Texas Power Outage Danger Until June 18th. Texans told to conserve energy!

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

14 hours ago, NickW said:

Which is why I said small animals (sheep, goats, poultry). I don't think solar should go on A grade agricultural land full stop but it has its place on marginal land used for rough grazing / hay production

Small animals still need to be rounded up. Cattle are easier to move than small animals too. Solar in the desert is fine by me. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

On 6/29/2021 at 5:58 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Thanks. It's good to look at actual numbers. can you please let us know where these number come from so we can dig deeper?

Sure. The figure for supplying the whole U.S. with solar is easy to find. I'm almost certain you already knew what the projection was, but here's a source saying 5 million for coal mines:

https://www.gem.wiki/Large_coal_mines

I lost the 2.8 citation. 

Now, this is total mined acres across time. Some have been reverted once they've dried up, or are in the process of doing so. For instance:

http://deq.wyoming.gov/lqd/news/more-than-100000-acres-of-wyoming-mine-lands-currently-undergoing-reclamati

EDIT: Note the other estimation for 4.4 million acres. Still far behind our theoretical solar project. 

 

Edited July 1, 2021 by KeyboardWarrior

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

7 hours ago, turbguy said:

Actually, burial ground for landfill disposal of non-recycleable wind turbine blades is under consideration.

I think that ensuring the increased development of nuclear energy infrastructure is a better plan. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Ahh. The wonders of moving too fast. 2.8 million acres reclaimed from coal mines. Not sure where that brings the total acreage to. Subtract from 5 million, assuming that the 5 million figure is across time. Now that would put us at 2.2 million. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Ahh. The wonders of moving too fast. 2.8 million acres reclaimed from coal mines. Not sure where that brings the total acreage to. Subtract from 5 million, assuming that the 5 million figure is across time. Now that would put us at 2.2 million. 

OK, here's a trick: reclaiming a strip mine is expensive. If you can convert that land into a solar park, you can get great creds from the greenies without actually needing to do most of the hard reclamation work 😀

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

4 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

OK, here's a trick: reclaiming a strip mine is expensive. If you can convert that land into a solar park, you can get great creds from the greenies without actually needing to do most of the hard reclamation work 😀

 

Not bad. 

On the topic of solar land, I'm going to figure out at what soil productivity index someone can justify putting panels down. Above a particular unknown number, the opportunity cost associated with crops or hay making would render solar a strange financial decision without qualifying factors. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

14 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

grass grows in dirt that gets sun and water.  If installed in an efficient way, solar panels shade the dirt, and ensure that it doesn't get any rain either.  If the solar panels don't cover ALL the available ground area on a site, the solar installation will be less efficient than one that does.  You could conceivable graze animals in the remaining space, but that wouldn't be a beneficial shared use - it would merely be creating a low efficiency solar farm so that you could also put grazing animals on it.  

Solar panels convert a certain proportion of a certain bandwidth of the solar insolation into electricity. The rest of that insolation reaches the ground. Many plants can use the photons that the solar panels do not capture or reflect. As to rain, the panels do not use any of the rain, so it is all available to the plants.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It hardly matters what I think. I live closer to Yucca Mtn than any coal mine and the few people who live in Nevada wouldn't even accept it as a dump. But maybe Wyoming. What do you say @turbguy do you think your fellow citizens would like to use one of your obsolete coal mines for a radioactive waste dump?

Space isn't the issue for nuclear waste. All the waste the US has ever created would likely fit on three or four trains. The issue is a location which is geologically stable, without water flow and a long way from populations for when it fails. Not to mention the risk of a coal seam fire...

That is why we created Yucca Flats storage. It should be used. NIMBY opposition leaves nuclear waste scattered all over the country. This is one reason for the powerful opposition ton any new nuclear plants, but it is mainly because they are far too expensive to complete and the bill never ends. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

This is one reason for the powerful opposition ton any new nuclear plants, but it is mainly because they are far too expensive to complete and the bill never ends. 

