years this entire country is ran by renewables or fusion. There's no need for coal or gases that cause cancer.


----------



## Vox

Jarlaxle said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fun fact, the exclusion zone around Chernobyl where no person is allowed to go or at least not live is larger than the country of Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you an idiot or you have no idea about basics in geography?
> 
> Japan's territory is 377,923.1 km2
> 
> The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2
> 
> are you really THAT stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Yes, she is.  Silly is basically a 2-note human spambot.  When caught in her lies, she responds by reposting the same images (despite many having been proven bogus) and regurgitating pages and pages of the same copy-pasted BS over and over and over and over.
Click to expand...


Thank you for the info as when I first read her post my jaw literally dropped - one can not expect that somebody will expose their own ignorance which invalidates anything they are telling afterwards, so openly.

I happen to know about Chornobyl and it's consequences a lot. To the surprise of all involved the expected disasters are actually lower than predicted.
Including the cleaning of the territory.

Some people never left the exclusion zone. Because they had nowhere to go.

If the nuclear reactor is of a modern type and everything is controlled - nuclear power although not the cheapest IS the cleanest for humanity and Earth.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Yes...Silly is dishonest enough to compare a Western reactor to Chornobyl...a terrible Soviet-era graphite-core design, with *no containment building*!


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Do you know what it means to not burn carbon and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year?  It adds up to more than that pal.  They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years.  Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living.  Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts.  That's what this plant is.  You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.
> 
> That's what's happened in Florida.  They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy.  It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..
Click to expand...


How will the plant be paid off in 5 years?  Show us the math.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> You don't know anything about molten salt reactors if you're comparing them to an old breeder style reactor.



I know that all you're doing with them is boiling water to run turbines. 

And, I know that they are much more expensive to permit, run and manage waste for than merely reflecting the sun with parabolic mirrors onto a tube filled with oil that goes to boil water to run turbines. 

I know if I was investing in a new or old power company, I'd invest in the one that gets free water boiling/turbine running from the sunshine instead of some ghastly high-overhead $$ public nuisance or unnecessarily complex toxic process.  

In short, to quote Idiocracy, "I like money..."


----------



## Jarlaxle

And as expected, just more of the same tired old BS from the same tired old spambot...746th post, same as the first 745.

Were you one of the idiots who invested in Evergreen Solar, Silly?


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> And as expected, just more of the same tired old BS from the same tired old spambot...746th post, same as the first 745.
> 
> Were you one of the idiots who invested in Evergreen Solar, Silly?


No Jar Jar Binks, I'd only invest in a linear solar concentrating array that concentrates superheated solar radiation on a nearby tube.

I understand that BigOil has urged the engineering of "designed to fail" solar companies.  I get it.  They're afraid of the competition like Martin Solar that really works and puts them having to compete for real.  It's a clever stunt I have to admit, pretending to be green, building a ramshackle failure project that looks "good-ish" on paper; only to go into bankrupcty.  That's what any malignant capitalist who has gorged himself at the trough of monopolies would stoop to.  It's just not practical anymore.  

We know how to boil water with the sun.  Sorry?  I guess I'd just tell you that common sense should prevail in which company you invest in.  The closer the concentrated sun rays are to the tube or vat of fluid they are superheating, the more efficient the system will run.  That's why linear arrays work and those ridiculous circular arrays where the vat sits like 100 miles away from the mirrors, that are flat, not convex, are such a pathetic joke.  The first time I saw a picture of one of those phasods-to-failure I nearly fell off my chair laughing.

Glad you brought that up Jar Jar.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about molten salt reactors if you're comparing them to an old breeder style reactor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that all you're doing with them is boiling water to run turbines.
> 
> And, I know that they are much more expensive to permit, run and manage waste for than merely reflecting the sun with parabolic mirrors onto a tube filled with oil that goes to boil water to run turbines.
> 
> I know if I was investing in a new or old power company, I'd invest in the one that gets free water boiling/turbine running from the sunshine instead of some ghastly high-overhead $$ public nuisance or unnecessarily complex toxic process.
> 
> In short, to quote Idiocracy, "I like money..."
Click to expand...


So you don't know anything about them.

Molten salt reactors actually run on the nuclear waste of our old reactors.  Do not need to be refueled for 20 years or more run at more than 50% efficiency and can never ever melt down.

Tell me how many acres of land will it take to power millions of homes with solar?

If 500 acres are needed to power 11000 homes (during the day only) then to power 1.1 million homes (during the day only) you would need 50000 acres.

That's 78 square miles which is roughly the same size as the land area of Madison Wisconsin.

Now tell me how many acres you would need to power 11 million homes (during the day only)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as expected, just more of the same tired old BS from the same tired old spambot...746th post, same as the first 745.
> 
> Were you one of the idiots who invested in Evergreen Solar, Silly?
> 
> 
> 
> No Jar Jar Binks, I'd only invest in a linear solar concentrating array that concentrates superheated solar radiation on a nearby tube.
> 
> I understand that BigOil has urged the engineering of "designed to fail" solar companies.  I get it.  They're afraid of the competition like Martin Solar that really works and puts them having to compete for real.  It's a clever stunt I have to admit, pretending to be green, building a ramshackle failure project that looks "good-ish" on paper; only to go into bankrupcty.  That's what any malignant capitalist who has gorged himself at the trough of monopolies would stoop to.  It's just not practical anymore.
> 
> We know how to boil water with the sun.  Sorry?  I guess I'd just tell you that common sense should prevail in which company you invest in.  The closer the concentrated sun rays are to the tube or vat of fluid they are superheating, the more efficient the system will run.  That's why linear arrays work and those ridiculous circular arrays where the vat sits like 100 miles away from the mirrors, that are flat, not convex, are such a pathetic joke.  The first time I saw a picture of one of those phasods-to-failure I nearly fell off my chair laughing.
> 
> Glad you brought that up Jar Jar.
Click to expand...


More BS and lies from Silly, as usual.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know anything about molten salt reactors if you're comparing them to an old breeder style reactor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that all you're doing with them is boiling water to run turbines.
> 
> And, I know that they are much more expensive to permit, run and manage waste for than merely reflecting the sun with parabolic mirrors onto a tube filled with oil that goes to boil water to run turbines.
> 
> I know if I was investing in a new or old power company, I'd invest in the one that gets free water boiling/turbine running from the sunshine instead of some ghastly high-overhead $$ public nuisance or unnecessarily complex toxic process.
> 
> In short, to quote Idiocracy, "I like money..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about them.
> 
> Molten salt reactors actually run on the nuclear waste of our old reactors.  Do not need to be refueled for 20 years or more run at more than 50% efficiency and can never ever melt down.
> 
> Tell me how many acres of land will it take to power millions of homes with solar?
> 
> If 500 acres are needed to power 11000 homes (during the day only) then to power 1.1 million homes (during the day only) you would need 50000 acres.
> 
> That's 78 square miles which is roughly the same size as the land area of Madison Wisconsin.
> 
> Now tell me how many acres you would need to power 11 million homes (during the day only)
Click to expand...


I tried to explain the WAMSR to Silly...she was and is uninterested in understanding it.  She prefers power plants that burn pixie dust and unicorn farts.


----------



## Desperado

Defiant1 said:


> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.



well that was before the tax credits.
 I have to give FPL some credit... 
Any oil we do not have to buy from over seas is a plus for the US.


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that all you're doing with them is boiling water to run turbines.
> 
> And, I know that they are much more expensive to permit, run and manage waste for than merely reflecting the sun with parabolic mirrors onto a tube filled with oil that goes to boil water to run turbines.
> 
> I know if I was investing in a new or old power company, I'd invest in the one that gets free water boiling/turbine running from the sunshine instead of some ghastly high-overhead $$ public nuisance or unnecessarily complex toxic process.
> 
> In short, to quote Idiocracy, "I like money..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about them.
> 
> Molten salt reactors actually run on the nuclear waste of our old reactors.  Do not need to be refueled for 20 years or more run at more than 50% efficiency and can never ever melt down.
> 
> Tell me how many acres of land will it take to power millions of homes with solar?
> 
> If 500 acres are needed to power 11000 homes (during the day only) then to power 1.1 million homes (during the day only) you would need 50000 acres.
> 
> That's 78 square miles which is roughly the same size as the land area of Madison Wisconsin.
> 
> Now tell me how many acres you would need to power 11 million homes (during the day only)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I tried to explain the WAMSR to Silly...she was and is uninterested in understanding it.  She prefers power plants that burn pixie dust and unicorn farts.
Click to expand...


Are you claiming that the Martin Solar plant that uses the linear oil tube superheated by the concentrated sun reflection that boils water to run its turbines this way is a made up story?

You're claiming they don't exist?  Have you had your medication changed recently Jar Jar?


----------



## Silhouette

Defiant1 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull, Republicans are for things that make sense.
> 
> Does spending $476M to save $178M over 30 years make sense to you?
> 
> *And that's if the solar panels last for 30 years, *which I doubt since nothing lasts that long here in the Florida sun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrors and solar panels are not one and the same. This project uses mirrors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know they're mirrors.  It doesn't make a difference. How long can they be effective in the harsh sun, wind, and salt air?
Click to expand...


...lol..  You're right.  If we have to CLEAN the surfaces of those mirrors, that would mean someone would have to have a JOB to do that...lol..

Or, god forbid, we should have to order new replacement mirrors periodically [that are, incidentally made in the US], we'd have to have...*shudder* jobs in manufacturing to do that too!  The horror!

You just made an argument FOR linear-array solar concentrating turbine power, do you realize that?


----------



## Roguewave

Desperado said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well that was before the tax credits.
> I have to give FPL some credit...
> Any oil we do not have to buy from over seas is a plus for the US.
Click to expand...


No "oil from overseas" is eliminated by solar power plants as none is used in the power plants replaced.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about them.
> 
> Molten salt reactors actually run on the nuclear waste of our old reactors.  Do not need to be refueled for 20 years or more run at more than 50% efficiency and can never ever melt down.
> 
> Tell me how many acres of land will it take to power millions of homes with solar?
> 
> If 500 acres are needed to power 11000 homes (during the day only) then to power 1.1 million homes (during the day only) you would need 50000 acres.
> 
> That's 78 square miles which is roughly the same size as the land area of Madison Wisconsin.
> 
> Now tell me how many acres you would need to power 11 million homes (during the day only)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried to explain the WAMSR to Silly...she was and is uninterested in understanding it.  She prefers power plants that burn pixie dust and unicorn farts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that the Martin Solar plant that uses the linear oil tube superheated by the concentrated sun reflection that boils water to run its turbines this way is a made up story?
> 
> You're claiming they don't exist?  Have you had your medication changed recently Jar Jar?
Click to expand...


No, you are LYING, again and still!  *You need to STOP FUCKING LYING!*

Fact: the plant cost $476 million and will save $178 million.  In the real world, that is a $298,000,000 *loss!*  For every dollar spent, they will get 37 cents back.  No matter what you shriek to the heavens, the numbers STILL DO NOT CHANGE!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mirrors and solar panels are not one and the same. This project uses mirrors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know they're mirrors.  It doesn't make a difference. How long can they be effective in the harsh sun, wind, and salt air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...lol..  You're right.  If we have to CLEAN the surfaces of those mirrors, that would mean someone would have to have a JOB to do that...lol..
> 
> Or, god forbid, we should have to order new replacement mirrors periodically [that are, incidentally made in the US], we'd have to have...*shudder* jobs in manufacturing to do that too!  The horror!
> 
> You just made an argument FOR linear-array solar concentrating turbine power, do you realize that?
Click to expand...


You have no idea what salt air does to steel, do you. (That's not a question.)  Even stainless steel will corrode in salt air!  (Even something as high-grade stainless as an industrial hydraulic cylinder.)


----------



## Silhouette

Jarlaxle said:


> You have no idea what salt air does to steel, do you. (That's not a question.)  Even stainless steel will corrode in salt air!  (Even something as high-grade stainless as an industrial hydraulic cylinder.)



All components being equal on all water boiling plants, I could make the same argument about the components making up carbon or nuclear water boilers.

You're just sounding desperate now Jar Jar.  Go take a nap and think up a better spin when you come back.  Meanwhile, every sunny day Martin solar thermal is costing its investors less and less.  Free sunshine.  That's it's attractive edge.  Carbon can't compete.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Once more, for the slow kid: The mirrors are (per what YOU posted) steel.  Steel (even stainless steel) corrodes quickly in salt air...and the first thing compromised is its *reflective* qualities!  Anyone HONEST will understand why this is bad for a solar-thermal power plant...are you honest enough to do so?  (I expect not.)

Yet again: by YOUR numbers, the $476,000,000 investment will return $178,000,000 in savings.  In other words: *the entire thing is a $300,000,000 money pit.*


----------



## Roguewave

Show us the money! What is the cost per MWH for the plant before subsidies? What was the cost before the solar addition? What is the difference and that will be your feasibility. If they are so damned proud of this innovation, they will proudly publish the results in dollars per megawatt hours. Average fluctuates somewhere around $30.00 wholesale price depending on time and place. If they are not willing to give their price or their cost, it is ballyhoo & bullshit. Money is how we keep score in the business world. To say the plant is producing electricity from the sun means jack without the costs attendant. Of course in this case they will have to separate the electricity costs from gas produced and solar produced to have meaning for purposes of this discussion.


----------



## aoxomoxoa

Silhouette said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no idea what salt air does to steel, do you. (That's not a question.)  Even stainless steel will corrode in salt air!  (Even something as high-grade stainless as an industrial hydraulic cylinder.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All components being equal on all water boiling plants, I could make the same argument about the components making up carbon or nuclear water boilers.
> 
> You're just sounding desperate now Jar Jar.  Go take a nap and think up a better spin when you come back.  Meanwhile, every sunny day Martin solar thermal is costing its investors less and less.  Free sunshine.  That's it's attractive edge.  Carbon can't compete.
Click to expand...


The major difference, which pretty obvious really is that those mirrors are outside, show me any conventional plant where that is true.


----------



## Silhouette

So, you guys are serious?...lol

Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???

You mean, gasp, they'll have to be cleaned or replaced now and then at intervals?  I suppose the companies employing them so they won't have essentially any overhead for the 300 days a year they are not having to pay to burn coal or natural gas, but charging the same amount as if they did, would have a little savings account they could tap years down the road to replace those mirrors, or, to hire guys to maintain them and keep them clean, oiled up and in good form?

Any other "legitimate complaints" about solar thermal?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> So, you guys are serious?...lol
> 
> Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???
> 
> You mean, gasp, they'll have to be cleaned or replaced now and then at intervals?  I suppose the companies employing them so they won't have essentially any overhead for the 300 days a year they are not having to pay to burn coal or natural gas, but charging the same amount as if they did, would have a little savings account they could tap years down the road to replace those mirrors, or, to hire guys to maintain them and keep them clean, oiled up and in good form?
> 
> Any other "legitimate complaints" about solar thermal?



It's inefficient, takes up too much space and only works during the day.  Oh and let's not forget to mention that it is expensive and will cost us more than it saves.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you guys are serious?...lol
> 
> Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???
> 
> You mean, gasp, they'll have to be cleaned or replaced now and then at intervals?  I suppose the companies employing them so they won't have essentially any overhead for the 300 days a year they are not having to pay to burn coal or natural gas, but charging the same amount as if they did, would have a little savings account they could tap years down the road to replace those mirrors, or, to hire guys to maintain them and keep them clean, oiled up and in good form?
> 
> Any other "legitimate complaints" about solar thermal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's inefficient, takes up too much space and only works during the day.  Oh and let's not forget to mention that it is expensive and will cost us more than it saves.
Click to expand...


Yes, getting free energy every minute of a given year that the sun shines is most surely "inefficient" from just mirrors.  Terrible that all that time the plant owners won't have to outlay money to burn fossil fuels.  Better to just burn 24/7 round the clock right?  Cheaper that way, right?  Much better to mine uranium, permit a plant, build an ungodly expensive sarcophagus, poison the environment with radiation, manage waste for hundreds of thousands of radioactive years.  Or to mine coal, spill the processing chemicals into rivers that poison millions of downstream drinkers/bathers...

You mean "efficiency" like that?... 

As you already know but are being dishonest about, mirrors are less expensive than fracking or coal mining or uranium mining and deaths.  But carry on..it's rather amusing..


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you guys are serious?...lol
> 
> Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???
> 
> You mean, gasp, they'll have to be cleaned or replaced now and then at intervals?  I suppose the companies employing them so they won't have essentially any overhead for the 300 days a year they are not having to pay to burn coal or natural gas, but charging the same amount as if they did, would have a little savings account they could tap years down the road to replace those mirrors, or, to hire guys to maintain them and keep them clean, oiled up and in good form?
> 
> Any other "legitimate complaints" about solar thermal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's inefficient, takes up too much space and only works during the day.  Oh and let's not forget to mention that it is expensive and will cost us more than it saves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, getting free energy every minute of a given year that the sun shines is most surely "inefficient" from just mirrors.  Terrible that all that time the plant owners won't have to outlay money to burn fossil fuels.  Better to just burn 24/7 round the clock right?  Cheaper that way, right?  Much better to mine uranium, permit a plant, build an ungodly expensive sarcophagus, poison the environment with radiation, manage waste for hundreds of thousands of radioactive years.  Or to mine coal, spill the processing chemicals into rivers that poison millions of downstream drinkers/bathers...
> 
> You mean "efficiency" like that?...
> 
> As you already know but are being dishonest about, mirrors are less expensive than fracking or coal mining or uranium mining and deaths.  But carry on..it's rather amusing..
Click to expand...


Did I mention fossil fuels in any of  my posts?

Nuclear is the best option for abundant inexpensive emission free energy.

The new reactors I have mentioned are the future of energy. They are safe and will solve the problem of the nuclear waste he have in storage.  

Solar is only good while the sun shines.  Wind only when the wind blows.


Neither can provide enough energy to meet the needs of the future. At best wind and solar are supplemental.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> So, you guys are serious?...lol
> 
> Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???



My objections (stated yet *again*, for at least the thirtieth time) is that *it is a bottomless money pit!*  God and goddess, are you really THIS FUCKING DENSE?!


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you guys are serious?...lol
> 
> Your main objection to arrays of mirrors concentrating solar energy on an oil-filled tube, boiling water that runs turbines after heat exchange is that "the mirrors might get dirty or corrode over time because they are outside"???
> 
> You mean, gasp, they'll have to be cleaned or replaced now and then at intervals?  I suppose the companies employing them so they won't have essentially any overhead for the 300 days a year they are not having to pay to burn coal or natural gas, but charging the same amount as if they did, would have a little savings account they could tap years down the road to replace those mirrors, or, to hire guys to maintain them and keep them clean, oiled up and in good form?
> 
> Any other "legitimate complaints" about solar thermal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's inefficient, takes up too much space and only works during the day.  Oh and let's not forget to mention that it is expensive and will cost us more than it saves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, getting free energy every minute of a given year that the sun shines is most surely "inefficient" from just mirrors.  Terrible that all that time the plant owners won't have to outlay money to burn fossil fuels.  Better to just burn 24/7 round the clock right?  Cheaper that way, right?  Much better to mine uranium, permit a plant, build an ungodly expensive sarcophagus, poison the environment with radiation, manage waste for hundreds of thousands of radioactive years.  Or to mine coal, spill the processing chemicals into rivers that poison millions of downstream drinkers/bathers...
> 
> You mean "efficiency" like that?...
> 
> As you already know but are being dishonest about, mirrors are less expensive than fracking or coal mining or uranium mining and deaths.  But carry on..it's rather amusing..
Click to expand...


WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK, WHACK!  Is it sinking through that thick skull yet, Silly?!  Once more, for the REALLY slow kid: *the plant is doing to LOSE THREE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!*  Short of writing it in crayon, I do not know how much more I can simplify it!


----------



## Silhouette

Let's scale it down so your scary lies won't stick, shall we Jar Jar?  Let's help folks see the economics of the situation...

Let's say my or your home or business was run by a tiny gas powered turbine to make electricity for you.  Then you bought some mirrors that boiled the water for you using the sun's rays.  So now while the sun was shining, you didn't have to buy gas to run your turbine.  Whew!  Good thing the sun shines 300 days a year where you live.  What a savings!

At night you don't use much energy either.  Neither does the country as a whole.  Over a year's time you have saved so much money in gas that just five years later or less, your new system has paid for itself and you now have the cheapest energy of anyone on your block using the old carbon-24-7/365 system.

I'm not going to go all manic on you and type the same word a hundred times.  But you get the point..  Just shift your investments, don't go into panic mode.  That's what everyone else is doing.  Don't get left behind and you won't panic.


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Let's scale it down so your scary lies won't stick, shall we Jar Jar?  Let's help folks see the economics of the situation...
> 
> Let's say my or your home or business was run by a tiny gas powered turbine to make electricity for you.  Then you bought some mirrors that boiled the water for you using the sun's rays.  So now while the sun was shining, you didn't have to buy gas to run your turbine.  Whew!  Good thing the sun shines 300 days a year where you live.  What a savings!
> 
> At night you don't use much energy either.  Neither does the country as a whole.  Over a year's time you have saved so much money in gas that just five years later or less, your new system has paid for itself and you now have the cheapest energy of anyone on your block using the old carbon-24-7/365 system.
> 
> I'm not going to go all manic on you and type the same word a hundred times.  But you get the point..  Just shift your investments, don't go into panic mode.  That's what everyone else is doing.  Don't get left behind and you won't panic.



Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.

How much did the mirrors cost?  How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.
> 
> How much did the mirrors cost?  How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?



Let's turn that around a bit.  Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open _you_ to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.

I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..


----------



## whitehall

Another 500 acres of environmentally sensitive sub tropical property ruined by covering it with solar panels. Before y'all lefties go congratulating yourselves about the alleged fossil fuel you "saved" you have to factor in the fossil fuel it took to build the thing. An important thing to note is that the radicals focus on how much fossil fuel the thing will allegedly "save" rather than the dismal output. Apparently the manufacture of solar panels is so hazardous that they make the junk in countries like China which have little or no haz-mat restrictions.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.
> 
> How much did the mirrors cost?  How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn that around a bit.  Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open _you_ to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.
> 
> I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..
Click to expand...


It's not "free"  If it was "free" there would be no need for government subsidies now would there?

The materials cost money.  Construction costs money maintenance costs money.

Haven't you learned that nothing is "free" yet?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Let's scale it down so your scary lies won't stick, shall we Jar Jar?  Let's help folks see the economics of the situation...
> 
> Let's say my or your home or business was run by a tiny gas powered turbine to make electricity for you.  Then you bought some mirrors that boiled the water for you using the sun's rays.  So now while the sun was shining, you didn't have to buy gas to run your turbine.  Whew!  Good thing the sun shines 300 days a year where you live.  What a savings!
> 
> At night you don't use much energy either.  Neither does the country as a whole.  Over a year's time you have saved so much money in gas that just five years later or less, your new system has paid for itself and you now have the cheapest energy of anyone on your block using the old carbon-24-7/365 system.
> 
> I'm not going to go all manic on you and type the same word a hundred times.  But you get the point..  Just shift your investments, don't go into panic mode.  That's what everyone else is doing.  Don't get left behind and you won't panic.



Yet again: You have not refuted ONE SINGLE WORD I have posted.  The plant will LOSE $300,000,000, and no amount of shrieking horseshit to the heavens will change this simple FACT, Silly.  It is a bottomless money pit, and yet you are still lying about it.  Why is that, Silly?


----------



## Silhouette

There seems to be quite a bit of palpable _anger_ about a solar thermal plant in Florida.  Odd?  

First of all, if you look at the picture in the OP, the solar mirrors are not taking up the entire 500 acres.  The entire property of the plant that used to be just natural gas is probably a 500 acre tract.  I know large tracts of land by sight and scale.  Judging by the road near the plant, the facilities and the size of the array in the background, it looks like about 80-100 acres instead where the actual mirrors are set up.  The rest is the natural gas plant and probably the largest share to wetland mitigation judging by the levees and water areas:


----------



## skookerasbil

Silhouette said:


> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...




fAiL sweets...........






























These green fantasy bubble dwellars.........I really hate to always be the one blowing their shit up, but the way I look at it, somebody around here has to keep it real.


----------



## skookerasbil

shit......almost forgot........


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now show that this is a viable option using actual financial figures.
> 
> How much did the mirrors cost?  How much is the cost to maintain and or replace them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn that around a bit.  Since common sense dictates that something that is free for most of the year [solar energy that boils the water ultimately], is less expensive than paying for fuel, the onus is open _you_ to show the numbers that this obvious savings isn't somehow viable.
> 
> I'll await your numbers with anticipation showing your projections how burning carbon during those daylight hours would be cheaper than free energy...lol..
Click to expand...


I'm not the one making the claim that this is a good investment, you are.  However, I'll show you this:

Type in Zip Code 32258, select JEA as the utility, and put $300 as the average electric bill at this link - 

Solar Power Calculator | Find Solar

It shows a total cost before government subsidies to be over $127K.  With subsidies it's $89K.

Would you spend $89,0000 right now to save $300 per month?  I wouldn't.  It's barely break-even assuming the system doesn't require any maintenance or repair.


So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?



Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.  

You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.  

If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.

1. Periodically clean them.

2. Periodically replace them.

Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
Click to expand...


You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.

Why is that?


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.
> 
> Why is that?
Click to expand...


The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago.  We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company.  We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass.  Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.

Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all?  OK, since you insist.  Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:



> The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
> 
> U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...
> 
> ...*Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities*
> 
> ...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.&#8221;
> 
> The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. *Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report*, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
> 
> Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk
> 
> With this track record, it&#8217;s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing&#8212;so *the industry has looked to government for subsidies*, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: *according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate*. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/



Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in?  A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily?  Hmmm...tough choice there...  Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than _millions_...

Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes.  Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment."  Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America".  Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
Click to expand...


You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago.  We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company.  We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass.  Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.
> 
> Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all?  OK, since you insist.  Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
> 
> U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...
> 
> ...*Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities*
> 
> ...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.&#8221;
> 
> The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. *Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report*, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
> 
> Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk
> 
> With this track record, it&#8217;s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing&#8212;so *the industry has looked to government for subsidies*, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: *according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate*. http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear-power-and-our-energy-choices/nuclear-power-costs/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in?  A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily?  Hmmm...tough choice there...  Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than _millions_...
> 
> Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes.  Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment."  Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America".  Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"
Click to expand...


It really looks like you're having a problem with finance here.  That's odd for someone advocating that investments get made.  When have you ever invested in something without having cost data for review?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't given any proof with actual numbers.
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The solar thermal addition was built onto the plant in 2013, just a few short months ago.  We will use common sense to project that simple mirrors creating free energy to run the turbines at the plant during sunny days, of which there are numerous ones in Florida, will be a net savings and a boon even to that company.  We will await the number in five years and I will hand you your ass.  Meanwhile, common sense dictates that free energy for 300+ days a year to run those turbines is going to be an excellent bet for investors.
> 
> Shall we discuss nuclear subsidies and how that industry makes no profit at all?  OK, since you insist.  Our next tutorial will be the hidden costs of fracking and coal mining:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up
> 
> U.S. needs to shift public support to less costly, less risky alternatives...
> 
> ...*Building Nuclear Plants: Cheap Dreams, Expensive Realities*
> 
> ...The first generation of nuclear power plants proved so costly to build that half of them were abandoned during construction. Those that were completed saw huge cost overruns, which were passed on to utility customers in the form of rate increases. By 1985, Forbes had labeled U.S. nuclear power "the largest managerial disaster in business history.&#8221;
> 
> The industry has failed to prove that things will be different this time around: soaring, uncertain costs continue to plague nuclear power in the 21st century. *Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report*, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.
> 
> Financing Nuclear Power: Putting the Public at Risk
> 
> With this track record, it&#8217;s not surprising that nuclear power has failed to attract private-sector financing&#8212;so *the industry has looked to government for subsidies*, including loan guarantees, tax credits, and other forms of public support. And these subsidies have not been small: *according to a 2011 UCS report, by some estimates they have cost taxpayers more than the market value of the power they helped generate*. The Cost of Nuclear Power: Numbers That Don't Add Up | Union of Concerned Scientists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, let's see.... which company would I want to invest in?  A nuclear plant that costs BILLIONS to startup, that never sees a net profit, and if anything goes wrong can destroy my entire country and its natural resources forever or....a solar thermal plant that costs just millions instead, sees profit in a very short time, and that does nothing whatsoever to the environment when something goes wrong; where everything can be mitigated and fixed easily?  Hmmm...tough choice there...  Government subsidies being equal of course...well...not exactly since BILLIONS is a bit different than _millions_...
> 
> Next: "Fracking, aquifers, fragile shale, fragile well casings and lateral shear earthquakes.  Specialists on the New Madrid Fault will weigh in on its being overdue to quake and how far those kinetic waves travel through the Midwest strata as compared to California's more rocky underlayment."  Or "Kiss your fresh water goodbye forever America".  Or "The hidden BILLIONS OR TRILLIONS costs in the fracking industry [you know, if you add up losses in agriculture from fouled aquifers forever]"
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about fracking am I?

Besides even the EPA can't find any real evidence of harm from fracking.

EPA Study: Marcellus Fracking Does NOT Impact Drinking Water | Marcellus Drilling News

NUCLEAR is the energy of the future.

We should be shooting for 80% of our power to be generated from emission free nuclear power produced by burning all of the nuclear waste we currently have in storage.

Wind and solar should be relegated to their proper role as small source supplemental power.

And BTW you still haven't provided any real numbers.


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?



Because of the dangerous nature of burning coal, natural gas or uranium, the permitting process of these plants takes up to 10 years, is unbelievably expensive and the compenents of safety checks and backup systems, waste disposal and environmental mitigation just runs costs off the charts.

Sunshine reflected on a pipe filled with fluid take much less worry and disaster out of the equation so the permitting process is much much cheaper and quicker.

For the modular  and quick nature of solar thermal installation, view this youtube:

[ame=http://youtu.be/7Gvwy8yDMzw]Areva's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant_ Thermal Power Station Videos.engineerbaber.pak - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of the dangerous nature of burning coal, natural gas or uranium, the permitting process of these plants takes up to 10 years, is unbelievably expensive and the compenents of safety checks and backup systems, waste disposal and environmental mitigation just runs costs off the charts.
> 
> Sunshine reflected on a pipe filled with fluid take much less worry and disaster out of the equation so the permitting process is much much cheaper and quicker.
> 
> For the modular  and quick nature of solar thermal installation, view this youtube:
> 
> [ame=http://youtu.be/7Gvwy8yDMzw]Areva's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant_ Thermal Power Station Videos.engineerbaber.pak - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct.  Why is that?


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct.  Why is that?



Yes, you do understand because it was explained to you.  It is the FIRST HYBRID PLANT IN THE WORLD according to the article title and was only installed a year ago  So, the numbers will take time to come in.  

Suffice to say it's an excellent roll of the dice that if it's easier and vastly cheaper to install and permit and mitigate environmentally, with free energy once its installed, the numbers are going to be much sweeter than pure coal or natural gas plants or the complete net loss that nuclear is.  

I tell you, there isn't even a number high enough to calculate what between Chernobyl & Fukushima, what the total cost to the world environmental systems, fisheries and oceans will be.


----------



## HenryBHough

Cute things.  I mean hybrid power plants.  The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.

I want one for a pet!

Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.


----------



## Silhouette

HenryBHough said:


> Cute things.  I mean hybrid power plants.  The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.
> 
> I want one for a pet!
> 
> Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.



Are you belittling burning less fuel each year to produce the same output Martin natural gas, now Martin solar thermal hybrid always did?  The company is reducing its overhead.  Not sure how that is a bad thing.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute things.  I mean hybrid power plants.  The best of them have a little gasoline engine to run when the load is a little too heavy but the neat part is you can plug them into the grid to feed off themselves overnight when demand is low.
> 
> I want one for a pet!
> 
> Provided the do-gooders don't make me have it neutered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you belittling burning less fuel each year to produce the same output Martin natural gas, now Martin solar thermal hybrid always did?  The company is reducing its overhead.  Not sure how that is a bad thing.
Click to expand...


Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work  when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work  when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.



Zero costs?  Do explain.


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you do understand because it was explained to you.  It is the FIRST HYBRID PLANT IN THE WORLD according to the article title and was only installed a year ago  So, the numbers will take time to come in.
> 
> Suffice to say it's an excellent roll of the dice that if it's easier and vastly cheaper to install and permit and mitigate environmentally, with free energy once its installed, the numbers are going to be much sweeter than pure coal or natural gas plants or the complete net loss that nuclear is.
> 
> I tell you, there isn't even a number high enough to calculate what between Chernobyl & Fukushima, what the total cost to the world environmental systems, fisheries and oceans will be.
Click to expand...


So at this point you have nothing but faith and guesses.  That's all you had to say instead of trying to make a financial argument without any financial data.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work  when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero costs?  Do explain.
Click to expand...


Where did I say zero cost?

And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.

Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work  when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero costs?  Do explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I say zero cost?
> 
> And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.
> 
> Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?
Click to expand...


So the system is foolproof then?  Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.

Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please.  Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers.  Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..


----------



## Silhouette

Mirrors that reflect and concentrate the sun's rays on an oil-filled tube that heat exchanges with water to boil it to run turbines don't come with $billions of guaranteed environmental catasrophes.  You just have to clean and replace them occasionally to boil water just like is all nuclear power does...but at a tiny thumbnail fraction of the total costs..

I'm still betting on the solar thermal horse.  That nuclear pony is so lame that it can't even limp out of the chute.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero costs?  Do explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say zero cost?
> 
> And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.
> 
> Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the system is foolproof then?  Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.
> 
> Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please.  Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers.  Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..
Click to expand...


Why don't you take a minute ti learn about molten salt reactors as they have as much in common with Chernobyl and Fukishima as the Wrights biplane does with an F22.

And I never said energy was free.  That's your line not mine.

If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools.  It's all part of the design.

And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> And I never said energy was free.  That's your line not mine.
> 
> If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools.  It's all part of the design.
> 
> And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.



So, when the molten salt reactor fails and "the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools", I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the "liquid medium" and 

2. Where is the reservior?

3. Is it completely isolated from any environmental vector that might pollute say, groundwater or air or soils for the 240,000 years it takes for plutonium [if that's part of the "liquid medium"] to lose its deadly radioactivity?

Or would it just be a more sensible and morally-responsible idea given the gravity of radioactive plutonium, to just boil water with mirrors with a simple carbon backup for cloudy days and at nightime?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I never said energy was free.  That's your line not mine.
> 
> If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools.  It's all part of the design.
> 
> And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the molten salt reactor fails and "the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools", I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. What is the "liquid medium" and
> 
> 2. Where is the reservior?
> 
> 3. Is it completely isolated from any environmental vector that might pollute say, groundwater or air or soils for the 240,000 years it takes for plutonium [if that's part of the "liquid medium"] to lose its deadly radioactivity?
Click to expand...


I've given links that explain how they work if you haven't bothered to read them that's your problem.


----------



## Silhouette

OK, from your links:



> First, the WAMSR takes the "spent" fuel rods (which, again, are actually far from spent), strip out the unused uranium, and dissolve it in molten salt...
> 
> ...The molten salt reactor concept has actually been around since at least the 1950s, which the MIT crew admits.
> 
> What's new is the idea of using nuclear "waste" to power the plant.
> 
> *The process, they say, reduces the original waste volume by up to 98 percent*.
> 
> And the reactor reduces most of the waste's radioactive lifetime to hundreds of years, thereby decreasing the need for permanent repositories such as Yucca Mountain.
> 
> The entire reactor would be far more compact, too.
> 
> In an email, Russ Wilcox, the CEO of the firm founded to develop the technology, said they are designing a reactor to be modular and rail-shippable, with a fast construction time.
> 
> Read more: Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor - Business Insider



Could you define in detail the part in bold above?


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman?  Please define the bit in bold in the last post.  Thanks.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Maybe.....
I see a few issues.
One, construction costs. Solar panels are very expensive.
Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.


----------



## Silhouette

thereisnospoon said:


> Maybe.....
> I see a few issues.
> One, construction costs. *Solar panels are very expensive*.
> Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
> Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
> Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
> Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
> You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
> Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.



They aren't solar panels.  They're simple, concave reflective mirrors.  Sheet metal with a shine; that's it.  Because of their shape they focus the sun's rays to a beam, essentially, that is hot enough to bring the oil in the tube they're aimed at to 300 degrees celsius.  That is shunted over to heat exchangers that boil water that run turbines.

They work nothing at all like photovoltaic solar panels.  Apples and oranges.  They move the big work horses of the energy industry: steam turbines.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Do you know what it means to not burn carbon and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year?  It adds up to more than that pal.  They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years.  Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living.  Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts.  That's what this plant is.  You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.
> 
> That's what's happened in Florida.  They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy.  It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..
Click to expand...


Your link states the saving in 2009 Dollars would be $178 million over the 30 year life expectancy of the plant.....$5.93 million per year. Now, that may seem like a lot of money, but over 30 years with inflation and the ever fluctuating costs of fuel, maintenance, parts, labor, wages, etc.....Well a plant such as this ends up costing far more than it should. Rate payers and stock holders will wind up footing the bill.
This link states the plant cost $476 million...Solar Energy Plants Under 2009 Construction in Florida - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
BTW, who said carbon is pollution?
Carbon WHAT?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it only serves 11,000 homes.
> 
> That is nothing in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the EXISTING carbon plant only serves 11,000 homes.  The solar thermal reflectors attached to that carbon plant were set up as an augment to the existing service.  Your point is a non sequitor.
Click to expand...


No...The story you provided stated that plant provides enough electricity fore 11,000 homes.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already sabotage is "suggested"..lol..
> 
> Hey, guess what?  Those "panels" aren't panels.  They aren't even a thumbnail as expensive to mass produce as solar photovoltaics.  They are simply mirrors.  Just parabolic mirrors.  Formed steel.  No circuitry at all except their sun trackers, which are also relative easy to construct.
> 
> And your solution when that hurricane wipes out the carbon generator sitting right next to this system?  The nuclear power plant?  Should we scrap those too? [we absolutely should for nuclear].  Silly.  If I had to pick a power plant to revamp after a hurricane or increasingly common freak tornado swarms, it would be a solar thermal plant, hands down.  Cheapest by far.
> 
> Instead of stewing in sour grapes and obviously schilling for the petroleum industry, why not just invest in a cash cow that solar thermal hybrid plants are and switch over to creating biodiesels.  Guess what?  Creating biodiesels are much less expensive than mining petroleum and the energy you use to create them can be gotten by...*drum roll*.... _solar thermal heaters_!  Right in the Midwest you can set up a biodiesel plant.  Right where the fuels to mix with petrol are made.  Train or truck those down to your Texas refinery, sit back and watch the cash flow in.
> 
> You aren't going to roll the clock back on the good old boon days of big tuna boat passenger cars and unending military presence in the Middle East.
> 
> And, recent earthquakes in the Texas town being fracked, right near the well site are alarming.  Particularly because a lateral shear earthquake can shatter a well casing allowing corrosive solvents and deadly chemicals to enter the last reserves of fresh water this nation has underground to use for agriculture.  We are overdue for "The Big One" in the New Madrid fault running down the Mississippi River roughly.  Because of the nature of the strata in the Midwest, the earthquakes there are felt and experienced at a much wider radius than like they get in California.  They are felt for hundreds, sometimes many hundred of miles.  That's within fracking areas.
> 
> Just stop.  Stop it.  The bottom line is your bottom line anyway guys.  Just figure out new ways to corner the market, lobby Congress [you know the drill] to get your monopolies and sleep at night knowing your whores and cocaine parties are at least paid for by doing something good for the world while you're ripping the chumps blind at the pumps.  Fair enough?
Click to expand...


Ya know what/ You were fine when you were extolling the virtue of this facility.
I se now that you are one of these leftard "all fossil fuel is evil" radicals.
You just lost whatever credibility you may have had.
Look, genius. Solar energy production is a good idea in its infancy. But for now and the foreseeable future the cost of these plants is prohibitive to build and maintain them. Plus, these plants are not suitable in areas where there are many days with cloud cover. Areas such as the Pacific Northwest. The Upper Midwest, The Mid Atlantic and New England States.


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.....
> I see a few issues.
> One, construction costs. *Solar panels are very expensive*.
> Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
> Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
> Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
> Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
> You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
> Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't solar panels.  They're simple, concave reflective mirrors.  Sheet metal with a shine; that's it.  Because of their shape they focus the sun's rays to a beam, essentially, that is hot enough to bring the oil in the tube they're aimed at to 300 degrees celsius.  That is shunted over to heat exchangers that boil water that run turbines.
> 
> They work nothing at all like photovoltaic solar panels.  Apples and oranges.  They move the big work horses of the energy industry: steam turbines.
Click to expand...


So when you say simple, does that mean cheaper than photovoltaic cells?

Mirrors:



> "Typically what we're seeing is $2.50 to $4 a watt (for) capital cost," Weihl said. "So a 250 megawatt installation would be $600 million to a $1 billion. It's a lot of money."



link

Photovoltaic:



> The cost of installing photovoltaic solar arrays has dropped to $3 per watt of electricity they produce - about the same as coal-powered plants cost to build - creating a watershed moment in the development of clean energy, experts say.



link

It doesn't appear to be any cheaper, but I could be wrong.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????

Less dependence on the middle east
A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.


----------



## HenryBHough

Matthew said:


> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.



Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.


----------



## ScienceRocks

HenryBHough said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.
Click to expand...


If it would end our dependence on enemy nations. Why not?


----------



## HenryBHough

OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.


----------



## ScienceRocks

HenryBHough said:


> OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.



So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.


----------



## HenryBHough

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.
Click to expand...


And yet you don't park your SUV.  

Typical liberal; unwilling to do its own part but demanding others pay big taxes to make up for that.


----------



## ScienceRocks

HenryBHough said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you don't park your SUV.
> 
> Typical liberal; unwilling to do its own part but demanding others pay big taxes to make up for that.
Click to expand...


What's your solution? I am talking about *energy independence,,,,*NOT global warming or co2.


----------



## HenryBHough

Simple enough.

Unplug your computer.  Turn off your lights.  Unplug your refrigerator and freezer.  Now if you and a few hundred thousand more dedicated liberals do that the need for imported energy of any kind will vanish like Obama's promises.  The rest of us can get by quite adequately on domestic power.  Until, of course, Obama puts all the coal miners out of work and their families become just so many more darkies living off the slops from The Table of The Messiahs.


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you don't park your SUV.
> 
> Typical liberal; unwilling to do its own part but demanding others pay big taxes to make up for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your solution? I am talking about *energy independence,,,,*NOT global warming or co2.
Click to expand...


We've pretty much ALWAYS BEEN energy independent for electrical grid energy.
It's all domestically sourced.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Nobody complained about Martin Solar when it was Martin natural gas...lol...  Suddenly you have a problem with that power plant's output when it matches the one it always had from gas?
> 
> Nuclear?  Really?  Would you like me to start posting Fukushima updates again?  One core meltdown can ruin your whole...240,000 years and your country's food and drinking water supply forever.  Children of Chernobyl?  Is it time to dig those photos out again?  I mean, I can if you want...
> 
> 
> 
> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yay now they can still jack everyone on their bills and make more profit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  People pay what they paid before.  You think all of a sudden people will sit up and start complaining that the energy they consume at the same rate they're used to is less harmful to our atmosphere now?
> 
> What strange spinning y'all are involved in.  Just give up the horse and buggy already.  It's a new century and new innovations mean new sources of money.  Do they always have to necessarily be destructive to the environment?  It's like a _cult_ with you guys; the cult of soot, sludge and destruction.  It's the oddest thing...
Click to expand...


Who says it's harmful to the atmosphere?


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My ass.  Do you know what it means to not burn carbon and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year?  It adds up to more than that pal.  They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years.  Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living.  Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts.  That's what this plant is.  You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.
> 
> That's what's happened in Florida.  They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy.  It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..
Click to expand...


I know you're jazzed, but catch a breath here. The solar thermal provides about 6 or 7 hours of power per day.. It does NOT power 11,000 homes. Nat Gas provides most of the power for this plant. And those are the GOOD days, when Florida is rain-free and cloudless. In fact, in the 1st year of operation, the plant UNDERperformed the promised expectations on the solar side by 42%.



> Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Unit 8 features four 170 MW gas turbines, one 470 MW steam turbine, and a single condenser and cooling tower[1] .[2] The single solar field circuit heats 4 steam generators, after each gas turbine. The Martin solar thermal facility is designed to provide steam for FPL's existing Martin Unit 8 combined cycle unit, thus reducing FPL's use of natural gas. No additional capacity (MW) will result from the operation of the solar thermal facility. The Solar Energy Center has an array of approximately 190,000-mirror parabolic troughs on about 500 acres (202 ha) of the Martin County plant.[3] The solar collectors feed heat to the existing steam plant, generating electricity at a rate of 155,000 MW·h per year.[4] The 2012 solar derived production was about 89,000 MW·h of power, according to records filed with the state&#8217;s Public Service Commission. That&#8217;s 42% less than what was projected when the plant got approval.[5]



You've got THOUSANDS of motors and servoes to track the sun. And with all that precipt, the 10,000 mirrors are a constant maintenance operation to keep them clean. So much for "free" energy.

It's a PEAKER technology, and it opportunistically reduces the fuel for a nat gas plant. but the extra cost of land, enviro impact, increased maintenance,  and reduction of CO2 sinking by stripping the land all come into the "costs" of operation. We'll see how happy the "stockholders" are in a couple of years.

Not a single 7-11 store makes it thru the day/night without fossil fuel or nuclear in this country. And this is interesting technology, but the economics and performance are underwhelming.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It is YOU who have obsession with carbon *- that was your point in considering this plant's major advantages  - will burn less carbon - *why on earth is this good? are you brainwashed much with AGW*?
> 
> I have nothing against solar - if it is COST EFFICIENT, which this one is NOT - and therefore it is extremely BAD and will fail.
> 
> What IS cost efficient and what is the best from ecology standpoint is nuclear power, and so far nothing has surpassed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone sounds a little grumpy that stockholders of Martin Solar will be making more money from not having to pay for fuel to burn most of the year.  Just adjust your investment portfolio bro instead of expecting the world's atmosphere to take a nose dive because you're too lazy to sell and rebuy in another progressive trade with a brighter future in dividends.
> 
> Your stupid cannot be the world's responsibility.
> 
> I was "brainwashed" in college chemistry.  I know what happens to carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and methanes associated with burning carbons when they mix in the atmosphere, the dynamics of specific heat and the blanket properties of gases that trap heat in the upper atmosphere that normally would escape.
> 
> Plus, on a vacation this year I noticed that the Ocean that used to sit way way off shore at my favorite beaches is now lapping at the ramparts along the board walk at high tide.  A large stretch of highway that used to be high and dry now sits snugly up against the lapping high tide just ready to breach the levees.
> 
> You don't need an advanced degree to see the ocean encroaching closer and closer and closer...
Click to expand...

I guess in your quest to convince yourself that the planet is about to spontaneously combust, you forgot about erosion.
Here....Read this....http://www.dvfu.ru/meteo/book/HandbookAtm.pdf


----------



## asterism

Matthew said:


> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.



It's still too expensive.


----------



## asterism

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it would end our dependence on enemy nations. Why not?
Click to expand...


So would nuclear and more fracking.


----------



## Jarlaxle

asterism said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> So can we get back to your first claim, and will you please demonstrate how you think the costs to build this plant in Martin County will be paid off in 5 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?
Click to expand...


She NEVER posts numbers, because she KNOWS they destroy her argument.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work  when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zero costs?  Do explain.
Click to expand...


I will give you one trillion dollars if you point to where he posted "zero costs".  Ready...GO!

*Stop LYING, Silly!*


----------



## Jarlaxle

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Zero costs?  Do explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say zero cost?
> 
> And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.
> 
> Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the system is foolproof then?  Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.
> 
> Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please.  Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers.  Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..
Click to expand...


Stop LYING, Silly!  Just STOP!

The WAMSR is passively safe. (Losing coolant causes it to shut down.)  It actually HELPS the waste "problem", because it is FUELED by nuclear waste. (It's a *Waste-Annihliating* Molten Salt Reactor.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Matthew said:


> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.



Sure...how about YOU pay to re-engineer my 160-year-old house for that!  Unfortunately, they would never be anything close to efficient, because the peak of my roof (and it's steep, like many New England houses) is laid out so the panels could not face south.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.
Click to expand...


Are you in favor of greatly expending nuclear power?  If not, you are not serious about wanting to be energy independent.  It is that simple.


----------



## Spiderman

Jarlaxle said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I say zero cost?
> 
> And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.
> 
> Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the system is foolproof then?  Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.
> 
> Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please.  Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers.  Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop LYING, Silly!  Just STOP!
> 
> The WAMSR is passively safe. (Losing coolant causes it to shut down.)  It actually HELPS the waste "problem", because it is FUELED by nuclear waste. (It's a *Waste-Annihliating* Molten Salt Reactor.)
Click to expand...


MSRs don't need coolants per se.

If the reactor gets too hot the liquid expands thereby slowing the reaction and dropping the temperature.

The safety valve to the dump tanks works like a freeze plug in a car radiator.  If the temperature gets hot enough or the reactor loses power the plug melts away allowing the liquid fuel to drain into multiple tanks where it will cool and solidify.

Afterwards the solid fuel can be heated again and reintroduced to the reactor chamber.

One of the best attributes of MSRs is they run at atmospheric pressure  so even if a breach occurs no contaminated steam or gases are under pressure to spew into the air.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Actually, the article I read (and linked for Silly, who, of course, ignored it) said they WERE actively cooled...but if the cooling system failed, the safety plug would melt as you describe.

Having said that, I am perfectly willing to believe there is more than one WAMSR design!


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> MSRs don't need coolants per se.
> 
> *If the reactor gets too hot the liquid expands *thereby slowing the reaction and dropping the temperature.
> 
> The safety valve to the dump tanks works like a freeze plug in a car radiator.  If the temperature gets hot enough or the reactor loses power the plug melts away allowing the liquid fuel to drain into multiple tanks where it will cool and solidify.
> 
> Afterwards the solid fuel can be heated again and reintroduced to the reactor chamber.
> 
> *One of the best attributes of MSRs is they run at atmospheric pressure  so even if a breach occurs no contaminated steam or gases are under pressure to spew into the air*.



Not in the air, but in the ground.  My point is that boiling water with mirrors isn't going to have safety risks at all.  

All the infrastructure and failsafes you'd have to build into your water boiler is supposed to cost less than an array of simple mirrors, right?  I mean, we're talking about costs [total, all over time for pure overhead and environmental damages, pollution of groundwater etc.] right?  Your system is supposed to be better than solar thermal cost wise?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> MSRs don't need coolants per se.
> 
> *If the reactor gets too hot the liquid expands *thereby slowing the reaction and dropping the temperature.
> 
> The safety valve to the dump tanks works like a freeze plug in a car radiator.  If the temperature gets hot enough or the reactor loses power the plug melts away allowing the liquid fuel to drain into multiple tanks where it will cool and solidify.
> 
> Afterwards the solid fuel can be heated again and reintroduced to the reactor chamber.
> 
> *One of the best attributes of MSRs is they run at atmospheric pressure  so even if a breach occurs no contaminated steam or gases are under pressure to spew into the air*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the air, but in the ground.  My point is that boiling water with mirrors isn't going to have safety risks at all.
> 
> All the infrastructure and failsafes you'd have to build into your water boiler is supposed to cost less than an array of simple mirrors, right?  I mean, we're talking about costs [total, all over time for pure overhead and environmental damages, pollution of groundwater etc.] right?  Your system is supposed to be better than solar thermal cost wise?
Click to expand...


Yes because for the money an MSR generates power every second of every day not just when the sun is out and it does so in a fraction of the space.  In fact no new land development need take place at all as the reactors could be buried on site of existing fossil fuel power generating plants.

We could leave thousands if not tens of thousands of acres of land wild , free and uncluttered


----------



## thereisnospoon

Jarlaxle said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's look at the situation from outer space.  If a natural gas company discovered a component it could add to its facility where it didn't have to burn gas for 300 days a year, but could still charge the same rate as if it did, would that company buy that component and install it?  The mirrors aren't complicated to make or set up.  In fact, they are quite modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction of nuclear or coal or gas plants.  So next to their brother water-boilers, mirrors are far cheaper.
> 
> You can spin all you like, put up charts and graphs till the cows come home, but time will bear out that free energy for most of the year using mirrors, just pressed sheet metal with a reflective side on a simple piece of plumbing, an oil filled tube, is vastly cheaper than burners, scrubbers, mining, refining, transport and environmental damage from coal and natural gas.  You'd have to be a moron to not see this is so.
> 
> If the mirrors get weathered or dirty.
> 
> 1. Periodically clean them.
> 
> 2. Periodically replace them.
> 
> Just like all the components of any other coal, nuclear or natural gas facility has to do.  It's called _maintenance_.  You may have heard of the term in industry before?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She NEVER posts numbers, because she KNOWS they destroy her argument.
Click to expand...

I did a little research on these panels. They are shaped to very low tolerances. Measured in "tenths" which is in ten thousandths of an inch. Then precision ground and polished. Very expensive process.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I never said energy was free.  That's your line not mine.
> 
> If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools.  It's all part of the design.
> 
> And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the molten salt reactor fails and "the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools", I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 1. What is the "liquid medium" and
> 
> 2. Where is the reservior?
> 
> 3. Is it completely isolated from any environmental vector that might pollute say, groundwater or air or soils for the 240,000 years it takes for plutonium [if that's part of the "liquid medium"] to lose its deadly radioactivity?
> 
> Or would it just be a more sensible and morally-responsible idea given the gravity of radioactive plutonium, to just boil water with mirrors with a simple carbon backup for cloudy days and at nightime?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. You touted this thing as though it were the second coming. Extolling the plant's virtues. Now you're asking all these questions as though you know nothing about it.
Do your own homework.
Look, no one is claiming to be 'anti solar power'. The issues pointed out here are matters of practicality and financial. 
Of course as a liberal, asking questions or pointing out potential pitfalls of one of your pet ideas is viewed as 'criticism' and in your world criticism is not permitted.
Well that's typical lib arrogance. You people claim to have all of the answers.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Matthew said:


> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.



Another unfunded government nanny state mandate? 
Are you abusing controlled substances?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it would end our dependence on enemy nations. Why not?
Click to expand...


Ahh yes...One of you lefties comes up with an idea and right on queue "hey, let's make it mandatory so everybody has to pay for it!".
Tell ya what. Let's do a little experiment. How about we have the govt mandate that everyone who agrees with your plan be the guinea pig. YOU pay for it FIRST. Then let us know how great your idea is.


----------



## Spiderman

thereisnospoon said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????
> 
> Less dependence on the middle east
> A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another unfunded government nanny state mandate?
> Are you abusing controlled substances?
Click to expand...


I'm fine with people putting solar panels on their roofs.  We have hundreds of thousands of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in the country.

But I think it should be a private venture between the public and the utility companies.  Maybe a utility company could lease the roof space from its customers and pay them with lower electric rates.

No government needed


----------



## thereisnospoon

Matthew said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't want us to become energy independent? Solar is one resource we could use to do just that.
Click to expand...


Hardly the point. We have abundant energy resources which this Administration refuses to even acknowledge they exist let alone allow exploration on federal lands to see if it is economically viable to harvest it. 
That would make us energy independent. 
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...You tree huggers say "that's dirty energy. We don't want that!"  
Yeah, well when you come up with someting that is affordable and readily available, let us know. 
While solar is a good idea, the cost benefit ratio is not there.


----------



## eddy106

Did you all know that one of the biggest funding sources for solar energy in the United States is Walmart? Walmart is converting more solar energy into real energy than 38 states combined. They are actively installing solar panels on the roofs of many stores. In fact, 75 percent of the stores in California already have these panels. When the California project is complete, they will produce more than 70 million kilowatt hours of solar energy. Walmart estimates that these panels will reduce their utility bills by about 30 percent. Walmart says that they hope one day to operate all of their stores around the world on renewable energy.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> MSRs don't need coolants per se.
> 
> *If the reactor gets too hot the liquid expands *thereby slowing the reaction and dropping the temperature.
> 
> The safety valve to the dump tanks works like a freeze plug in a car radiator.  If the temperature gets hot enough or the reactor loses power the plug melts away allowing the liquid fuel to drain into multiple tanks where it will cool and solidify.
> 
> Afterwards the solid fuel can be heated again and reintroduced to the reactor chamber.
> 
> *One of the best attributes of MSRs is they run at atmospheric pressure  so even if a breach occurs no contaminated steam or gases are under pressure to spew into the air*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the air, but in the ground.  My point is that boiling water with mirrors isn't going to have safety risks at all.
> 
> All the infrastructure and failsafes you'd have to build into your water boiler is supposed to cost less than an array of simple mirrors, right?  I mean, we're talking about costs [total, all over time for pure overhead and environmental damages, pollution of groundwater etc.] right?  Your system is supposed to be better than solar thermal cost wise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes because for the money an MSR generates power every second of every day not just when the sun is out and it does so in a fraction of the space.  In fact no new land development need take place at all as the reactors could be buried on site of existing fossil fuel power generating plants.
> 
> *We could leave thousands if not tens of thousands of acres of land wild , free and uncluttered*
Click to expand...


I'm actually a little more concerned about the "out of sight, out of mind" underground resources that stand poised to be much harder to clean up if there is an issue...those resources that provide our last sources of agricultural irregation for, you know, our FOOD SUPPLY..

Radiation and food don't go together that well.

Actually, that you brought up molten salt.  Are you aware that saline tanks that operate in conjunction with solar thermal systems to store extra heat energy for use in boiling refrigerant turbines [lower temperature requirements] at night are an option for solar thermal plants?  In some spots in the desert regions of the Southwest, power could be generated 24/7 nearly 365 days a year.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> I'm fine with people putting solar panels on their roofs.  We have hundreds of thousands of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in the country.
> 
> But I think it should be a private venture between the public and the utility companies.  Maybe a utility company could lease the roof space from its customers and pay them with lower electric rates.
> 
> No government needed



What does putting photovoltaic panels on the roof got to do with solar thermal concentrating mirrors runing boiling water turbines?

You lost me there.


----------



## thereisnospoon

eddy106 said:


> Did you all know that one of the biggest funding sources for solar energy in the United States is Walmart? Walmart is converting more solar energy into real energy than 38 states combined. They are actively installing solar panels on the roofs of many stores. In fact, 75 percent of the stores in California already have these panels. When the California project is complete, they will produce more than 70 million kilowatt hours of solar energy. Walmart estimates that these panels will reduce their utility bills by about 30 percent. Walmart says that they hope one day to operate all of their stores around the world on renewable energy.



And we will STILL see Walmart haters on other threads. 
Mostly pro union and far left types who despise wealth and creation.
Good for Walmart. That's where this belongs. In the private sector.
Not in the hands of a bumbling wasteful government.
Ya listening Mr President?


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with people putting solar panels on their roofs.  We have hundreds of thousands of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in the country.
> 
> But I think it should be a private venture between the public and the utility companies.  Maybe a utility company could lease the roof space from its customers and pay them with lower electric rates.
> 
> No government needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does putting photovoltaic panels on the roof got to do with solar thermal concentrating mirrors runing boiling water turbines?
> 
> You lost me there.
Click to expand...

Genius. Apparently the technology exists that permits solar panel users to 'return' electrical power to the grid. That is like having a miniature power plant. 
Where's the problem?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fine with people putting solar panels on their roofs.  We have hundreds of thousands of acres of south and southwest facing rooftops in the country.
> 
> But I think it should be a private venture between the public and the utility companies.  Maybe a utility company could lease the roof space from its customers and pay them with lower electric rates.
> 
> No government needed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does putting photovoltaic panels on the roof got to do with solar thermal concentrating mirrors runing boiling water turbines?
> 
> You lost me there.
Click to expand...


I was responding to another post about government mandating the installation of solar panels.

It's not all about you you know.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the air, but in the ground.  My point is that boiling water with mirrors isn't going to have safety risks at all.
> 
> All the infrastructure and failsafes you'd have to build into your water boiler is supposed to cost less than an array of simple mirrors, right?  I mean, we're talking about costs [total, all over time for pure overhead and environmental damages, pollution of groundwater etc.] right?  Your system is supposed to be better than solar thermal cost wise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because for the money an MSR generates power every second of every day not just when the sun is out and it does so in a fraction of the space.  In fact no new land development need take place at all as the reactors could be buried on site of existing fossil fuel power generating plants.
> 
> *We could leave thousands if not tens of thousands of acres of land wild , free and uncluttered*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm actually a little more concerned about the "out of sight, out of mind" underground resources that stand poised to be much harder to clean up if there is an issue...those resources that provide our last sources of agricultural irregation for, you know, our FOOD SUPPLY..
> 
> Radiation and food don't go together that well.
> 
> Actually, that you brought up molten salt.  Are you aware that saline tanks that operate in conjunction with solar thermal systems to store extra heat energy for use in boiling refrigerant turbines [lower temperature requirements] at night are an option for solar thermal plants?  In some spots in the desert regions of the Southwest, power could be generated 24/7 nearly 365 days a year.
Click to expand...


Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.

There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented

And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?

I don't.


----------



## Jarlaxle

thereisnospoon said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying that the mirrors are modular and inexpensive compared to the permits and construction costs of other types.  Prove that because I don't believe you.  I've done my part and posted actual costs.  Why won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She NEVER posts numbers, because she KNOWS they destroy her argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did a little research on these panels. They are shaped to very low tolerances. Measured in "tenths" which is in ten thousandths of an inch. Then precision ground and polished. Very expensive process.
Click to expand...


Wonder how long it would take Florida's salt air to put them out of tolerance.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.
> 
> There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented
> 
> And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?
> 
> I don't.



Never?  Not one spill or radioactive fluids would ever ever leak from your reactors?

Yeah, I think the world is tired of that broken promise.

The beauty of the desert ruined by solar panels and windmills?  Are you serious?  Once again you are trying to say that solar photovoltaic panels are the same as concentrating solar reflectors.  They are not at all even in the same league.  They are as similar as your molten salt radiation swamps and solar thermal's salt tanks that store heat.  ie: not at all.

I grew up wandering the desert.  The acres needed for power will not be missed.  I used to walk for hours and not encounter a single person.  In fact, most of the life you find in the desert finds shelter under the shade of things like solar reflectors needed in solar thermal turbine power.  If you installed that much shade over the ground in the desert, the animals and plants that would find great joy in the dappled sun as the day went on would be immense.  You would see an increase in desert life instead of a decrease.  You would also see in increase in desert moisture underneath those shady canopies which is also a boon to life there.


----------



## HenryBHough

The acres of barren tundra in ANWR similarly would not be missed.

But their "pristine beauty", shunned by even caribou (undocumented reindeer), must be preserved at all cost!


----------



## flacaltenn

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because for the money an MSR generates power every second of every day not just when the sun is out and it does so in a fraction of the space.  In fact no new land development need take place at all as the reactors could be buried on site of existing fossil fuel power generating plants.
> 
> *We could leave thousands if not tens of thousands of acres of land wild , free and uncluttered*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually a little more concerned about the "out of sight, out of mind" underground resources that stand poised to be much harder to clean up if there is an issue...those resources that provide our last sources of agricultural irregation for, you know, our FOOD SUPPLY..
> 
> Radiation and food don't go together that well.
> 
> Actually, that you brought up molten salt.  Are you aware that saline tanks that operate in conjunction with solar thermal systems to store extra heat energy for use in boiling refrigerant turbines [lower temperature requirements] at night are an option for solar thermal plants?  In some spots in the desert regions of the Southwest, power could be generated 24/7 nearly 365 days a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.
> 
> There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented
> 
> And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?
> 
> I don't.
Click to expand...


Whatever you do -- don't mention that the Greenies have approved molten salt storage mediums for SOME VERSIONS of his beloved solar thermal installations.. And THEN had the gall to place these dangerous chemicals in the middle of pristine protected desert and suck up water for their boiling from the cactus and the tortoises...


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.
> 
> There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented
> 
> And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never?  Not one spill or radioactive fluids would ever ever leak from your reactors?
> 
> Yeah, I think the world is tired of that broken promise.
> 
> The beauty of the desert ruined by solar panels and windmills?  Are you serious?  Once again you are trying to say that solar photovoltaic panels are the same as concentrating solar reflectors.  They are not at all even in the same league.  They are as similar as your molten salt radiation swamps and solar thermal's salt tanks that store heat.  ie: not at all.
> 
> I grew up wandering the desert.  The acres needed for power will not be missed.  I used to walk for hours and not encounter a single person.  In fact, most of the life you find in the desert finds shelter under the shade of things like solar reflectors needed in solar thermal turbine power.  If you installed that much shade over the ground in the desert, the animals and plants that would find great joy in the dappled sun as the day went on would be immense.  You would see an increase in desert life instead of a decrease.  You would also see in increase in desert moisture underneath those shady canopies which is also a boon to life there.
Click to expand...



So when they plopped down a GINORMOUS solar thermal plant in the middle of the desert and had to evacuate 100s of desert tortoises, and build ROADS and POWER LINES and maintenance Buildings. THat's OK with you? 30X  the footprint of an oil field? 

And when they put this DEATH RAY machine in the middle of major migratory flyway and started to ROAST birds out of the air --- that's OK too?

And when they included Molten Salt storage to add a couple hours of generation at dusk in the proximity of the ONLY WATER SOURCE for 100s of miles ---- that's an acceptable pollution risk.. ((I'm referring to the solar thermal that mirrors the light to a central tower in a concentrated beam))

And what the hell IS the diff in enviro footprint of mirrors versus PV panels? I don't see it..  To a migrating flock of birds, they both look like a lake..


----------



## Silhouette

flacaltenn said:


> So when they plopped down a GINORMOUS solar thermal plant in the middle of the desert and had to evacuate 100s of desert tortoises, and build ROADS and POWER LINES and maintenance Buildings. THat's OK with you? 30X  the footprint of an oil field?
> 
> And when they put this DEATH RAY machine in the middle of major migratory flyway and started to ROAST birds out of the air --- that's OK too?
> 
> And when they included Molten Salt storage to add a couple hours of generation at dusk in the proximity of the ONLY WATER SOURCE for 100s of miles ---- that's an acceptable pollution risk.. ((I'm referring to the solar thermal that mirrors the light to a central tower in a concentrated beam))
> 
> And what the hell IS the diff in enviro footprint of mirrors versus PV panels? I don't see it..  To a migrating flock of birds, they both look like a lake..



Unlike you, I've actually spent a lot of time in the desert and know you are full of crap.  Those tortoises would gather around those shady spots instead of flee from them.  You could airlift those little guys away and they'd march right back.

Your hyperbole is hilarious.  You should do shows..  

You know, you're right.  We should just stick to boiling water with radioactive substances that stick around in the environment for 240,000 years...and destroy 10s of thousands of square miles around one crippled plant:


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> MSRs don't need coolants per se.
> 
> *If the reactor gets too hot the liquid expands *thereby slowing the reaction and dropping the temperature.
> 
> The safety valve to the dump tanks works like a freeze plug in a car radiator.  If the temperature gets hot enough or the reactor loses power the plug melts away allowing the liquid fuel to drain into multiple tanks where it will cool and solidify.
> 
> Afterwards the solid fuel can be heated again and reintroduced to the reactor chamber.
> 
> *One of the best attributes of MSRs is they run at atmospheric pressure  so even if a breach occurs no contaminated steam or gases are under pressure to spew into the air*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the air, but in the ground.  My point is that boiling water with mirrors isn't going to have safety risks at all.
> 
> All the infrastructure and failsafes you'd have to build into your water boiler is supposed to cost less than an array of simple mirrors, right?  I mean, we're talking about costs [total, all over time for pure overhead and environmental damages, pollution of groundwater etc.] right?  Your system is supposed to be better than solar thermal cost wise?
Click to expand...


These aren't simple mirrors.

They are actually quite expensive, on par with photovoltaic solar panels.


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when they plopped down a GINORMOUS solar thermal plant in the middle of the desert and had to evacuate 100s of desert tortoises, and build ROADS and POWER LINES and maintenance Buildings. THat's OK with you? 30X  the footprint of an oil field?
> 
> And when they put this DEATH RAY machine in the middle of major migratory flyway and started to ROAST birds out of the air --- that's OK too?
> 
> And when they included Molten Salt storage to add a couple hours of generation at dusk in the proximity of the ONLY WATER SOURCE for 100s of miles ---- that's an acceptable pollution risk.. ((I'm referring to the solar thermal that mirrors the light to a central tower in a concentrated beam))
> 
> And what the hell IS the diff in enviro footprint of mirrors versus PV panels? I don't see it..  To a migrating flock of birds, they both look like a lake..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I've actually spent a lot of time in the desert and know you are full of crap.  Those tortoises would gather around those shady spots instead of flee from them.  You could airlift those little guys away and they'd march right back.
> 
> Your hyperbole is hilarious.  You should do shows..
> 
> You know, you're right.  We should just stick to boiling water with radioactive substances that stick around in the environment for 240,000 years...and destroy 10s of thousands of square miles around one crippled plant:
Click to expand...


Tortoises would HIDE huh --- desert wanderer?? Is that why those areas were off limits to ATV recreation, but it's OKEY DOKEY to build an access road with tons of traffic into the facility? My guess -- is there's lots of tortoise road pizzas there now.. Good thing REAL  enviros decided to relocate them. I'm not giving you rhetoric, but you've brainwashed yourself.. Wanna care for creatures like in the pic below that thought one of your solar thermal installations was a lake and got burnt out of the sky?? 






And you keep posting this false choice between nuclear and solar.. They are not "ALTERNATIVES" to each other.

1) There is no solar plant design that efficiently works more than 6 to 8 hours per day.

2) No form of solar or wind is suited to adding INCREASED generation to the grid. They are all secondary supplements and peakers.

OTH ---- a typical house powered by conventional "old-style" nuclear generates only 0.7 ounces of waste material per year.. There is nothing special about the "half-life" of nuclear waste. Heavy metals from battery waste have a longer half-life in disposal sites. 

And screw your pictures of birth defects from Chernobyl.. My grissly picture has a USA Today behind it and I'm not redoing this again here. There are 2 or 3 threads on Solar Thermal in the Enviro forum.. If you're interested I will link them.. 

 We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and just 20 years later -- they were thriving metro areas. Folks are moving back into Chernobyl. And the plant actually remained in operation after the "meltdown". Piss poor engineering and they knew it..  I'll buy any REPUTABLE documentation of Chernobyl effects, but I aint swayed by random pictures without an evidence trail..


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.
> 
> There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented
> 
> And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never?  Not one spill or radioactive fluids would ever ever leak from your reactors?
> 
> Yeah, I think the world is tired of that broken promise.
> 
> The beauty of the desert ruined by solar panels and windmills?  Are you serious?  Once again you are trying to say that solar photovoltaic panels are the same as concentrating solar reflectors.  They are not at all even in the same league.  They are as similar as your molten salt radiation swamps and solar thermal's salt tanks that store heat.  ie: not at all.
> 
> I grew up wandering the desert.  The acres needed for power will not be missed.  I used to walk for hours and not encounter a single person.  In fact, most of the life you find in the desert finds shelter under the shade of things like solar reflectors needed in solar thermal turbine power.  If you installed that much shade over the ground in the desert, the animals and plants that would find great joy in the dappled sun as the day went on would be immense.  You would see an increase in desert life instead of a decrease.  You would also see in increase in desert moisture underneath those shady canopies which is also a boon to life there.
Click to expand...


The desert is as it is meant to be.  Don't be so arrogant to say we would make it better 

We are running out of wild unspoiled land and we should be mindful of that fact

Leave our wild spaces wild.


----------



## flacaltenn

The good and BAD snippets Re: Chernobyl from a reputable source.. 



> http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/20110423_FAQs_Chernobyl.pdf
> 
> Concerns related to fertility and birth defects:
> 
> In the Chernobyl-affected regions, there is no evidence of decreased fertility among males or females in
> the general population. However, birth rates may be lower in contaminated areas because of a high rate
> of medical abortions.
> 
> Since 1986, there has been a reported increase in congenital malformations in both contaminated and
> uncontaminated areas of Belarus which predated Chernobyl and may be the result of increased
> registration of such cases. Based on dose levels to which the majority of the population was exposed,
> there is unlikely to be a major effect on the number of stillbirths, adverse pregnancy outcomes, delivery
> complications, or the overall health of children, but monitoring remains important.
> 
> 
> What is the current health risk to people residing in contaminated areas?
> 
> Currently, concentrations of radioactive caesium (Cs-137) in agricultural food products produced in
> areas affected by the Chernobyl fallout are generally below national and international standards for
> actions. In some limited areas with high radionuclide contamination (e.g. in parts of the Gomel and
> Mogilev regions in Belarus and the Bryansk region in the Russian Federation) or areas with organic
> poor soils (the Zhytomir and Rovno regions in Ukraine), milk may still be produced with activity
> concentrations of Cs-137 that exceed national standards for action (100 Becquerel per kilogram). In
> these areas, countermeasures and environmental remediation may still be warranted6
> .
> 
> 
> 2006 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an international cancer research
> institution established by WHO, published estimated projections of 25,000 potential excess cancers for
> Europe (Cardis et al. 2006) through 2065 that might be attributable to exposure to radiation from
> Chernobyl of which 16,000 cases could be fatal.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saline tanks and molten salt reactors have nothing in common.
> 
> There would be no threat to groundwater or the food supply as nothing would escape the containment systems.  No radioactive water to leak, no gas to be vented
> 
> And do you really want to ugly up the beauty of our deserts with thousands of acres of solar panels and wind mills?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never?  Not one spill or radioactive fluids would ever ever leak from your reactors?
> 
> Yeah, I think the world is tired of that broken promise.
> 
> The beauty of the desert ruined by solar panels and windmills?  Are you serious?  Once again you are trying to say that solar photovoltaic panels are the same as concentrating solar reflectors.  They are not at all even in the same league.  They are as similar as your molten salt radiation swamps and solar thermal's salt tanks that store heat.  ie: not at all.
> 
> I grew up wandering the desert.  The acres needed for power will not be missed.  I used to walk for hours and not encounter a single person.  In fact, most of the life you find in the desert finds shelter under the shade of things like solar reflectors needed in solar thermal turbine power.  If you installed that much shade over the ground in the desert, the animals and plants that would find great joy in the dappled sun as the day went on would be immense.  You would see an increase in desert life instead of a decrease.  You would also see in increase in desert moisture underneath those shady canopies which is also a boon to life there.
Click to expand...


"I grew up wandering the desert"...
Can you go back and find your brains?


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> The desert is as it is meant to be.  Don't be so arrogant to say we would make it better
> 
> We are running out of wild unspoiled land and we should be mindful of that fact
> 
> Leave our wild spaces wild.



You know, I'm always suspicious of BigDirty power advocates like nuclear molten salt you propose or natural gas or carbon moguls suddenly "crying foul or "fowl"" as the case may be over injury to a bird here or there.  I'm very suspicious of someone arguing that more shade habitat in the desert would result in less species there or harm to them.

To me, when this happens, red flags go up.  I sense fear.  I see desperation.  I see industries petrified that a simple concentration of the sun's rays will put their water-boiling monopolies in competition mode.  And you know how rich guys don't like competition.

I'm a big fan of reading between the lines when it's quite obvious the situation calls for that.


----------



## mamooth

flacaltenn said:


> Whatever you do -- don't mention that the Greenies have approved molten salt storage mediums for SOME VERSIONS of his beloved solar thermal installations.. And THEN had the gall to place these dangerous chemicals in the middle of pristine protected desert and suck up water for their boiling from the cactus and the tortoises...



Sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and calcium nitrate are dangerous chemicals?

Flac needs to immediately tell the bats and birds across the planet to stop pooping out all that deadly toxic waste.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desert is as it is meant to be.  Don't be so arrogant to say we would make it better
> 
> We are running out of wild unspoiled land and we should be mindful of that fact
> 
> Leave our wild spaces wild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm always suspicious of BigDirty power advocates like nuclear molten salt you propose or natural gas or carbon moguls suddenly "crying foul or "fowl"" as the case may be over injury to a bird here or there.  I'm very suspicious of someone arguing that more shade habitat in the desert would result in less species there or harm to them.
> 
> To me, when this happens, red flags go up.  I sense fear.  I see desperation.  I see industries petrified that a simple concentration of the sun's rays will put their water-boiling monopolies in competition mode.  And you know how rich guys don't like competition.
> 
> I'm a big fan of reading between the lines when it's quite obvious the situation calls for that.
Click to expand...


Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.

In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.


----------



## flacaltenn

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you do -- don't mention that the Greenies have approved molten salt storage mediums for SOME VERSIONS of his beloved solar thermal installations.. And THEN had the gall to place these dangerous chemicals in the middle of pristine protected desert and suck up water for their boiling from the cactus and the tortoises...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and calcium nitrate are dangerous chemicals?
> 
> Flac needs to immediately tell the bats and birds across the planet to stop pooping out all that deadly toxic waste.
Click to expand...


Aww c'mon.  Tons of that stuff in a small desert aquifer or stream might as well be poison.  And have ever tried fertilize a cactus??? Thats not being lewd, its a real question.


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desert is as it is meant to be.  Don't be so arrogant to say we would make it better
> 
> We are running out of wild unspoiled land and we should be mindful of that fact
> 
> Leave our wild spaces wild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm always suspicious of BigDirty power advocates like nuclear molten salt you propose or natural gas or carbon moguls suddenly "crying foul or "fowl"" as the case may be over injury to a bird here or there.  I'm very suspicious of someone arguing that more shade habitat in the desert would result in less species there or harm to them.
> 
> To me, when this happens, red flags go up.  I sense fear.  I see desperation.  I see industries petrified that a simple concentration of the sun's rays will put their water-boiling monopolies in competition mode.  And you know how rich guys don't like competition.
> 
> I'm a big fan of reading between the lines when it's quite obvious the situation calls for that.
Click to expand...


Imagine how appalled and amazed the rest of us are when Deep Greenies are making excuses for the enviro impact of their harebrained ideas and getting KILL permits for Bald Eagles at their wind farms.  Its a bloodthirsty lot when they're the ones doing the killing...


----------



## Andylusion

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The desert is as it is meant to be.  Don't be so arrogant to say we would make it better
> 
> We are running out of wild unspoiled land and we should be mindful of that fact
> 
> Leave our wild spaces wild.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm always suspicious of BigDirty power advocates like nuclear molten salt you propose or natural gas or carbon moguls suddenly "crying foul or "fowl"" as the case may be over injury to a bird here or there.  I'm very suspicious of someone arguing that more shade habitat in the desert would result in less species there or harm to them.
> 
> To me, when this happens, red flags go up.  I sense fear.  I see desperation.  I see industries petrified that a simple concentration of the sun's rays will put their water-boiling monopolies in competition mode.  And you know how rich guys don't like competition.
> 
> I'm a big fan of reading between the lines when it's quite obvious the situation calls for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
Click to expand...


You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.

Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.

Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.

If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.

Hypocrites everywhere.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.



So benign solar thermal concentrating mirrors that create more shade/moisture environment for parched desert life are "shit" and your radioactive molten salt reactors buried in the ground near fresh water aquifers should they spill and contaminate forever are "blessed"?

Yes, your concern for the environment is very touching...


----------



## Spiderman

Androw said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm always suspicious of BigDirty power advocates like nuclear molten salt you propose or natural gas or carbon moguls suddenly "crying foul or "fowl"" as the case may be over injury to a bird here or there.  I'm very suspicious of someone arguing that more shade habitat in the desert would result in less species there or harm to them.
> 
> To me, when this happens, red flags go up.  I sense fear.  I see desperation.  I see industries petrified that a simple concentration of the sun's rays will put their water-boiling monopolies in competition mode.  And you know how rich guys don't like competition.
> 
> I'm a big fan of reading between the lines when it's quite obvious the situation calls for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.
> 
> Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.
> 
> Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.
> 
> If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.
> 
> Hypocrites everywhere.
Click to expand...


I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.

I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.

Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?

I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So benign solar thermal concentrating mirrors that create more shade/moisture environment for parched desert life are "shit" and your radioactive molten salt reactors buried in the ground near fresh water aquifers should they spill and contaminate forever are "blessed"?
> 
> Yes, your concern for the environment is very touching...
Click to expand...


Tell me how benign it is to bulldoze thousands of acres of pristine desert.

If you knew anything about conservation you'd know its better to concentrate areas of significant impact rather than spread them out.  Your solar mirrors need 22 acres of land to power one house for part of the day. A molten salt reactor can be buried under ground in a footprint of less than 5 acres and power 20000 houses 24 hours a day for 20 years or more.  

And where did I ever say a reactor would be buried next to an aquifer? 

Tell me do you understand the concept of risk benefit equations or do you only get in your car and drive to work if there is zero chance of you having an accident?


----------



## Andylusion

Spiderman said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.
> 
> Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.
> 
> Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.
> 
> If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.
> 
> Hypocrites everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.
> 
> I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.
> 
> Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?
> 
> I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.
Click to expand...


Dude, I don't give a crap if you spend more time outdoors.   Are you outside RIGHT NOW?!?   No, you are in a building.  Are you using power the requires a power plant?   YES.   Are you using a computer that has been manufactured somewhere in a big manufacturing plant?   YES. 

And yes, as a matter of hypocrisy, you can most certainly demand that 'unspoiled places' remain unspoiled denying other people housing and places of employment that you enjoy.   Screw everyone else, I have my stuff, and no one else can have stuff of their own.

See years ago, where you have you house, was prior an unspoiled place.   It was because other people came to that area, and "spoiled" it, that YOU HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.   It was because other people came and spoiled that area with a power plant, THAT YOU HAVE POWER TO USE.

If some other person years before, had come around and demanded that where you are was "unspoiled", you would be homeless without a place to live right now.

What you are in fact doing, is demanding that future generations not have the home, utilities, and employment that you enjoy today, in the name of leaving it "unspoiled".


----------



## Spiderman

Androw said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.
> 
> Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.
> 
> Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.
> 
> If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.
> 
> Hypocrites everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.
> 
> I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.
> 
> Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?
> 
> I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't give a crap if you spend more time outdoors.   Are you outside RIGHT NOW?!?   No, you are in a building.  Are you using power the requires a power plant?   YES.   Are you using a computer that has been manufactured somewhere in a big manufacturing plant?   YES.
> 
> And yes, as a matter of hypocrisy, you can most certainly demand that 'unspoiled places' remain unspoiled denying other people housing and places of employment that you enjoy.   Screw everyone else, I have my stuff, and no one else can have stuff of their own.
> 
> See years ago, where you have you house, was prior an unspoiled place.   It was because other people came to that area, and "spoiled" it, that YOU HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.   It was because other people came and spoiled that area with a power plant, THAT YOU HAVE POWER TO USE.
> 
> If some other person years before, had come around and demanded that where you are was "unspoiled", you would be homeless without a place to live right now.
> 
> What you are in fact doing, is demanding that future generations not have the home, utilities, and employment that you enjoy today, in the name of leaving it "unspoiled".
Click to expand...


I am not denying anyone anything.

I am proposing more efficient power than wasting 22 acres of land to power one home for part of the day

And since no one is talking about developing the desert or our national parks for housing I fail to see what the fuck your panties are in a bunch over.

And to think that one must live outside in order to protect wilderness without being a hypocrite is beyond stupid to the point of mental retardation.


----------



## jon_berzerk

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you do -- don't mention that the Greenies have approved molten salt storage mediums for SOME VERSIONS of his beloved solar thermal installations.. And THEN had the gall to place these dangerous chemicals in the middle of pristine protected desert and suck up water for their boiling from the cactus and the tortoises...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate and calcium nitrate are dangerous chemicals?
> 
> Flac needs to immediately tell the bats and birds across the planet to stop pooping out all that deadly toxic waste.
Click to expand...




major uses of potassium nitrate are in fertilizers rocket propellants and fireworks

and high explosives 



Patent US3816191 - Method of making calcium nitrate explosive composition - Google Patents


----------



## Old Rocks

Spiderman said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.
> 
> Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.
> 
> Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.
> 
> If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.
> 
> Hypocrites everywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.
> 
> I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.
> 
> Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?
> 
> I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.
Click to expand...


Here we go again. " I once took a hike, so I know so much more than you about the environment!". Kiddo, you can go to many places in this nation and see what acid rain has done to our forests. That is millions of acres damaged, both flora and fauna, versus a few thousand acres changed. I say changed, because the flora and fauna of those acres can still live there. And then there is the mountain top removal for coal. Talk about environmental damage. 

But you fruitloops will go off on something doing only 10% or less of the damage that coal does. The truth is that you are just schilling for the energy corperations, and have little to no real knowledge about environment.


----------



## Old Rocks

Spiderman said:


> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.
> 
> I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.
> 
> Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?
> 
> I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't give a crap if you spend more time outdoors.   Are you outside RIGHT NOW?!?   No, you are in a building.  Are you using power the requires a power plant?   YES.   Are you using a computer that has been manufactured somewhere in a big manufacturing plant?   YES.
> 
> And yes, as a matter of hypocrisy, you can most certainly demand that 'unspoiled places' remain unspoiled denying other people housing and places of employment that you enjoy.   Screw everyone else, I have my stuff, and no one else can have stuff of their own.
> 
> See years ago, where you have you house, was prior an unspoiled place.   It was because other people came to that area, and "spoiled" it, that YOU HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.   It was because other people came and spoiled that area with a power plant, THAT YOU HAVE POWER TO USE.
> 
> If some other person years before, had come around and demanded that where you are was "unspoiled", you would be homeless without a place to live right now.
> 
> What you are in fact doing, is demanding that future generations not have the home, utilities, and employment that you enjoy today, in the name of leaving it "unspoiled".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not denying anyone anything.
> 
> I am proposing more efficient power than wasting 22 acres of land to power one home for part of the day
> 
> And since no one is talking about developing the desert or our national parks for housing I fail to see what the fuck your panties are in a bunch over.
> 
> And to think that one must live outside in order to protect wilderness without being a hypocrite is beyond stupid to the point of mental retardation.
Click to expand...


OK. I haven't seen you yet post a plan for that. Perhaps you would like to sign onto using all the waste roof space in our commercial building in the cities for PV Solar? That would create a big boost of power exactly during the time of highest usage.


----------



## Spiderman

Old Rocks said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it's funny how people who live in the luxury of 'man made shit', talk about how great it is to be out in the wilderness.
> 
> Dude... if you want to go live in the desert, in a grass hut, be my guess.   The rest of us like our homes and buildings, and cars, and such.   We like having places to go, and things to do.
> 
> Funny how you are on a forum which requires you to own a computer, which requires massive power plants providing you electricity, and computer parts built in massive manufacturing plants, and communication lines running across the country.... you enjoy using all that 'man made shit', yet complain bitterly about all that 'man made shit'.
> 
> If you really put your money where your mouth is, you wouldn't even be on here complaining about it.    At least the real hippies, are true enough to their own beliefs, that they actually live in those crappy commune huts out in the wilderness, and are not on here using all that 'man made shit' to complain about 'man made shit'.
> 
> Hypocrites everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I spend more time outdoors than you I'm sure.
> 
> I started backpacking and trekking when I was a kid.  I have logged literally thousands of trail miles including deserts and have bagged hundreds of peaks from the East to west coasts.
> 
> Are you such a fucking idiot that you think because I live in a house that I can't defend our wild unspoiled spaces?
> 
> I know what damage a few people can do to the desert and if you believe that bulldozing thousands of acres of desert to build solar panels is going to improve it then you're even more of a fucking moron than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again. " I once took a hike, so I know so much more than you about the environment!". Kiddo, you can go to many places in this nation and see what acid rain has done to our forests. That is millions of acres damaged, both flora and fauna, versus a few thousand acres changed. I say changed, because the flora and fauna of those acres can still live there. And then there is the mountain top removal for coal. Talk about environmental damage.
> 
> But you fruitloops will go off on something doing only 10% or less of the damage that coal does. The truth is that you are just schilling for the energy corperations, and have little to no real knowledge about environment.
Click to expand...


Molten salt reactors don't contribute to acid rain. They will literally burn the nuclear waste from light water reactors for fuel thereby solving the problem of storage.  They can be built in factories and installed underground at existing power plant locations thereby eliminating the need to ruin thousands of acres of land to provide power for a fraction of the homes for part of the day with solar farms

And who do you think is going to profit from bulldozing our wild spaces to build solar farms if not energy corporations?

 I don't call thousands of miles worth of backpacking "going for a hike once" I study the geology and ecosystems  of places I visit and I daresay I am more informed than you about many of those spaces


----------



## Spiderman

Old Rocks said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't give a crap if you spend more time outdoors.   Are you outside RIGHT NOW?!?   No, you are in a building.  Are you using power the requires a power plant?   YES.   Are you using a computer that has been manufactured somewhere in a big manufacturing plant?   YES.
> 
> And yes, as a matter of hypocrisy, you can most certainly demand that 'unspoiled places' remain unspoiled denying other people housing and places of employment that you enjoy.   Screw everyone else, I have my stuff, and no one else can have stuff of their own.
> 
> See years ago, where you have you house, was prior an unspoiled place.   It was because other people came to that area, and "spoiled" it, that YOU HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.   It was because other people came and spoiled that area with a power plant, THAT YOU HAVE POWER TO USE.
> 
> If some other person years before, had come around and demanded that where you are was "unspoiled", you would be homeless without a place to live right now.
> 
> What you are in fact doing, is demanding that future generations not have the home, utilities, and employment that you enjoy today, in the name of leaving it "unspoiled".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying anyone anything.
> 
> I am proposing more efficient power than wasting 22 acres of land to power one home for part of the day
> 
> And since no one is talking about developing the desert or our national parks for housing I fail to see what the fuck your panties are in a bunch over.
> 
> And to think that one must live outside in order to protect wilderness without being a hypocrite is beyond stupid to the point of mental retardation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. I haven't seen you yet post a plan for that. Perhaps you would like to sign onto using all the waste roof space in our commercial building in the cities for PV Solar? That would create a big boost of power exactly during the time of highest usage.
Click to expand...


Try reading the fucking thread before you start flapping your gums then.


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red flags go up for me when people like you think they can improve unspoiled wild land with man made shit. If you knew as much about the desert as you think you do you'd know how fragile an ecosystem it really is.
> 
> In fact one step from a human being can result in the destruction of the biological soil crusts that can take decades to form. So tell me how building thousands of acres of solar shit will help the desert again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So benign solar thermal concentrating mirrors that create more shade/moisture environment for parched desert life are "shit"* and your radioactive molten salt reactors buried in the ground near fresh water aquifers should they spill and contaminate forever are "blessed"?
> 
> Yes, your concern for the environment is very touching...
Click to expand...


Benign....really? KFC is presently in negotiations with solar plant operators...to open a whole new chain of restaurants to be called FFB (Fresh Fried Birds). Who knew that overpriced green energy would open up so many new business opportunities? 

_"Regulators said they anticipated that some birds would be killed once the Ivanpah plant started operating, *but that they didn't expect so many to die* during the plant's construction and testing. The dead birds included a peregrine falcon, a grebe, two hawks, four nighthawks and a variety of warblers and sparrows. State and federal regulators are overseeing a two-year study of the facility's effects on birds."_

The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com

.


----------



## Decus

And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
_
"Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs&#8211;Ivanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*&#8212;and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_

_"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_

The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
.


----------



## HenryBHough

Solar energy is a nice hobby for those who can afford it.

Windmill energy can be fun if the person building it puts on a big enough plot so flying blades don't endanger the innocent.

Birds?  Bats?

Hell, if they're stupid enough to trespass on a righteous windmill owner's site then let 'em die.  Now that would call into question the R.W.O.'s convictions if they were also against capital punishment for criminals.


----------



## Silhouette

Decus said:


> And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
> _
> "Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costsIvanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_
> 
> _"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_
> 
> The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
> .


Once again you're trying to pretend one type of solar thermal plant is like another.

Here are the two types you are talking about.  The first is the retarded type at Ivanpah:







That type above, likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding as "solar thermal" uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.  The tank suspended WAY up in the air, again, hundreds of feet, is so far away from the reflective surfaces that when you consider all the atmospheric dust and just diffusion since no mirror can perfectly project flat reflected light that distance...it's all a joke.  It was engineered ON PURPOSE to fail.

Here's the type that is at Martin Solar in Florida.  It is completely different.  It uses concave mirrors that actually concentrate the solar rays that are directed with deadly heat straight onto an oil-filled tube just mere feet away from the _concentrators_:







You might as well be comparing solar thermal for cost with solar photovoltaics as the two types of solar thermal. 

Seriously, I didn't even pass physics all that well and even I can see that those huge/distant circular flat mirror arrays were engineered to fail.

Not the other kind though, they are far cheaper, take up less real estate and the temperatures they reach far exceed the built to fail type.  I think those circular jokes only get that tank way way way at the top of the tower to reach like 80 degrees fahrenheit or something..lol..

Not so with linear parabolic solar thermal.  It heats the oil in the tube very quickly to 300 degrees celsius, which is many times hotter than boiling water.


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
> _
> "Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costsIvanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_
> 
> _"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_
> 
> The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're trying to pretend one type of solar thermal plant is like another.
> 
> Here are the two types you are talking about.  The first is the retarded type at Ivanpah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That type above, likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding as "solar thermal" uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.  The tank suspended WAY up in the air, again, hundreds of feet, is so far away from the reflective surfaces that when you consider all the atmospheric dust and just diffusion since no mirror can perfectly project flat reflected light that distance...it's all a joke.  It was engineered ON PURPOSE to fail.
> 
> Here's the type that is at Martin Solar in Florida.  It is completely different.  It uses concave mirrors that actually concentrate the solar rays that are directed with deadly heat straight onto an oil-filled tube just mere feet away from the _concentrators_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be comparing solar thermal for cost with solar photovoltaics as the two types of solar thermal.
> 
> Seriously, I didn't even pass physics all that well and even I can see that those huge/distant circular flat mirror arrays were engineered to fail.
> 
> Not the other kind though, they are far cheaper, take up less real estate and the temperatures they reach far exceed the built to fail type.  I think those circular jokes only get that tank way way way at the top of the tower to reach like 80 degrees fahrenheit or something..lol..
> 
> Not so with linear parabolic solar thermal.  It heats the oil in the tube very quickly to 300 degrees celsius, which is many times hotter than boiling water.
Click to expand...


Hey.  Its all interesting from a science / engineering standpoint.  But it aint an ALTERNATIVE. its an expensive daytime supplement.. if you look at Cali statistics, user load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peak in the summer.  That means that daytime peaking with more than 10 or 15% solar is way too much.

I agree that at 1st glance, trying to focus into a single beam LOOKS like overdesign. But the prob with MARTIN type of thermal solar is the miles of plumbing that is exposed so thatthermodynamically, its LOSING a whole crapload of heat as it winds thru the mirror field.
My bet is that the Tower concept is 2 or 3 times more efficient per acre of mirrors.. Especially on those cold frosty days..  Maybe the ONLY place you get away with that much exposed plumbing would be Florida.


----------



## Silhouette

flacaltenn said:


> Hey.  Its all interesting from a science / engineering standpoint.  But it aint an ALTERNATIVE. its an expensive daytime supplement.. if you look at Cali statistics, user load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peak in the summer.  That means that daytime peaking with more than 10 or 15% solar is way too much.
> 
> I agree that at 1st glance, trying to focus into a single beam LOOKS like overdesign. But *the prob with MARTIN type of thermal solar is the miles of plumbing that is exposed so thatthermodynamically, its LOSING a whole crapload of heat as it winds thru the mirror field*.
> My bet is that the Tower concept is 2 or 3 times more efficient per acre of mirrors.. Especially on those cold frosty days..  Maybe the ONLY place you get away with that much exposed plumbing would be Florida.



The Tower concept is a pile of crap and you know it.  Now you're just flat out lying.

The oil in the pipe will lose some heat from the 300 degrees celsius it reaches on its way to the heat exchangers/turbines?  Good.  Wouldn't want to stress the welds too much before that searing hot oil reaches the heat exchangers.  

"plumbing that is exposed..."  Ever hear of insulation?...lol  Nice try...  Next?


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.  Its all interesting from a science / engineering standpoint.  But it aint an ALTERNATIVE. its an expensive daytime supplement.. if you look at Cali statistics, user load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peak in the summer.  That means that daytime peaking with more than 10 or 15% solar is way too much.
> 
> I agree that at 1st glance, trying to focus into a single beam LOOKS like overdesign. But *the prob with MARTIN type of thermal solar is the miles of plumbing that is exposed so thatthermodynamically, its LOSING a whole crapload of heat as it winds thru the mirror field*.
> My bet is that the Tower concept is 2 or 3 times more efficient per acre of mirrors.. Especially on those cold frosty days..  Maybe the ONLY place you get away with that much exposed plumbing would be Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tower concept is a pile of crap and you know it.  Now you're just flat out lying.
> 
> The oil in the pipe will lose some heat from the 300 degrees celsius it reaches on its way to the heat exchangers/turbines?  Good.  Wouldn't want to stress the welds too much before that searing hot oil reaches the heat exchangers.
> 
> "plumbing that is exposed..."  Ever hear of insulation?...lol  Nice try...  Next?
Click to expand...


The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.

.


----------



## Spiderman

Decus said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.  Its all interesting from a science / engineering standpoint.  But it aint an ALTERNATIVE. its an expensive daytime supplement.. if you look at Cali statistics, user load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peak in the summer.  That means that daytime peaking with more than 10 or 15% solar is way too much.
> 
> I agree that at 1st glance, trying to focus into a single beam LOOKS like overdesign. But *the prob with MARTIN type of thermal solar is the miles of plumbing that is exposed so thatthermodynamically, its LOSING a whole crapload of heat as it winds thru the mirror field*.
> My bet is that the Tower concept is 2 or 3 times more efficient per acre of mirrors.. Especially on those cold frosty days..  Maybe the ONLY place you get away with that much exposed plumbing would be Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tower concept is a pile of crap and you know it.  Now you're just flat out lying.
> 
> The oil in the pipe will lose some heat from the 300 degrees celsius it reaches on its way to the heat exchangers/turbines?  Good.  Wouldn't want to stress the welds too much before that searing hot oil reaches the heat exchangers.
> 
> "plumbing that is exposed..."  Ever hear of insulation?...lol  Nice try...  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


To power the 9 million housing units in Florida during the day only you would need over 400000 acres of solar mirrors. that's just under one third of the total acreage of the everglades.

So go ahead and propose filling in 400000 acres of everglades national park to build a solar farm and see how you do with that.  Maybe if she uses the same logic she does with deserts she can convince them that it will actually be good for the ecosystem.


----------



## Silhouette

Decus said:


> The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.
> 
> .



The Martin plant had that capacity when it was just natural gas too.  What's your point?  That natural gas cannot be relied on to power more than 11,000 homes?  
...lol..

Next?


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant had that capacity when it was just natural gas too.  What's your point?  That natural gas cannot be relied on to power more than 11,000 homes?
> ...lol..
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


You don't need 500 acres to power homes with natural gas AND natural gas works at night.


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant had that capacity when it was just natural gas too.  What's your point?  That natural gas cannot be relied on to power more than 11,000 homes?
> ...lol..
> 
> Next?
Click to expand...


Just for fun - how viable do you think this technology would be in the Northern states?


----------



## HenryBHough

Let these loons experiment!

So long as they use only their own money and property to play.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant despite its size is only capable of powering 11,000 homes. Can you tell how many like plants you would need to power the state of Florida? If efficiency and money are no object, you have a real winner with this design.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant had that capacity when it was just natural gas too.  What's your point?  That natural gas cannot be relied on to power more than 11,000 homes?
> ...lol..
> 
> Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need 500 acres to power homes with natural gas AND natural gas works at night.
Click to expand...


You don't need 500 acres for those solar arrays either.  The picture below and the scale with the roads for comparison show the array field is no more than 80 acres, maybe.  The rest of the 500 acres is natural gas facilities, the transformer arrays that any plant would have, not just solar thermal to transmit the power out of the plant to the community.  The rest?  Wetland mitigation from the levees and water all around the rest of what looks like the total 500 acres.  The natural gas facility ate up all that real estate before they installed the solar thermal arrays.  So your point is a strawman.  Small price to pay to have an 80 acre tract near an 11,000 home community to supply their power during the day for 300 days a year without burning a gram of carbon fuel and only using sunshine.

I haven't even gotten into the topic of the saline heat storage tanks for continuous power generation through the nite from stored solar heat captured in the day.  I was satisifed to let the carbon industry at least keep a little toe hold in the industry.  But if you want to talk about those nite-generators from solar thermal...we can go there?


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Androw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, I don't give a crap if you spend more time outdoors.   Are you outside RIGHT NOW?!?   No, you are in a building.  Are you using power the requires a power plant?   YES.   Are you using a computer that has been manufactured somewhere in a big manufacturing plant?   YES.
> 
> And yes, as a matter of hypocrisy, you can most certainly demand that 'unspoiled places' remain unspoiled denying other people housing and places of employment that you enjoy.   Screw everyone else, I have my stuff, and no one else can have stuff of their own.
> 
> See years ago, where you have you house, was prior an unspoiled place.   It was because other people came to that area, and "spoiled" it, that YOU HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE.   It was because other people came and spoiled that area with a power plant, THAT YOU HAVE POWER TO USE.
> 
> If some other person years before, had come around and demanded that where you are was "unspoiled", you would be homeless without a place to live right now.
> 
> What you are in fact doing, is demanding that future generations not have the home, utilities, and employment that you enjoy today, in the name of leaving it "unspoiled".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not denying anyone anything.
> 
> I am proposing more efficient power than wasting 22 acres of land to power one home for part of the day
> 
> And since no one is talking about developing the desert or our national parks for housing I fail to see what the fuck your panties are in a bunch over.
> 
> And to think that one must live outside in order to protect wilderness without being a hypocrite is beyond stupid to the point of mental retardation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. I haven't seen you yet post a plan for that. Perhaps you would like to sign onto using all the waste roof space in our commercial building in the cities for PV Solar? That would create a big boost of power exactly during the time of highest usage.
Click to expand...


The amount of power created by a PV panel, is a fraction of the power required to make the panel.     If you want to reduce the amount of electricity used by society, you should be against making PV panels.


----------



## Andylusion

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
> _
> "Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costs&#8211;Ivanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*&#8212;and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_
> 
> _"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_
> 
> The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're trying to pretend one type of solar thermal plant is like another.
> 
> Here are the two types you are talking about.  The first is the retarded type at Ivanpah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That type above, likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding as "solar thermal" uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.  The tank suspended WAY up in the air, again, hundreds of feet, is so far away from the reflective surfaces that when you consider all the atmospheric dust and just diffusion since no mirror can perfectly project flat reflected light that distance...it's all a joke.  It was engineered ON PURPOSE to fail.
> 
> Here's the type that is at Martin Solar in Florida.  It is completely different.  It uses concave mirrors that actually concentrate the solar rays that are directed with deadly heat straight onto an oil-filled tube just mere feet away from the _concentrators_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be comparing solar thermal for cost with solar photovoltaics as the two types of solar thermal.
> 
> Seriously, I didn't even pass physics all that well and even I can see that those huge/distant circular flat mirror arrays were engineered to fail.
> 
> Not the other kind though, they are far cheaper, take up less real estate and the temperatures they reach far exceed the built to fail type.  I think those circular jokes only get that tank way way way at the top of the tower to reach like 80 degrees fahrenheit or something..lol..
> 
> Not so with linear parabolic solar thermal.  It heats the oil in the tube very quickly to 300 degrees celsius, which is many times hotter than boiling water.
Click to expand...


Isn't it amazing how before a project turns out to have negative effects, it's sticking it to "big oil" and such... and then magically, when it's killing birds, or bald eagles, its suddenly "likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding".   You people are a joke.

Nevertheless, that technology appears to be a joke as well.   The power plant using the hybrid system, is only 75 MegaWatts which cost $400 Million to build.    We have coal fired plants that cost half that much and produce 2 GigaWatts of power.

Worse yet, the solar part of the power plant (which also runs on gas), has only produced about 25% of it's capacity.   So it's not even making the 75 MegaWatts it was designed for.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...y-dud-20120310_1_solar-plants-fpl-power-plant
Company officials said the lagging performance was caused by the disastrous spill of an industrial fluid used to conduct heat, outages at an interconnected power plant, and ongoing difficulties in responding to swings in production between sunny and cloudy skies.​
Really?   So pumping extremely hot 740º industrial fluids through 500 acres of pressurized pipes, can cause a spill, and massive clean up, while shutting the plant down?   Now who woulda thunk it....?

And having solar power something, in any place other than a desert, is a waste.    "oh sorry, it was cloudy today.  Power is out until tomorrow."... another $400 Million dollar waste of money, paid for by the tax payers, and promoted by the looney left.


----------



## HenryBHough

Think of all the minimum wage jobs for illegals in keeping those mirrors at least minimally functional.  I mean simply cleaning them.

Now I have never tried making electricity with mirrors - or even with smoke and mirrors - but I have worked a lot with mountain-top solar panels.  The only option up there 'cause they ain't no powerlines and the life expectancy of windmill blades is 30 days or one ice storm whichever comes soonest.  The second most expensive part of maintaining the installations is replacing the batteries every couple of years.  The MOST expensive part is the helicopter trip three times each year to clean the glass.  Especially after the migratory bird season.  For that trip we have to wear filter masks 'cause bird shit carries some of the damndest diseases!


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
> _
> "Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costsIvanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_
> 
> _"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_
> 
> The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're trying to pretend one type of solar thermal plant is like another.
> 
> Here are the two types you are talking about.  The first is the retarded type at Ivanpah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That type above, likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding as "solar thermal" uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.  The tank suspended WAY up in the air, again, hundreds of feet, is so far away from the reflective surfaces that when you consider all the atmospheric dust and just diffusion since no mirror can perfectly project flat reflected light that distance...it's all a joke.  It was engineered ON PURPOSE to fail.
> 
> Here's the type that is at Martin Solar in Florida.  It is completely different.  It uses concave mirrors that actually concentrate the solar rays that are directed with deadly heat straight onto an oil-filled tube just mere feet away from the _concentrators_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be comparing solar thermal for cost with solar photovoltaics as the two types of solar thermal.
> 
> Seriously, I didn't even pass physics all that well and even I can see that those huge/distant circular flat mirror arrays were engineered to fail.
> 
> Not the other kind though, they are far cheaper, take up less real estate and the temperatures they reach far exceed the built to fail type.  I think those circular jokes only get that tank way way way at the top of the tower to reach like 80 degrees fahrenheit or something..lol..
> 
> Not so with linear parabolic solar thermal.  It heats the oil in the tube very quickly to 300 degrees celsius, which is many times hotter than boiling water.
Click to expand...


I already compared the cost of parabolic vs. photovoltaic.



asterism said:


> Mirrors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Typically what we're seeing is $2.50 to $4 a watt (for) capital cost," Weihl said. "So a 250 megawatt installation would be $600 million to a $1 billion. It's a lot of money."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link
> 
> Photovoltaic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cost of installing photovoltaic solar arrays has dropped to $3 per watt of electricity they produce - about the same as coal-powered plants cost to build - creating a watershed moment in the development of clean energy, experts say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> link
> 
> It doesn't appear to be any cheaper, but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Martin plant had that capacity when it was just natural gas too.  What's your point?  That natural gas cannot be relied on to power more than 11,000 homes?
> ...lol..
> 
> Next?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need 500 acres to power homes with natural gas AND natural gas works at night.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't need 500 acres for those solar arrays either.  The picture below and the scale with the roads for comparison show the array field is no more than 80 acres, maybe.  The rest of the 500 acres is natural gas facilities, the transformer arrays that any plant would have, not just solar thermal to transmit the power out of the plant to the community.  The rest?  Wetland mitigation from the levees and water all around the rest of what looks like the total 500 acres.  The natural gas facility ate up all that real estate before they installed the solar thermal arrays.  So your point is a strawman.  Small price to pay to have an 80 acre tract near an 11,000 home community to supply their power during the day for 300 days a year without burning a gram of carbon fuel and only using sunshine.
> 
> I haven't even gotten into the topic of the saline heat storage tanks for continuous power generation through the nite from stored solar heat captured in the day.  I was satisifed to let the carbon industry at least keep a little toe hold in the industry.  But if you want to talk about those nite-generators from solar thermal...we can go there?
Click to expand...


That's not true.  The solar array is about 359 acres.

Here's a google link to the FPL Plant:  http://goo.gl/maps/fVLz5  zoom in or out until the scale at the lower left shows 1000 ft and 500 m

Then look at this:








I love solar, it's just too expensive right now.  It WILL be cost-effective one day, but it's not ready for federal subsidies at this point.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> And because cost effectiveness of solar has been discussed here:
> _
> "Utility-scale solar plants have come under fire for their costsIvanpah *costs about four times as much* as a conventional natural gas-fired plant *but will produce far less electricity*and *also* for *the amount of land they require*."_
> 
> _"*That makes for expensive power*. Experts have estimated that electricity from giant solar projects will cost at least twice as much as electricity from conventional sources. But neither the utilities that have contracted to buy the power nor state regulators have disclosed what the price will be, only *that it will be passed on to electricity customers*."_
> 
> The $2.2 Billion Bird-Scorching Solar Project - WSJ.com
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're trying to pretend one type of solar thermal plant is like another.
> 
> Here are the two types you are talking about.  The first is the retarded type at Ivanpah:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That type above, likely engineered by BigOil itself and sold to the government for funding as "solar thermal" uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.  The tank suspended WAY up in the air, again, hundreds of feet, is so far away from the reflective surfaces that when you consider all the atmospheric dust and just diffusion since no mirror can perfectly project flat reflected light that distance...it's all a joke.  It was engineered ON PURPOSE to fail.
> 
> Here's the type that is at Martin Solar in Florida.  It is completely different.  It uses concave mirrors that actually concentrate the solar rays that are directed with deadly heat straight onto an oil-filled tube just mere feet away from the _concentrators_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might as well be comparing solar thermal for cost with solar photovoltaics as the two types of solar thermal.
> 
> Seriously, I didn't even pass physics all that well and even I can see that those huge/distant circular flat mirror arrays were engineered to fail.
> 
> Not the other kind though, they are far cheaper, take up less real estate and the temperatures they reach far exceed the built to fail type.  I think those circular jokes only get that tank way way way at the top of the tower to reach like 80 degrees fahrenheit or something..lol..
> 
> Not so with linear parabolic solar thermal.  It heats the oil in the tube very quickly to 300 degrees celsius, which is many times hotter than boiling water.
Click to expand...


*uses FLAT mirrors set hundreds if not thousands of feet away from the source of fluid they are intended to heat.*

actually it is a solid that they heat until it is molten 

the molten material heats water 

and then works like any other steam turbine 

they use the molten material since it stay hot for very long periods of time 

in order to keep the turbines spinning at night and extended periods of 

heavy cloud cover


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


You've been blogging about this for years and just this month you noticed this facility?  




> Martin Next Generation Clean Energy Center
> 
> At this first-of-its-kind hybrid solar facility in the world, weve teamed up Floridas sunshine with affordable, American-produced natural gas to deliver reliable electricity to you around the clock. When the sun is shining, we use more than 190,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres to harness Floridas sunshine. The suns rays heat fluid-filled tubes, producing steam, which generates electricity for your home or business. At night or when its cloudy, U.S. natural gas steps in to continue producing clean electricity for you as featured in this video from America's Natural Gas Alliance. *The facility opened in 2010* and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes. It also prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere every year  the equivalent of removing nearly 13,000 cars from the road.



FPL | Solar Projects

It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plants own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facilitys estimated 30-year lifetime.
> 
> The Martin Energy Center is the worlds first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.
> 
> 
> Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been blogging about this for years and just this month you noticed this facility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Next Generation Clean Energy Center
> 
> At this first-of-its-kind hybrid solar facility in the world, weve teamed up Floridas sunshine with affordable, American-produced natural gas to deliver reliable electricity to you around the clock. When the sun is shining, we use more than 190,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres to harness Floridas sunshine. The suns rays heat fluid-filled tubes, producing steam, which generates electricity for your home or business. At night or when its cloudy, U.S. natural gas steps in to continue producing clean electricity for you as featured in this video from America's Natural Gas Alliance. *The facility opened in 2010* and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes. It also prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere every year  the equivalent of removing nearly 13,000 cars from the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FPL | Solar Projects
> 
> It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.
Click to expand...


I've been blogging about it since jeeze...2005 or 2006, around there.  I hadn't been keeping up on what was going on because frankly, I thought that the carbon moguls would beat it back as usual with their typical "fright-campaigns" and "designed to fail" foils.  You see it here in this thread talking about all manner of "scary" things associated with concave mirrors concentrating the sun.  My favorite is how many acres it takes up, when you have to wonder how many acres a year are fouled or stip mined in the pursuit of mining coal, oil and natural gas..lol..

I just have to pinch myself to not laugh about that one.  Oh, and my second favorite, how more shade in the desert [where you find the most life concentrated naturally there] will somehow result in a decline of species there.


----------



## Spiderman

You talk about fright campaigns and that is exactly your position on nuclear.

You say you're all about the future yet you compare molten salt reactors to Chernobyl.

Solar is a fine supplemental energy source but that is all it is.  We should relegate it to all of the open acreage we have in the form of south and southwest facing roof tops and stop thinking about defiling our deserts and open spaces with these inefficient monstrosities that only work for part of the day.

Our best option for abundant emission free power is nuclear.


----------



## asterism

No comment from Silhouette on how wrong he was on the size of the solar arrays - typical.


----------



## Spiderman

asterism said:


> No comment from Silhouette on how wrong he was on the size of the solar arrays - typical.



And the point that sailed over her head is that more than the arrays themselves are needed to supply power.  The size of the entire complex is what matters not just the arrays and the complex has to include fossil fuel generation because solar only works for a part of the day.

If we scale up the 500 acre per 11000 homes ratio we can easily figure out how much land is needed for any number of homes or households.

As I said before to supply the 9 million households in FL using the plant discussed in this thread as a model 400000 acres of land would be needed.


----------



## asterism

Spiderman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> No comment from Silhouette on how wrong he was on the size of the solar arrays - typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the point that sailed over her head is that more than the arrays themselves are needed to supply power.  The size of the entire complex is what matters not just the arrays and the complex has to include fossil fuel generation because solar only works for a part of the day.
> 
> If we scale up the 500 acre per 11000 homes ratio we can easily figure out how much land is needed for any number of homes or households.
> 
> As I said before to supply the 9 million households in FL using the plant discussed in this thread as a model 400000 acres of land would be needed.
Click to expand...


Silhouette's points about size and savings would be valid if the information posted was accurate, but it's not.  It's not even close.


----------



## Silhouette

Spiderman said:


> You talk about fright campaigns and that is exactly your position on nuclear.



Guilty as charged, because when a solar concentrating mirror fails, all you do is clean it or replace it.  When a nuclear plant fails...well...fear is an excellent thing to consider.  And it can get to this point by your molten salt reactors leaking into underground aquifers used for drinking water or agriculture.  Those aquifers are not closed systems.  Just because the radiation isn't raining down from the sky, doesn't mean it can't ruin species.

Did you know they've done studies on Chernobyl that show that not just the first generation come up with malformities, but that these malformities then pass on to multiple generations and actually create a new genetic blueprint for the animal?  And as these animals mate with healthy ones from their own species, the radiation mutations pass on even still?

Talk about damage and legitimate fear.  If you can't get afraid about that, you can't get afraid about anything.


----------



## whitehall

The word is "hybrid" not hyrbid. The science of biology defines a "hybrid" as the offspring from cross breeding. It's a clever use of semantics to refer to a solar plant as a hybrid solar plant. The reason is that solar energy can't stand on it's own so it needs fossil fuel to run the junk but they don't want to talk about it. I guess the environmental impact and pollution standards are waived for the ironically named "green energy" plants.  I wonder how long this one will produce the piddling energy without taxpayer funding.


----------



## Andylusion

Silhouette said:


> Guilty as charged, because when a solar concentrating mirror fails, all you do is clean it or replace it.  When a nuclear plant fails...well...fear is an excellent thing to consider.  And it can get to this point by your molten salt reactors leaking into underground aquifers used for drinking water or agriculture.  Those aquifers are not closed systems.  Just because the radiation isn't raining down from the sky, doesn't mean it can't ruin species.
> 
> Did you know they've done studies on Chernobyl that show that not just the first generation come up with malformities, but that these malformities then pass on to multiple generations and actually create a new genetic blueprint for the animal?  And as these animals mate with healthy ones from their own species, the radiation mutations pass on even still?
> 
> Talk about damage and legitimate fear.  If you can't get afraid about that, you can't get afraid about anything.



I have a bunch of problems with that.   First everyone goes straight to Chernobyl, and there's a reason... it was the *ONLY* nuclear disaster to cause the damage and devastation seen there.    And there's a reason for that........  It was a KNOWN design flaw, with Communist Party officials overriding the standard safety procedures.

Modern nuclear reactors can't 'explode' like Chernobyl, even if they intentionally tried to do it.   Further, private companies don't have government nimrods overriding the safety locks on nuclear reactors.

But all of that aside.....

The difference between you and me, I think.... is that I accept the limitations of reality and so-called renewable energy, as well as the absolute requirement for power in modern human existence.

You don't seem to grasp this.    Maybe you do, and are hiding it well, because it's not coming through your posts.

Modern human life can't continue without stable consistent, provisions of power.  No power, no jobs, no food, no heat, no communications.    Millions on millions of people will die without massive stable quantities of power.

There is no so-called 'green-renewable' energy that provides even a fraction of the power we need, with the stability and consistency we need.

And there will never be any technological advancement, enough to over come those limitations, at least not within the next several thousand years.

In any given amount of wind, there is limited amount of energy.  In any given amount of sun light, there is a limited amount of energy.  No matter how efficient you make the conversion process, it will never produce much, because there simply isn't much to be produced to begin with.

Even the most stable and most productive 'green-renewable' source, being hydro power, is still not a good solution.  Do you want nation wide black outs, that Venezuela is having, because they rely only on Hydro power?

That leaves Coal, Oil, NatGas, and Nuclear.   Now if you believe as most do, that Coal, Oil, and Gas will be used up at some point......   What is your solution?

There is only one magic power source.   Nuclear.   Urainium, is the magic fuel, followed by Thorium.     Using reprocessing, and breeder reactors, we can use this fuel over and over and over again.   We can generate trillions of TeraWatts of power.

Long after all other sources have been used up, nuclear *WILL* be the worlds source of power.

Now you can fight it all you want, but we'll end up like Germany, buying power from nuclear power plants in France.    And we'll end up buying power from those who embrace Nuclear power just the same, because nuclear is the future whether you like it or not.

And no, we are not going to simply make due, with less power.   You saw what happens when people don't get their electricity.   People in California went nutz when the lights went out.     New Yorkers were going crazy with anger, during the black out.

That's not going to happen.    People are going to get their power, and when Green-Renewable power doesn't deliver, and it's not delivering.....  they are going to get Nuclear.    I promise you, it's coming, and there's not one thing any of us can do to stop it.


----------



## Andylusion

asterism said:


> Martin Next Generation Clean Energy Center
> 
> At this first-of-its-kind hybrid solar facility in the world, weve teamed up Floridas sunshine with affordable, American-produced natural gas to deliver reliable electricity to you around the clock. When the sun is shining, we use more than 190,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres to harness Floridas sunshine. The suns rays heat fluid-filled tubes, producing steam, which generates electricity for your home or business. At night or when its cloudy, U.S. natural gas steps in to continue producing clean electricity for you as featured in this video from America's Natural Gas Alliance. *The facility opened in 2010* and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes. It also prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere every year  the equivalent of removing nearly 13,000 cars from the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FPL | Solar Projects
> 
> It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.
Click to expand...


*and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes*

But... it doesn't.     Go read up on it.  It doesn't produce that much.   That's how much it "CAN" produce, but it doesn't.    According to the estimates, it's running at about 20% of it's production capacity.   Meaning, it's only making enough power for 2,000 homes.

But it cost twice as much as a conventional power plant that actually would make enough power for 11,000 homes.

Twice as much money, for something that produces a tiny amount of power.    Not a good trade.


----------



## Spiderman

Silhouette said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You talk about fright campaigns and that is exactly your position on nuclear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guilty as charged, because when a solar concentrating mirror fails, all you do is clean it or replace it.  When a nuclear plant fails...well...fear is an excellent thing to consider.  And it can get to this point by your molten salt reactors leaking into underground aquifers used for drinking water or agriculture.  Those aquifers are not closed systems.  Just because the radiation isn't raining down from the sky, doesn't mean it can't ruin species.
> 
> Did you know they've done studies on Chernobyl that show that not just the first generation come up with malformities, but that these malformities then pass on to multiple generations and actually create a new genetic blueprint for the animal?  And as these animals mate with healthy ones from their own species, the radiation mutations pass on even still?
> 
> Talk about damage and legitimate fear.  If you can't get afraid about that, you can't get afraid about anything.
Click to expand...



Again you show your ignorance of the technology.

Tell me how can you say you are for new technology yet you purposely ignore the differences between old and new nuclear reactor technology?

There have been many posts explaining molten salt reactors and their benefits as well as safety yet you insist on equating them with Chernobyl.

Why do you choose ignorance?


----------



## Spiderman

Androw said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Next Generation Clean Energy Center
> 
> At this first-of-its-kind &#8220;hybrid&#8221; solar facility in the world, we&#8217;ve teamed up Florida&#8217;s sunshine with affordable, American-produced natural gas to deliver reliable electricity to you around the clock. When the sun is shining, we use more than 190,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres to harness Florida&#8217;s sunshine. The sun&#8217;s rays heat fluid-filled tubes, producing steam, which generates electricity for your home or business. At night or when it&#8217;s cloudy, U.S. natural gas steps in to continue producing clean electricity for you as featured in this video from America's Natural Gas Alliance. *The facility opened in 2010* and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes. It also prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere every year &#8211; the equivalent of removing nearly 13,000 cars from the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FPL | Solar Projects
> 
> It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes*
> 
> But... it doesn't.     Go read up on it.  It doesn't produce that much.   That's how much it "CAN" produce, but it doesn't.    According to the estimates, it's running at about 20% of it's production capacity.   Meaning, it's only making enough power for 2,000 homes.
> 
> But it cost twice as much as a conventional power plant that actually would make enough power for 11,000 homes.
> 
> Twice as much money, for something that produces a tiny amount of power.    Not a good trade.
Click to expand...


Good point.

Solar and wind capacity are nominal numbers.  Actual output is usually a fraction of that.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Spiderman said:


> You talk about fright campaigns and that is exactly your position on nuclear.
> 
> You say you're all about the future yet you compare molten salt reactors to Chernobyl.
> 
> Solar is a fine supplemental energy source but that is all it is.  We should relegate it to all of the open acreage we have in the form of south and southwest facing roof tops and stop thinking about defiling our deserts and open spaces with these inefficient monstrosities that only work for part of the day.
> 
> Our best option for abundant emission free power is nuclear.



There is no sense arguing with this bimbo....
A zealot of the lefty religion of 'green' everything.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]
> 
> Whoot Whoot!    There may be hope after all.  The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.
> 
> It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.
> 
> Well done gentlemen...well done...
> 
> Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again.  Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol..  Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."
> 
> Duh!  DO THE MATH $$$$  These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.
> 
> For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius.  That's way way hotter than boiling water.  Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant.  They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas.  The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.
> 
> But this is an excellent start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've been blogging about this for years and just this month you noticed this facility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Next Generation Clean Energy Center
> 
> At this first-of-its-kind hybrid solar facility in the world, weve teamed up Floridas sunshine with affordable, American-produced natural gas to deliver reliable electricity to you around the clock. When the sun is shining, we use more than 190,000 mirrors over roughly 500 acres to harness Floridas sunshine. The suns rays heat fluid-filled tubes, producing steam, which generates electricity for your home or business. At night or when its cloudy, U.S. natural gas steps in to continue producing clean electricity for you as featured in this video from America's Natural Gas Alliance. *The facility opened in 2010* and can produce enough electricity to power about 11,000 homes. It also prevents greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere every year  the equivalent of removing nearly 13,000 cars from the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FPL | Solar Projects
> 
> It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been blogging about it since jeeze...2005 or 2006, around there.  I hadn't been keeping up on what was going on because frankly, I thought that the carbon moguls would beat it back as usual with their typical "fright-campaigns" and "designed to fail" foils.  You see it here in this thread talking about all manner of "scary" things associated with concave mirrors concentrating the sun.  My favorite is how many acres it takes up, when you have to wonder how many acres a year are fouled or stip mined in the pursuit of mining coal, oil and natural gas..lol..
> 
> I just have to pinch myself to not laugh about that one.  Oh, and my second favorite, how more shade in the desert [where you find the most life concentrated naturally there] will somehow result in a decline of species there.
Click to expand...


"you've been blogging? To whom?
Stop trying to impress yourself.


----------



## thereisnospoon

asterism said:


> No comment from Silhouette on how wrong he was on the size of the solar arrays - typical.



I think 'he ; is a 'she'.....Not surprising given the emotional aspect of the her posts.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Spiderman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> No comment from Silhouette on how wrong he was on the size of the solar arrays - typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the point that sailed over her head is that more than the arrays themselves are needed to supply power.  The size of the entire complex is what matters not just the arrays and the complex has to include fossil fuel generation because solar only works for a part of the day.
> 
> If we scale up the 500 acre per 11000 homes ratio we can easily figure out how much land is needed for any number of homes or households.
> 
> As I said before to supply the 9 million households in FL using the plant discussed in this thread as a model 400000 acres of land would be needed.
Click to expand...


625 square miles. 2/3rds the size of Duval County. Where lies within, the nation's largest municipality in total area, Jacksonville, FL.


----------



## HenryBHough

Simple enough.

Just take all the private property in Jacksonville, bulldoze it and pop up death-ray mirrors.  Eminent Domain, of course, so the cost to government to seize the property and then do a sweetheart deal with a power giant ought to be minimal.

Supreme court has already called that Kosher.

See "New London".


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey.  Its all interesting from a science / engineering standpoint.  But it aint an ALTERNATIVE. its an expensive daytime supplement.. if you look at Cali statistics, user load at 10PM is 80% of daytime peak in the summer.  That means that daytime peaking with more than 10 or 15% solar is way too much.
> 
> I agree that at 1st glance, trying to focus into a single beam LOOKS like overdesign. But *the prob with MARTIN type of thermal solar is the miles of plumbing that is exposed so thatthermodynamically, its LOSING a whole crapload of heat as it winds thru the mirror field*.
> My bet is that the Tower concept is 2 or 3 times more efficient per acre of mirrors.. Especially on those cold frosty days..  Maybe the ONLY place you get away with that much exposed plumbing would be Florida.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tower concept is a pile of crap and you know it.  Now you're just flat out lying.
> 
> The oil in the pipe will lose some heat from the 300 degrees celsius it reaches on its way to the heat exchangers/turbines?  Good.  Wouldn't want to stress the welds too much before that searing hot oil reaches the heat exchangers.
> 
> "plumbing that is exposed..."  Ever hear of insulation?...lol  Nice try...  Next?
Click to expand...


I could be mistaken. But I never lie on a public message board.. Yes.. I've heard of insulation,  but I also know insulation works in both directions. So since the majority of piping is in the active mirror area, that's not a solution.. 

You've got this completely bass-ackwards.. 



> Towers versus troughs? | CSP Today
> 
> Towers have the potential to be much more efficient than troughs, because they have far higher concentration ratios (300 to 800 suns vs. 80 or so for troughs), according to Craig Tyner, senior vice president of engineering at e-Solar.
> While troughs produce heat at around 400 degree Celsius, towers can produce up to 550 degree Celsius. Higher temperatures allow use of more efficient turbines, reducing energy costs.
> Towers also have the potential for more efficient storage using molten salt as their working fluid, as well as the storage fluid, says Tyner.
> Tyner notes that while troughs have been built with salt storage, their lower temperature differential and need for oil/salt heat exchange make their storage much more costly and somewhat less efficient.





> Solar thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The advantage of this design above the parabolic trough design is the higher temperature. Thermal energy at higher temperatures can be converted to electricity more efficiently and can be more cheaply stored for later use. Furthermore, there is less need to flatten the ground area. In principle a power tower can be built on the side of a hill. Mirrors can be flat and plumbing is concentrated in the tower. The disadvantage is that each mirror must have its own dual-axis control, while in the parabolic trough design single axis tracking can be shared for a large array of mirrors.
> A cost/performance comparison between power tower and parabolic trough concentrators was made by the NREL which estimated that by 2020 electricity could be produced from power towers for 5.47 ¢/kWh and for 6.21 ¢/kWh from parabolic troughs. The capacity factor for power towers was estimated to be 72.9% and 56.2% for parabolic troughs.[32] There is some hope that the development of cheap, durable, mass producible heliostat power plant components could bring this cost down



I found that parabolic thermal is about 200KWatt/Acre.. Still looking for verified number for solar tower..


----------



## flacaltenn

I love the way solar nuts bash big oil.. For a great many years, BP was the world's largest system installer of Solar PV. And here MANY of Silhouette's favorite concentrated solar thermal projects are being paid for and USED BY names like Chevron and Exxon. AS THOUGH, oil had ANYTHING to do with generating electricity...


----------



## asterism

thereisnospoon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've been blogging about this for years and just this month you noticed this facility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FPL | Solar Projects
> 
> It seems you aren't following this technology much.  The article you linked is almost three years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been blogging about it since jeeze...2005 or 2006, around there.  I hadn't been keeping up on what was going on because frankly, I thought that the carbon moguls would beat it back as usual with their typical "fright-campaigns" and "designed to fail" foils.  You see it here in this thread talking about all manner of "scary" things associated with concave mirrors concentrating the sun.  My favorite is how many acres it takes up, when you have to wonder how many acres a year are fouled or stip mined in the pursuit of mining coal, oil and natural gas..lol..
> 
> I just have to pinch myself to not laugh about that one.  Oh, and my second favorite, how more shade in the desert [where you find the most life concentrated naturally there] will somehow result in a decline of species there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "you've been blogging? To whom?
> Stop trying to impress yourself.
Click to expand...


He or she is claiming credit for a solar installation that started before she was even aware of the technology, then she just noticed an article about one opening almost four years ago.


----------



## Silhouette

asterism said:


> He or she is claiming credit for a solar installation that started before she was even aware of the technology, then she just noticed an article about one opening almost four years ago.



Are you done with your strawman?

I'm not bashing BigOil.  I'm perfectly happy, for instance, to not discuss the saline tanks that could store the solar thermal energy collected during the day and run refrigerant generators at night and be nearly completely weaned from oil and coal. [nuclear water boilers are completely off the table].

No, I expressed happiness that solar thermal has kept on the largely unnecessary carbon sources so that this industry can still have somewhat of a toehold on boiling water too. 

I mean, if you want to talk about those saline tanks and how they are capable of trapping and storing hours of heat energy for use at night to make power then, sure, we can go there.  Just don't accuse me of being anti-carbon.  You're forgetting about plastics, automobiles and the like that will always be a use for petrolium products.


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> He or she is claiming credit for a solar installation that started before she was even aware of the technology, then she just noticed an article about one opening almost four years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done with your strawman?
> 
> I'm not bashing BigOil.  I'm perfectly happy, for instance, to not discuss the saline tanks that could store the solar thermal energy collected during the day and run refrigerant generators at night and be nearly completely weaned from oil and coal. [nuclear water boilers are completely off the table].
> 
> No, I expressed happiness that solar thermal has kept on the largely unnecessary carbon sources so that this industry can still have somewhat of a toehold on boiling water too.
> 
> I mean, if you want to talk about those saline tanks and how they are capable of trapping and storing hours of heat energy for use at night to make power then, sure, we can go there.  Just don't accuse me of being anti-carbon.  You're forgetting about plastics, automobiles and the like that will always be a use for petrolium products.
Click to expand...


I think you're having a problem keeping up.  I never accused you of anything listed above.  I've said that you are inaccurate and unable to provide financial data but advocate a financial investment, claiming that it will be profitable.

So tell me about those saline tanks.  How much do they cost?


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> He or she is claiming credit for a solar installation that started before she was even aware of the technology, then she just noticed an article about one opening almost four years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you done with your strawman?
> 
> I'm not bashing BigOil.  I'm perfectly happy, for instance, to not discuss the saline tanks that could store the solar thermal energy collected during the day and run refrigerant generators at night and be nearly completely weaned from oil and coal. [nuclear water boilers are completely off the table].
> 
> No, I expressed happiness that solar thermal has kept on the largely unnecessary carbon sources so that this industry can still have somewhat of a toehold on boiling water too.
> 
> I mean, if you want to talk about those saline tanks and how they are capable of trapping and storing hours of heat energy for use at night to make power then, sure, we can go there.  Just don't accuse me of being anti-carbon.  You're forgetting about plastics, automobiles and the like that will always be a use for petrolium products.
Click to expand...


You're overrating the long-term storage efficacy of these solar thermal plants. The efficiency of this storage declines the further out you try to stretch it. It tends to make a 6 or 8 hour energy source into at most a 10 or 12 hour energy source. That's the reason why MANY solar thermal plants leave the storage feature out. It subtracts from peak production capability and is not actually cost effective unless your demand curves are unusual. See the IVanpah system outside Las Vegas for example. That city doesn't need early morning power, but NEEDS to extend as far into the evening as possible..


----------



## Silhouette

flacaltenn said:


> You're overrating the long-term storage efficacy of these solar thermal plants. The efficiency of this storage declines the further out you try to stretch it. It tends to make a 6 or 8 hour energy source into at most a 10 or 12 hour energy source. That's the reason why MANY solar thermal plants leave the storage feature out. It subtracts from peak production capability and is not actually cost effective unless your demand curves are unusual. *See the IVanpah system outside Las Vegas for example*. That city doesn't need early morning power, but NEEDS to extend as far into the evening as possible..



No, I won't "see the Ivanpah system outside Las Vegas for example."  And I've already explained why that is.  Ivanpah was designed to fail as an "example" to "why solar thermal just isn't feasible".  Courtesy of BigOil.  Designed by BrightSource Energy and Bechtel.  Bechtel is famous for assisting/contracting the Alaska oil pipeline and other natural gas projects.  BrightSource investors include:  Google.org, *BP* Alternative Energy, Morgan Stanley, DBL Investors, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, *Chevron *Technology Ventures, *Statoil* Venture, and Black River...  Do you think that oil companies would be eager to design systems that were simple, that any power plant could add to their system to reduce oil consumption, instead of buying oil from BP, Chevron etc.?  That would be like McDonald's designing a new meat patty for Burger King and then throwing their hands up in the air as suddenly all of Burger King's customers started getting food poisoning and saying "see, Burger King's food just isn't a good investment".  It's elementary school capitalism: _eliminate the competition by any means necessary..._

The Ivanpah system employs FLAT mirrors set A VAST DISTANCE FROM THE TARGET SOURCE, which diffusion and particulates would interfere with [on purpose] that delievers TEPID HEAT to a LOFTY TOWER FAR AWAY in comparison with the 300 degrees CELSIUS that linear PARABOLIC mirrors CONCENTRATE on a linear oil-filled tube AT EXTREME CLOSE RANGE.  One, Ivanpah, designed by BigOil interests, was DESIGNED TO FAIL.  It had to be.  Just look at it!  The other runs like a champ, is much easier to set up and takes up much less real estate per kwh produced.

Ivanpah is the first "solar thermal" type, a failure:






Martin is the linear tube type, a success:


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're overrating the long-term storage efficacy of these solar thermal plants. The efficiency of this storage declines the further out you try to stretch it. It tends to make a 6 or 8 hour energy source into at most a 10 or 12 hour energy source. That's the reason why MANY solar thermal plants leave the storage feature out. It subtracts from peak production capability and is not actually cost effective unless your demand curves are unusual. *See the IVanpah system outside Las Vegas for example*. That city doesn't need early morning power, but NEEDS to extend as far into the evening as possible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I won't "see the Ivanpah system outside Las Vegas for example."  And I've already explained why that is.  Ivanpah was designed to fail as an "example" to "why solar thermal just isn't feasible".  Courtesy of BigOil.  Designed by BrightSource Energy and Bechtel.  Bechtel is famous for assisting/contracting the Alaska oil pipeline and other natural gas projects.  BrightSource investors include:  Google.org, *BP* Alternative Energy, Morgan Stanley, DBL Investors, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, *Chevron *Technology Ventures, *Statoil* Venture, and Black River...  Do you think that oil companies would be eager to design systems that were simple, that any power plant could add to their system to reduce oil consumption, instead of buying oil from BP, Chevron etc.?  That would be like McDonald's designing a new meat patty for Burger King and then throwing their hands up in the air as suddenly all of Burger King's customers started getting food poisoning and saying "see, Burger King's food just isn't a good investment".  It's elementary school capitalism: _eliminate the competition by any means necessary..._
> 
> The Ivanpah system employs FLAT mirrors set A VAST DISTANCE FROM THE TARGET SOURCE, which diffusion and particulates would interfere with [on purpose] that delievers TEPID HEAT to a LOFTY TOWER FAR AWAY in comparison with the 300 degrees CELSIUS that linear PARABOLIC mirrors CONCENTRATE on a linear oil-filled tube AT EXTREME CLOSE RANGE.  One, Ivanpah, designed by BigOil interests, was DESIGNED TO FAIL.  It had to be.  Just look at it!  The other runs like a champ, is much easier to set up and takes up much less real estate per kwh produced.
> 
> Ivanpah is the first "solar thermal" type, a failure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin is the linear tube type, a success:
Click to expand...


Tepid?

Ivanpah heats to 1000° Celsius.  You really don't seem to know what you are talking about.

The Prometheus Gas Turbine Project Introduces A New Electric Gas Turbine


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're overrating the long-term storage efficacy of these solar thermal plants. The efficiency of this storage declines the further out you try to stretch it. It tends to make a 6 or 8 hour energy source into at most a 10 or 12 hour energy source. That's the reason why MANY solar thermal plants leave the storage feature out. It subtracts from peak production capability and is not actually cost effective unless your demand curves are unusual. *See the IVanpah system outside Las Vegas for example*. That city doesn't need early morning power, but NEEDS to extend as far into the evening as possible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I won't "see the Ivanpah system outside Las Vegas for example."  And I've already explained why that is.  Ivanpah was designed to fail as an "example" to "why solar thermal just isn't feasible".  Courtesy of BigOil.  Designed by BrightSource Energy and Bechtel.  Bechtel is famous for assisting/contracting the Alaska oil pipeline and other natural gas projects.  BrightSource investors include:  Google.org, *BP* Alternative Energy, Morgan Stanley, DBL Investors, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, *Chevron *Technology Ventures, *Statoil* Venture, and Black River...  Do you think that oil companies would be eager to design systems that were simple, that any power plant could add to their system to reduce oil consumption, instead of buying oil from BP, Chevron etc.?  That would be like McDonald's designing a new meat patty for Burger King and then throwing their hands up in the air as suddenly all of Burger King's customers started getting food poisoning and saying "see, Burger King's food just isn't a good investment".  It's elementary school capitalism: _eliminate the competition by any means necessary..._
> 
> The Ivanpah system employs FLAT mirrors set A VAST DISTANCE FROM THE TARGET SOURCE, which diffusion and particulates would interfere with [on purpose] that delievers TEPID HEAT to a LOFTY TOWER FAR AWAY in comparison with the 300 degrees CELSIUS that linear PARABOLIC mirrors CONCENTRATE on a linear oil-filled tube AT EXTREME CLOSE RANGE.  One, Ivanpah, designed by BigOil interests, was DESIGNED TO FAIL.  It had to be.  Just look at it!  The other runs like a champ, is much easier to set up and takes up much less real estate per kwh produced.
> 
> Ivanpah is the first "solar thermal" type, a failure:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin is the linear tube type, a success:
Click to expand...


Wow.. That just took you out of valid interesting discussion region -- and placed you in the conspiracy corner, dont' jack me with the facts netherworld.. 

Just got finished noting how MANY of these projects only got off the ground because "big oil" paid for them AND USED THEM on their own oil fields. For you to believe that they PAID for crappy engineering (which Bechtel is not known for) AND designed it to fail for propaganda purposes is absurd.. The power from IvanPah IS BEING SOLD today. And from all indications -- it's a failed failure..


----------



## Silhouette

flacaltenn said:


> Wow.. That just took you out of valid interesting discussion region -- and placed you in the conspiracy corner, dont' jack me with the facts netherworld..
> 
> Just got finished noting how MANY of these projects only got off the ground because "big oil" paid for them AND USED THEM on their own oil fields. For you to believe that they PAID for crappy engineering (which Bechtel is not known for) AND designed it to fail for propaganda purposes is absurd.. The power from IvanPah IS BEING SOLD today. And from all indications -- it's a failed failure..



A retarded chimp can see how ridiculous the design of Ivanpah is.  Shine a flat mirror at a tank hundreds of feet away in a dusty region like a desert and ask yourself with diffusion at such a distance, and particulate interference, how effective that flat non-concentrating surface would be at heating the element so far away. 

Therefore, I have only to conclude that the Ivanpah circular "solar thermal" array is a complete sham, known beforehand to engineers.  A child can take a car headlamp reflector, put a piece of wood in the bulb clip and point it at the sun to see the difference concave concentration of the sun's rays can make vs flat.   {The wood will start to burn within seconds, wear eye protection!] And that same child can hold their hand out farther away to see when the heat starts to dissipate.  Any child, therefore, can tell you that parabolics beat flat hands down and that the farther away you place the object, the less heat it will collect as a result.

Bechtel's involvment in this sham is questionable.  They know which system works better and they chose the one that worked with the least efficiency between the two.  How this is not "engineering to fail" is a matter up for debate here.


----------



## Andylusion

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. That just took you out of valid interesting discussion region -- and placed you in the conspiracy corner, dont' jack me with the facts netherworld..
> 
> Just got finished noting how MANY of these projects only got off the ground because "big oil" paid for them AND USED THEM on their own oil fields. For you to believe that they PAID for crappy engineering (which Bechtel is not known for) AND designed it to fail for propaganda purposes is absurd.. The power from IvanPah IS BEING SOLD today. And from all indications -- it's a failed failure..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded chimp can see how ridiculous the design of Ivanpah is.  Shine a flat mirror at a tank hundreds of feet away in a dusty region like a desert and ask yourself with diffusion at such a distance, and particulate interference, how effective that flat non-concentrating surface would be at heating the element so far away.
> 
> Therefore, I have only to conclude that the Ivanpah circular "solar thermal" array is a complete sham, known beforehand to engineers.  A child can take a car headlamp reflector, put a piece of wood in the bulb clip and point it at the sun to see the difference concave concentration of the sun's rays can make vs flat.   {The wood will start to burn within seconds, wear eye protection!] And that same child can hold their hand out farther away to see when the heat starts to dissipate.  Any child, therefore, can tell you that parabolics beat flat hands down and that the farther away you place the object, the less heat it will collect as a result.
> 
> Bechtel's involvment in this sham is questionable.  They know which system works better and they chose the one that worked with the least efficiency between the two.  How this is not "engineering to fail" is a matter up for debate here.
Click to expand...


You don't know what your talking about.


----------



## Silhouette

Androw said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. That just took you out of valid interesting discussion region -- and placed you in the conspiracy corner, dont' jack me with the facts netherworld..
> 
> Just got finished noting how MANY of these projects only got off the ground because "big oil" paid for them AND USED THEM on their own oil fields. For you to believe that they PAID for crappy engineering (which Bechtel is not known for) AND designed it to fail for propaganda purposes is absurd.. The power from IvanPah IS BEING SOLD today. And from all indications -- it's a failed failure..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded chimp can see how ridiculous the design of Ivanpah is.  Shine a flat mirror at a tank hundreds of feet away in a dusty region like a desert and ask yourself with diffusion at such a distance, and particulate interference, how effective that flat non-concentrating surface would be at heating the element so far away.
> 
> Therefore, I have only to conclude that the Ivanpah circular "solar thermal" array is a complete sham, known beforehand to engineers.  A child can take a car headlamp reflector, put a piece of wood in the bulb clip and point it at the sun to see the difference concave concentration of the sun's rays can make vs flat.   {The wood will start to burn within seconds, wear eye protection!] And that same child can hold their hand out farther away to see when the heat starts to dissipate.  Any child, therefore, can tell you that parabolics beat flat hands down and that the farther away you place the object, the less heat it will collect as a result.
> 
> Bechtel's involvment in this sham is questionable.  They know which system works better and they chose the one that worked with the least efficiency between the two.  How this is not "engineering to fail" is a matter up for debate here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what your talking about.
Click to expand...


Very substantive retort.  Care to elaborate?  

When you build something that is less efficient than other designs out there and try to sell it to the public as "something that is good" when it is really something that will fail, what else have you done but engineered something to fail?


----------



## Silhouette

Here's a way to improve even more on the efficiency of the solar thermal linear tube array using fresnel lenses just atop the oil filled tube that the parabolic mirrors are hitting also from underneath:


----------



## Silhouette

With the fresnel magnifiers atop the linear tube, even on semi-overcast cloudy days good temperatures can be reached.  At least enough to run refrigerant turbines like they have going on in Alaska:



> http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Re...alProjectReport_ChenaPowerGeothermalPlant.pdf
> 
> The geothermal power plant has been operating with 95% availability since the
> installation of the first 200kW unit in July, 2006, and *has relegated diesel generation to a
> supplemental and backup role *in power generation for the site. The power plant operated
> for over 3000 hours in 2006, generating 578,550kWhrs *and displacing 44,500 gallons in
> diesel fuel*. In 2007, the project is expected to generate 3 million kWhrs of clean
> geothermal power and displace 224,000 gallons of diesel for an estimated savings of
> $550,000....
> 
> ...The geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot Springs has reduced the cost of power
> from 30¢ per kWhr to 5¢ per kWhr, with further reductions expected once loans to fund
> project infrastructure are repaid. Maintenance cost for the power plant is expected to be
> 1¢ per kWhr....
> 
> ...The cost of electric power in rural Alaska is among the highest in the United States, and
> frequently approaches $1 per kW. The cost of power is currently 86¢ per kW at Manley
> Hot Springs2, and 56¢ per kW at Central (near Circle Hot Springs). At Chena, power has
> been generated in the past using diesel gensets &#8211; as in most Alaskan villages &#8211; at a cost of
> 30¢ per kW....
> 
> ...Chena has long
> been interested in tapping the available geothermal resource for generating electric
> power. However, an exploration program conducted in the late 1970&#8217;s and early 80&#8217;s
> (Wescott and Turner, 1981) discounted the site for power generation with technology
> available at that time. As a result, Chena decided to take a two-tiered approach to reevaluating
> the site for power generation. Simultaneous projects were undertaken with
> the first involving the short-term installation of a small geothermal power plant designed
> to operate off the existing, proven resource. At the same time, a more extensive
> exploration and assessment program was conducted to define the deeper resource
> potential, and ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource. This second
> exploration program became the DOE funded Chena Hot Springs GRED III project...
> 
> ....In October, 2004, Chena Hot Springs was approached by the United Technologies
> Research Center (a division of United Technologies Corporation) on the recommendation
> of the Department of Energy Geothermal Technologies Program. United Technologies
> Corporation had developed a modular ORC power generation system designed to use
> waste heat from industrial applications. The product was called the PureCycle 200, and
> United Technologies was interested in installing a unit to operate on heat from a
> geothermal resource as another application of their technology. Chena was an excellent
> candidate for the project, and after discussion with Barber-Nichols, it was decided to
> proceed with a project through United Technologies Corporation.
> The primary reason for making the switch in manufacturer was that United Technologies
> (UTC) represented an opportunity to further the geothermal industry as a whole. UTC
> had developed a unique approach to reducing costs through the use of inexpensive, mass
> produced, U.S. manufactured air conditioning and refrigeration equipment from Carrier
> Refrigeration4. In fact, UTC&#8217;s stated goal was to reduce the cost of geothermal power
> generation equipment from $3000/kWhr installed to $1300/kWhr installed....
> 
> ...United Technologies Corporation (UTC), through their Research Center, partnered with
> Chena Hot Springs in early 2005 with the goal of adapting the PureCycle® product to a
> moderate temperature geothermal resource. The specific objective for UTC was to
> demonstrate the feasibility of producing electricity at a cost of less than 5¢/kWh from a
> 165°F geothermal resource with 98% availability. The geothermal application for the
> PureCycle® platform would involve some additional innovation and opportunities for
> cost reduction beyond that of the original PureCycle® 200 platform, includung:
> &#8226; Changing the working fluid used in the PureCycle® ORC plant from R245fa to
> R134a. This fluid is a better match for low temperature geothermal applications
> and enables a significant cost reduction, both directly because R134a is a low cost
> fluid widely used in HVAC equipment and indirectly by allowing lower cost
> commercially available components to be used in the power plant.
> &#8226; Developing low cost heat exchangers specific to geothermal applications based on
> designs and production capability in place for Carrier&#8217;s large commercial and
> marine water-cooled chillers...
> 
> ...Reducing the plant cost relative to the PureCycle® ORC plant by incorporating
> and qualifying more commercially available components made feasible by the
> lower operating temperature in geothermal applications.
> &#8226; Develop control algorithms and methods for operation with tube and shell heat
> exchangers rather than the fin-tube technology applied in the PureCycle® plant.
> The geothermal plant modules were designed and qualified at the United Technologies
> Research Center before installation at Chena Hot Springs. Cycle analysis shows that with
> *the 164°F temperature geothermal liquid as the heat source and 40ºF river water as heat
> sink, two geothermal power plants can be developed with HFC134a as the working fluid*.



So it looks like they are using delta T to create energy.



> 4.2 Refrigerant Design Points
> Mass flow rate: 26.8 lbm/s
> Evaporator/turbine inlet pressure: 232 psia
> Condenser/turbine exit pressure: 63.6 psia
> Turbine gross power: 250 kW
> Pump power: 40 kW
> System output power (net): 210 kW
> Thermal efficiency: 8.2 %
> This efficiency is quite a challenge given the limited thermodynamic availability of the
> low temperature geothermal heat source. A completely reversible thermodynamic cycle
> working with the same heat source and heat sink temperature glides would have a thermal
> efficiency just under 18%. Fortunately, efficiency improvements are far less critical in
> power generation when the fuel is essentially free.



Here's the math on low temp power generation:



> A TS Cycle Diagram for the power plant is included in Figure 5. On the
> preheater/evaporator side of the ORC system, 530 gpm of 164 °F hot water (point A in
> Figure 5) enters the unit and is cooled to 130 °F (point B) transferring 2.58 MW of
> thermal energy to the refrigerant. This energy preheats the 26.8 lbm/s refrigerant mass
> flow rate from 54 °F (state point 4) to 136 °F and subsequently boils the working fluid at
> this temperature before slightly superheating it (state point 1). The high-pressure
> refrigerant vapor is expanded in the turbine that extracts 270 kW of mechanical power..
> 
> ...from the refrigerant flow at 80% aerodynamic efficiency. After accounting for
> mechanical and electrical losses 250 kW of electrical power is delivered by the generator.
> The refrigerant vapor leaving the turbine (state point 2) is de-superheated, condensed at
> 53 °F and then slightly subcooled to state point 3 in the 2.36 MWth water-cooled
> condenser. The condenser heat is transferred to 1615 gpm of 40 °F cold water (point C)
> that is heated to 50 °F (point D). The refrigerant loop is closed by a pump, which
> elevates the refrigerant pressure from 65 psia (state point 3) to 245 psia (state point 4).
> The pump requires 40 kW of electrical power. Accounting for all losses, the net power
> produced by each power plant module is 210 kW. This can be increased when using the
> air cooled condenser during the winter months.



These applications can be applied at night from heat stored in saline gradient tanks on site at solar thermal installations.  Unlike the claims of *some* posters here, the systems are relatively easy to manufacture:



> The turbine can be specified with a rotor and multi-port
> conical nozzles chosen from a range of standard options to provide the optimal
> performance for specific design points. The Bill of Materials (BOM) of the PureCycle®
> turbogenerator has a total of 171 line items. Relative to the corresponding chiller
> compressor assembly, the PureCycle turbogenerator has only 13 unique manufactured
> parts. There are no significant changes in processes, patterns or tooling. This allows for
> the turbine to be manufactured with the same consistent quality as commercial chiller
> plants.


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. That just took you out of valid interesting discussion region -- and placed you in the conspiracy corner, dont' jack me with the facts netherworld..
> 
> Just got finished noting how MANY of these projects only got off the ground because "big oil" paid for them AND USED THEM on their own oil fields. For you to believe that they PAID for crappy engineering (which Bechtel is not known for) AND designed it to fail for propaganda purposes is absurd.. The power from IvanPah IS BEING SOLD today. And from all indications -- it's a failed failure..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A retarded chimp can see how ridiculous the design of Ivanpah is.  Shine a flat mirror at a tank hundreds of feet away in a dusty region like a desert and ask yourself with diffusion at such a distance, and particulate interference, how effective that flat non-concentrating surface would be at heating the element so far away.
> 
> Therefore, I have only to conclude that the Ivanpah circular "solar thermal" array is a complete sham, known beforehand to engineers.  A child can take a car headlamp reflector, put a piece of wood in the bulb clip and point it at the sun to see the difference concave concentration of the sun's rays can make vs flat.   {The wood will start to burn within seconds, wear eye protection!] And that same child can hold their hand out farther away to see when the heat starts to dissipate.  Any child, therefore, can tell you that parabolics beat flat hands down and that the farther away you place the object, the less heat it will collect as a result.
> 
> Bechtel's involvment in this sham is questionable.  They know which system works better and they chose the one that worked with the least efficiency between the two.  How this is not "engineering to fail" is a matter up for debate here.
Click to expand...


Not only did you go off into the woods with conspiracy theories, but you ignored the 2 credible sources that I gave you citing the efficiency advantage of the Tower design. And your campfire knowledge of optics is not strong enough to recognize how bad your intuition truly is.. Take for instance the segmented mirror of the world's largest reflector telescopes.






This is the same ray tracing that occurs in a parabolic mirror design or any kind of focusing compound lens design. There IS NO DIFFERENCE between segmented flat mirror design that approximates a parabola and your  burnt "kiddie" hand example is FOS. The tower design results in MUCH HIGHER temperatures and turbine efficiencies. 

I've taken a lot of optic engineering for parts of my career. And I never took advice from a retarded chimp. But I can clearly see now where your conspiracy ideas arise from...


----------



## CaféAuLait

Even this clean energy has it's risks. This is the spill which occurred at the hybrid plant in the OP. This spill took a month and a half to clean up. 




> Too much pressure had built up in the system at the Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center &#8212; the world's first hybrid solar thermal plant and the largest solar plant in Florida.
> 
> For about two hours on June 1, a safety valve released steam, water and 46,000 gallons of "heat transfer fluid" into the air.
> 
> 
> Dowtherm A is a mixture of two organic compounds &#8212; biphenyl and diphenyl oxide &#8212; that is stable at high temperatures. That stability is important since about 190,000 curved mirrors at the Martin solar plant are used to heat the liquid to more than 700 degrees. The fluid is then converted to steam to help power the natural gas plant.
> 
> Dow Chemical Co., which manufactures Dowtherm A, warns it may cause skin and respiratory tract irritation and is "highly toxic to fish and/or other aquatic organisms." But it has a low toxicity level if inhaled or ingested by humans. While it can cause pain to the eyes, it won't injure the cornea, according to the manufacturer.







Eve Samples: Major spill at FPL solar plant gets glossed over » TCPalm.com

The article also points out customers are footing the bill for the new plant.


----------



## Decus

Silhouette said:


> With the fresnel magnifiers atop the linear tube, even on semi-overcast cloudy days good temperatures can be reached.  At least enough to run refrigerant turbines like they have going on in Alaska:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chena Hot Springs is a geothermal power plant. Chena has nothing to do with solar. If you wanted to show a hybrid geothermal/solar plant you could point to Stillwater Energy Plant in Nevada. Instead you want to pretend you have an idea........too funny.
> 
> The problem with heat sinks is that they have limited storage capacity. A solar plant relying on back-up heat might (depending on size) be able to run for a night but would not be able to sustain the plant's energy production much longer than that.
> 
> Geothermal is a constant and reliable source of heat 24/7/365. Geothermal is a good and clean source of energy but doesn't require solar to operate. Given that this thread is about solar energy it seems you would have to admit that solar needs a constant source of energy production *like* hydro, nuclear or geothermal to work. Too funny.
> 
> World's First Solar-Geothermal Hybrid Plant Opens In Nevada | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Silhouette

Decus said:


> Chena Hot Springs is a geothermal power plant. Chena has nothing to do with solar. If you wanted to show a hybrid geothermal/solar plant you could point to Stillwater Energy Plant in Nevada. Instead you want to pretend you have an idea........too funny.
> 
> The problem with heat sinks is that they have limited storage capacity. A solar plant relying on back-up heat might (depending on size) be able to run for a night but would not be able to sustain the plant's energy production much longer than that.
> 
> Geothermal is a constant and reliable source of heat 24/7/365. Geothermal is a good and clean source of energy but doesn't require solar to operate. Given that this thread is about solar energy it seems you would have to admit that solar needs a constant source of energy production *like* hydro, nuclear or geothermal to work. Too funny.



It's so cute how you wilfully mislead.  You know that I was talking about Chena because of their refrigerant generators.  Remember how I was talking about them being able to be used at night in solar thermal plants, running off of the stored excess heat from the sun in layered salt tanks?  Off delta T [change in temperature from warm to very cold]   Of course you remember that!  

But yes, geothermal is another excellent source of turbine power.  Especially if, like Chena demonstrated, you can use lower-heat sources to run turbines like what they're doing at Chena.

It's those low-temp turbine systems I was talking about to reduce carbon use even more at solar thermal plants.  Try not to mislead so grotesquely next time.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chena Hot Springs is a geothermal power plant. Chena has nothing to do with solar. If you wanted to show a hybrid geothermal/solar plant you could point to Stillwater Energy Plant in Nevada. Instead you want to pretend you have an idea........too funny.
> 
> The problem with heat sinks is that they have limited storage capacity. A solar plant relying on back-up heat might (depending on size) be able to run for a night but would not be able to sustain the plant's energy production much longer than that.
> 
> Geothermal is a constant and reliable source of heat 24/7/365. Geothermal is a good and clean source of energy but doesn't require solar to operate. Given that this thread is about solar energy it seems you would have to admit that solar needs a constant source of energy production *like* hydro, nuclear or geothermal to work. Too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so cute how you wilfully mislead.  You know that I was talking about Chena because of their refrigerant generators.  Remember how I was talking about them being able to be used at night in solar thermal plants, running off of the stored excess heat from the sun in layered salt tanks?  Off delta T [change in temperature from warm to very cold]   Of course you remember that!
> 
> But yes, geothermal is another excellent source of turbine power.  Especially if, like Chena demonstrated, you can use lower-heat sources to run turbines like what they're doing at Chena.
> 
> It's those low-temp turbine systems I was talking about to reduce carbon use even more at solar thermal plants.  Try not to mislead so grotesquely next time.
Click to expand...


Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.


----------



## Silhouette

thereisnospoon said:


> Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.



Then you will quickly be objecting to carbon and nuclear power because of all the costs associated with pollution of collecting coal and oil [and the thousands of square miles, rivers & aquifers damaged because of that mining] and having to keep burning it, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is destablizing weather to dangerous extremes...and the costs of not just hundreds of acres with nuclear, but when things go wrong, tens of thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable forever.

I'll take the cheapest solution of all: solar thermal parabolic mirrors with linear tubes heating water from the free sunshine.  From what I understand, these simple to make mirrors go up like an erector set overnight.  Nuclear and coal plants take FOREVER to construct and even longer to permit..you know...because of all that anticipated danger to humans and the environment from their operation..  Economist did the math on nuclear and said they never turn a profit...ever.  That they've been existing from taxpayer subsidies since day one.


----------



## HenryBHough

The California State University System has a department feverishly developing the generation of electricity through rubbing multiple cats together.

The University of California System has a department training undergraduates in the art of unionizing cats.

See the problem?


----------



## flacaltenn

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will quickly be objecting to carbon and nuclear power because of all the costs associated with pollution of collecting coal and oil [and the thousands of square miles, rivers & aquifers damaged because of that mining] and having to keep burning it, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is destablizing weather to dangerous extremes...and the costs of not just hundreds of acres with nuclear, but when things go wrong, tens of thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable forever.
> 
> I'll take the cheapest solution of all: solar thermal parabolic mirrors with linear tubes heating water from the free sunshine.  From what I understand, these simple to make mirrors go up like an erector set overnight.  Nuclear and coal plants take FOREVER to construct and even longer to permit..you know...because of all that anticipated danger to humans and the environment from their operation..  Economist did the math on nuclear and said they never turn a profit...ever.  That they've been existing from taxpayer subsidies since day one.
Click to expand...


All those nuclear plants "economically analyzed" saw their DAY ONE on the drawing boards in the 1960s.. If we applied 50 yr old economic analysis to ATMs or electric cars or virtual classrooms --- none of those things would be economically feasible today..


----------



## asterism

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will quickly be objecting to carbon and nuclear power because of all the costs associated with pollution of collecting coal and oil [and the thousands of square miles, rivers & aquifers damaged because of that mining] and having to keep burning it, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is destablizing weather to dangerous extremes...and the costs of not just hundreds of acres with nuclear, but when things go wrong, tens of thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable forever.
> 
> I'll take the cheapest solution of all: solar thermal parabolic mirrors with linear tubes heating water from the free sunshine.  From what I understand, these simple to make mirrors go up like an erector set overnight.  Nuclear and coal plants take FOREVER to construct and even longer to permit..you know...because of all that anticipated danger to humans and the environment from their operation..  Economist did the math on nuclear and said they never turn a profit...ever.  That they've been existing from taxpayer subsidies since day one.
Click to expand...


You say cheaper, but you don't post cost data.

So......


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will quickly be objecting to carbon and nuclear power because of all the costs associated with pollution of collecting coal and oil [and the thousands of square miles, rivers & aquifers damaged because of that mining] and having to keep burning it, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is destablizing weather to dangerous extremes...and the costs of not just hundreds of acres with nuclear, but when things go wrong, tens of thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable forever.
> 
> I'll take the cheapest solution of all: solar thermal parabolic mirrors with linear tubes heating water from the free sunshine.  From what I understand, these simple to make mirrors go up like an erector set overnight.  Nuclear and coal plants take FOREVER to construct and even longer to permit..you know...because of all that anticipated danger to humans and the environment from their operation..  Economist did the math on nuclear and said they never turn a profit...ever.  That they've been existing from taxpayer subsidies since day one.
Click to expand...


Just admit two things
One, you are a committed single issue anti fossil fuel person.
Two. You believe we could implement your fart gas, leaf spinach, sunshine forever energy ideas NOW....And to do this, you wish the use of all fossil fuels to end NOW...
Right.
Your hero Obama believes the same nonsense. And in order to further his agenda, he will ram it down our throats.
Yeah well guess    what tree hugger, fossil fuels are here to stay. Oil is the economic lubricant which keeps this country and the world moving.
As long as you anti fossil fuel people keep using fossil fuels and enjoying the modern conveniences of fossil fuels, you should just shut up.  
Newsflash....EVERYTHING pollutes. And the Earth cleanses itself.
Look, if you want a crusade, go to China and bitch at them.


----------



## thereisnospoon

asterism said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey genius, Power plants costing hundreds of millions or even a billion dollars and take up hundreds of acres are not practical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you will quickly be objecting to carbon and nuclear power because of all the costs associated with pollution of collecting coal and oil [and the thousands of square miles, rivers & aquifers damaged because of that mining] and having to keep burning it, dumping CO2 into the atmosphere which is destablizing weather to dangerous extremes...and the costs of not just hundreds of acres with nuclear, but when things go wrong, tens of thousands of square miles are rendered uninhabitable forever.
> 
> I'll take the cheapest solution of all: solar thermal parabolic mirrors with linear tubes heating water from the free sunshine.  From what I understand, these simple to make mirrors go up like an erector set overnight.  Nuclear and coal plants take FOREVER to construct and even longer to permit..you know...because of all that anticipated danger to humans and the environment from their operation..  Economist did the math on nuclear and said they never turn a profit...ever.  That they've been existing from taxpayer subsidies since day one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say cheaper, but you don't post cost data.
> 
> So......
Click to expand...


Oh no....We're just supposed to accept it.
Do not question the liberal.


----------



## Silhouette

thereisnospoon said:


> One, you are a committed single issue anti fossil fuel person.
> Two. You believe we could implement your fart gas, leaf spinach, sunshine forever energy ideas NOW....And to do this, you wish the use of all fossil fuels to end NOW...
> Right.
> Your hero Obama believes the same nonsense. And in order to further his agenda, he will ram it down our throats.
> Yeah well guess    what tree hugger, fossil fuels are here to stay. Oil is the economic lubricant which keeps this country and the world moving.
> As long as you anti fossil fuel people keep using fossil fuels and enjoying the modern conveniences of fossil fuels, you should just shut up.
> Newsflash....EVERYTHING pollutes. And the Earth cleanses itself.
> Look, if you want a crusade, go to China and bitch at them.



Not at all.  There will always be a place for petrolium in making plastics, fueling big workhorse rigs that need diesel, airline fuels and other petrolium products.  We just need to cut back on their use.  I know since you are invested heavily in the industry, the words "cut back on their use" is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But let's face it.  You've had your hayday and thensome, to the point of massive climate change that only seems to be getting progressively more extreme and unpredictable in a new exponential curve.

Switch over to another trade, one more innovative, more benign to the terrarium we're all stuck in, one tailored to the trends of the 21st Century.  Do I really have to explain the basics of investing to you?  FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  Don't stubbornly try to insist that everyone else remake reailty so that your "Emperor's New Clothes" can be "fashionable" still.

Cripes, when you start injecting corrosive and putrid solvents into blasted areas of shale just below pristine and manifestly essential aquifers, causing earthquake flurries and pollution that when [not if] lateral shear earthquakes compromise well casings, can never be accessed to clean up, you are desperate man!  Desperate!

Try a dose of sanity.  Spend your energy, your arguments and time lobbying Congress for a monopoly on benign energy sources.  Got another simple economic tip for you:  If you do that instead, you would be able to keep charging the same as if you were still engaged in expensive mining and refining processes, but instead getting your energy from the sun or geothermal resources, wind etc and reducing your overhead like a big dog.  That equals massive increases in profits.

Like duh.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, you are a committed single issue anti fossil fuel person.
> Two. You believe we could implement your fart gas, leaf spinach, sunshine forever energy ideas NOW....And to do this, you wish the use of all fossil fuels to end NOW...
> Right.
> Your hero Obama believes the same nonsense. And in order to further his agenda, he will ram it down our throats.
> Yeah well guess    what tree hugger, fossil fuels are here to stay. Oil is the economic lubricant which keeps this country and the world moving.
> As long as you anti fossil fuel people keep using fossil fuels and enjoying the modern conveniences of fossil fuels, you should just shut up.
> Newsflash....EVERYTHING pollutes. And the Earth cleanses itself.
> Look, if you want a crusade, go to China and bitch at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  There will always be a place for petrolium in making plastics, fueling big workhorse rigs that need diesel, airline fuels and other petrolium products.  We just need to cut back on their use.  I know since you are invested heavily in the industry, the words "cut back on their use" is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But let's face it.  You've had your hayday and thensome, to the point of massive climate change that only seems to be getting progressively more extreme and unpredictable in a new exponential curve.
> 
> Switch over to another trade, one more innovative, more benign to the terrarium we're all stuck in, one tailored to the trends of the 21st Century.  Do I really have to explain the basics of investing to you?  FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  Don't stubbornly try to insist that everyone else remake reailty so that your "Emperor's New Clothes" can be "fashionable" still.
> 
> Cripes, when you start injecting corrosive and putrid solvents into blasted areas of shale just below pristine and manifestly essential aquifers, causing earthquake flurries and pollution that when [not if] lateral shear earthquakes compromise well casings, can never be accessed to clean up, you are desperate man!  Desperate!
> 
> Try a dose of sanity.  Spend your energy, your arguments and time lobbying Congress for a monopoly on benign energy sources.  Got another simple economic tip for you:  If you do that instead, you would be able to keep charging the same as if you were still engaged in expensive mining and refining processes, but instead getting your energy from the sun or geothermal resources, wind etc and reducing your overhead like a big dog.  That equals massive increases in profits.
> 
> Like duh.
Click to expand...


From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.
All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
Develop them, yes. 
Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.


----------



## Silhouette

thereisnospoon said:


> *From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.*
> All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
> At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
> Develop them, yes.
> Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
> Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.



Yeah, complete mystery.

At this point the alternative power sources are not only practical, they're cheaper, net their investors more money and most have been invented many many decades ago or even centuries ago but were actively quashed to keep from competing with BigOil, PRECISELY BECAUSE they are more efficient, easy to run and therefore present the most real and present danger to BigCarbon's monopoly on energy.

Y'all argue through your wallets and everybody knows it.  That cat has long ago been let out of the bag..  

What I'm saying is just go to Congress, pad the usual pockets, keep your god damned monopolies and MAKE MORE MONEY WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT.  Why does trashing the planet have to be part of your insane wealth?  Become insanely wealthy by being a good steward of the the old home place so you can sleep better at night atop that pile of gold.


----------



## Old Rocks

thereisnospoon said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> One, you are a committed single issue anti fossil fuel person.
> Two. You believe we could implement your fart gas, leaf spinach, sunshine forever energy ideas NOW....And to do this, you wish the use of all fossil fuels to end NOW...
> Right.
> Your hero Obama believes the same nonsense. And in order to further his agenda, he will ram it down our throats.
> Yeah well guess    what tree hugger, fossil fuels are here to stay. Oil is the economic lubricant which keeps this country and the world moving.
> As long as you anti fossil fuel people keep using fossil fuels and enjoying the modern conveniences of fossil fuels, you should just shut up.
> Newsflash....EVERYTHING pollutes. And the Earth cleanses itself.
> Look, if you want a crusade, go to China and bitch at them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  There will always be a place for petrolium in making plastics, fueling big workhorse rigs that need diesel, airline fuels and other petrolium products.  We just need to cut back on their use.  I know since you are invested heavily in the industry, the words "cut back on their use" is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But let's face it.  You've had your hayday and thensome, to the point of massive climate change that only seems to be getting progressively more extreme and unpredictable in a new exponential curve.
> 
> Switch over to another trade, one more innovative, more benign to the terrarium we're all stuck in, one tailored to the trends of the 21st Century.  Do I really have to explain the basics of investing to you?  FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  Don't stubbornly try to insist that everyone else remake reailty so that your "Emperor's New Clothes" can be "fashionable" still.
> 
> Cripes, when you start injecting corrosive and putrid solvents into blasted areas of shale just below pristine and manifestly essential aquifers, causing earthquake flurries and pollution that when [not if] lateral shear earthquakes compromise well casings, can never be accessed to clean up, you are desperate man!  Desperate!
> 
> Try a dose of sanity.  Spend your energy, your arguments and time lobbying Congress for a monopoly on benign energy sources.  Got another simple economic tip for you:  If you do that instead, you would be able to keep charging the same as if you were still engaged in expensive mining and refining processes, but instead getting your energy from the sun or geothermal resources, wind etc and reducing your overhead like a big dog.  That equals massive increases in profits.
> 
> Like duh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.
> All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
> At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
> Develop them, yes.
> Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
> Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.
Click to expand...


And you are completely full of shit. Wind increased at the rate of 18% last year, solar at the rate of 15%. Pretty damned impressive. That is worldwide figures. Love to have a bank account like that. Solar, projected in 2014 to increase 50% or more in the US. Impressive for something not marketable or economically feasable.


----------



## percysunshine

Ethanol is another viable energy source, when the taxpayer finances half the project cost.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Silhouette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.*
> All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
> At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
> Develop them, yes.
> Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
> Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, complete mystery.
> 
> At this point the alternative power sources are not only practical, they're cheaper, net their investors more money and most have been invented many many decades ago or even centuries ago but were actively quashed to keep from competing with BigOil, PRECISELY BECAUSE they are more efficient, easy to run and therefore present the most real and present danger to BigCarbon's monopoly on energy.
> 
> Y'all argue through your wallets and everybody knows it.  That cat has long ago been let out of the bag..
> 
> What I'm saying is just go to Congress, pad the usual pockets, keep your god damned monopolies and MAKE MORE MONEY WHILE YOU'RE DOING IT.  Why does trashing the planet have to be part of your insane wealth?  Become insanely wealthy by being a good steward of the the old home place so you can sleep better at night atop that pile of gold.
Click to expand...

They are MUCH more expensive.
look, you are a hand wringing environmentalist. 
You make these claims yet provide no data.
If these energy sources were as you claim, they's be in mass market right now. Investment would have these energy stocks soaring. They aren't. In fact many of these companies are going out of business or have sought bankruptcy protection.
No one is "trashing the planet"...That sister, is all in your mind. 
I suppose when yo saw "An Inconvenient Truth" you wept during the polar bear on ice scene.
Ethanol is a fail. Battery technology has not changed in decades. Same problems. Solar is just too expensive for the average middle class person to afford. Even WITH the federal subsidies. Although, solar panels for homes will be in reach in the next ten years. That does not mean inexpensive. That means within reach.
Watch this....
Do you have a pension? Mutual Fund? 401K?....Chances are your portfolio or fund is invested in GASP!!!!!..........Oil company stocks!!!!! O-M-G..


----------



## thereisnospoon

Old Rocks said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  There will always be a place for petrolium in making plastics, fueling big workhorse rigs that need diesel, airline fuels and other petrolium products.  We just need to cut back on their use.  I know since you are invested heavily in the industry, the words "cut back on their use" is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But let's face it.  You've had your hayday and thensome, to the point of massive climate change that only seems to be getting progressively more extreme and unpredictable in a new exponential curve.
> 
> Switch over to another trade, one more innovative, more benign to the terrarium we're all stuck in, one tailored to the trends of the 21st Century.  Do I really have to explain the basics of investing to you?  FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  Don't stubbornly try to insist that everyone else remake reailty so that your "Emperor's New Clothes" can be "fashionable" still.
> 
> Cripes, when you start injecting corrosive and putrid solvents into blasted areas of shale just below pristine and manifestly essential aquifers, causing earthquake flurries and pollution that when [not if] lateral shear earthquakes compromise well casings, can never be accessed to clean up, you are desperate man!  Desperate!
> 
> Try a dose of sanity.  Spend your energy, your arguments and time lobbying Congress for a monopoly on benign energy sources.  Got another simple economic tip for you:  If you do that instead, you would be able to keep charging the same as if you were still engaged in expensive mining and refining processes, but instead getting your energy from the sun or geothermal resources, wind etc and reducing your overhead like a big dog.  That equals massive increases in profits.
> 
> Like duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.
> All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
> At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
> Develop them, yes.
> Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
> Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are completely full of shit. Wind increased at the rate of 18% last year, solar at the rate of 15%. Pretty damned impressive. That is worldwide figures. Love to have a bank account like that. Solar, projected in 2014 to increase 50% or more in the US. Impressive for something not marketable or economically feasable.
Click to expand...

Show where we can run our vehicles, manufacture synthetic fabrics, manufacture paint, make plastics or build a roadway with a wind turbine...
BTW, I neither stated nor implied I was opposed to wind turbines or solar power.
Of course on planet liberal it is prohibited to question the liberal agenda.
Fuck off.


----------



## thereisnospoon

European utilities: How to lose half a trillion euros | The Economist

Brilliant.


----------



## percysunshine

Silhouette said:


> ...




This is what hurricane Andrew did to anything not made of steel or concrete;


----------



## Andylusion

Old Rocks said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  There will always be a place for petrolium in making plastics, fueling big workhorse rigs that need diesel, airline fuels and other petrolium products.  We just need to cut back on their use.  I know since you are invested heavily in the industry, the words "cut back on their use" is like fingernails on a chalkboard.  But let's face it.  You've had your hayday and thensome, to the point of massive climate change that only seems to be getting progressively more extreme and unpredictable in a new exponential curve.
> 
> Switch over to another trade, one more innovative, more benign to the terrarium we're all stuck in, one tailored to the trends of the 21st Century.  Do I really have to explain the basics of investing to you?  FOLLOW THE TRENDS.  Don't stubbornly try to insist that everyone else remake reailty so that your "Emperor's New Clothes" can be "fashionable" still.
> 
> Cripes, when you start injecting corrosive and putrid solvents into blasted areas of shale just below pristine and manifestly essential aquifers, causing earthquake flurries and pollution that when [not if] lateral shear earthquakes compromise well casings, can never be accessed to clean up, you are desperate man!  Desperate!
> 
> Try a dose of sanity.  Spend your energy, your arguments and time lobbying Congress for a monopoly on benign energy sources.  Got another simple economic tip for you:  If you do that instead, you would be able to keep charging the same as if you were still engaged in expensive mining and refining processes, but instead getting your energy from the sun or geothermal resources, wind etc and reducing your overhead like a big dog.  That equals massive increases in profits.
> 
> Like duh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where you get this impending and certain disaster shit is a mystery.
> All of these so called alternative energy sources are wonderful innovations.
> At this point, these sources are neither practical, marketable or economically feasible.
> Develop them, yes.
> Produce the technology to readily distribute them as a reasonable rate or price? Absolutely.
> Stop watching alarmist propaganda such as those dopey "gasland" movies on HBO....Most of the content is pure bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are completely full of shit. Wind increased at the rate of 18% last year, solar at the rate of 15%. Pretty damned impressive. That is worldwide figures. Love to have a bank account like that. Solar, projected in 2014 to increase 50% or more in the US. Impressive for something not marketable or economically feasable.
Click to expand...


Dude, wind only produces at most, about 20% of the capacity rating.   When you see wind power increased by 1 megawatt, it really is only 200 Kilowatts.

That's the reality of the situation.   The cost to produce the same number of wind turbines, as a single coal power plant, is drastically higher, and yet produces a fraction of the power.   It's simply a tax money sink hole, not a viable power source.

Further there is a huge difference between "marketable or economically feasable", and socialized with government grants and subsidies.

Anything can be 'successful' if you have all the money in the world to toss at it.   Give several billion to a government agency, and you can send people to the moon.   Doesn't mean that it is "marketable or economically feasable" to have cars the fly and use a teaspoon of fuel to go 1,000 miles.    Huge difference.

The moment those government subsidies and tax breaks disappear for Wind Turbines, so will the wind turbines.   The wind turbine companies have said as much, and historically the drastic increase in wind turbines has only come with government subsidies and grants and tax breaks.

If Wind Turbine power was fundamentally economically sound and viable, it would never have required tax money to happen.    Did government grants and subsidies fund the Ipod?  Or Cell phones?    Or the Model T Ford?   Of course not.  They were viable from the start without a penny of tax money.  Wind Turbines are not.


----------



## elektra

More garbage propaganda, Solar plants can now produce 10,000xs the energy by being fueled by natural gas.

*This is a Natural gas power plant* surrounded by a Solar Plant.

In the past, Power Plants powered industry, Commercial Power Plants sold 10% of the power to residential households. Now without an industry to power, we have a billion dollar Natural Gas Powered Solar Plant expense providing electricity to a fraction of the population, an extreme expense and impact on the environment.


----------



## Silhouette

We are talking about, quite simply, steam that makes spinny things go round and round in a turbine generator.  It's caveman technology.  The only variable is how you get that steam or vapor flash to the turbine.  Solar thermal sits there, without burning a gram of fuel that had to be mined, refined, transported etc. at enormous cost both financially and to the environment, and it simply concentrates the sun's rays upon a metal tube.  Not a single gram of carbon released into the atmosphere as a result.  

When talking about simple concave parabolic mirrors vs mining, trucking, solvents, refining, burning, air, ground and water pollution and all their "hidden" costs to this country, trying to convince me or anyone else that this is a loss is falling on deaf ears.  A cynical carbon-industry schill [of which there are plenty paid to blog at sites like this online] is the only person who could see solar thermal steam as a "loss"...for personal reasons of course...lol...


----------