The French way is the fabulous way. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Also Eastern Europe clearly doesn't give a shit about energy clownism in Western Europe. 

https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29616/for-eastern-europe-nuclear-power-depends-on-eu-taxonomy

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The French way is the fabulous way. 

https://www.nirs.org/the-accelerating-decline-of-french-nuclear-power/

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.nirs.org/the-accelerating-decline-of-french-nuclear-power/

The sort of overreaction derived from this quote is exactly why they're failing. They went full government mode:

" French regulators have taken Fukushima seriously, and EDF will have to make major upgrades to its reactors if it wants to keep operating them. Add to that the fact that EDF’s reactors will begin reaching the end of their 40-year license period at the end of this decade, and the utility is looking at a cost estimated at about $110 Billion just to keep its existing reactors operating."

New reactors are way overbuilt due to the total freakout by the public over three total nuclear accidents. 

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

11 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

The sort of overreaction derived from this quote is exactly why they're failing. They went full government mode:

" French regulators have taken Fukushima seriously, and EDF will have to make major upgrades to its reactors if it wants to keep operating them. Add to that the fact that EDF’s reactors will begin reaching the end of their 40-year license period at the end of this decade, and the utility is looking at a cost estimated at about $110 Billion just to keep its existing reactors operating."

New reactors are way overbuilt due to the total freakout by the public over three total nuclear accidents. 

Enough said...costly beyond reason.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Enough said...costly beyond reason.

Enough said... let the infrastructure develop. Which is what I originally said. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

My topic on nuclear plants https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

5 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Because all those white urban liberal Wyoming voters don't want to?

 

because the same eco-terrorists have urban white liberals to do the negative public perception work for them, and you all are just gargling the same spam. 

^ Already answered that. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

^ Already answered that. 

HaHa, that's right, Wyoming is just overflowing with hordes of urban white liberals. SMH....

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

You put them as closely together as possible - it's not some sort of unusual thing - you don't need 10 ft/3 meter wide paths between panel rows to get maintenance access.  1.5 meters/5 ft is plenty of space between rows, and if you get creative you can knock it down to 1 meter/3ft

grass, certain legumes will grow under those panels - possibly more readily on the 2nd one because of the midday shading effect. Graze sheep or goats in there. 

From a practical perspective if the land is left idle the solar farm is one way of resting exhausted farm land to recover for the future. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Small animals still need to be rounded up. Cattle are easier to move than small animals too. Solar in the desert is fine by me. 

Sheep / goats  - just send a sheep dog in. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

8 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Solar panels convert a certain proportion of a certain bandwidth of the solar insolation into electricity. The rest of that insolation reaches the ground. Many plants can use the photons that the solar panels do not capture or reflect. As to rain, the panels do not use any of the rain, so it is all available to the plants.

I’m not an expert on it but all the solar panels I have ever seen were completely opaque.  That doesn’t mean that all sunlight incident on them is converted into electric power, but it does mean that no light in any wavelength makes it through to the other side. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

grass, certain legumes will grow under those panels - possibly more readily on the 2nd one because of the midday shading effect. Graze sheep or goats in there. 

From a practical perspective if the land is left idle the solar farm is one way of resting exhausted farm land to recover for the future. 

Farmland which is good enough for later reuse rarely needs more than a single season of rest before planting again. Farmland which isn’t that good tends to be grazing land only.  A solar farm will need to be there 30-40 years without moving to justify its initial construction costs.  Realistically once solar panels get installed somewhere you can count on them being there forever at least on a human timeframe.  

Edited July 1, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[NickW + 2,714]

22 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

Farmland which is good enough for later reuse rarely needs more than a single season of rest before planting again. Farmland which isn’t that good tends to be grazing land only.  A solar farm will need to be there 30-40 years without moving to justify its initial construction costs.  Realistically once solar panels get installed somewhere you can count on them being there forever at least on a human timeframe.  

Hence the reason I would restrict these to marginal land / semi desert / desert / reservoirs

Personally I prefer roof top / walls as the installation isn't competing with anything else. 

I've got 48 58mm thermal tubes and 1.5KW of PV sitting on my roof competing with the moss that would otherwise grow there. 

Junes gas consumption £1. Electricity £21.72. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

22 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

I’m not an expert on it but all the solar panels I have ever seen were completely opaque.  That doesn’t mean that all sunlight incident on them is converted into electric power, but it does mean that no light in any wavelength makes it through to the other side. 

They get sunlight in the early morning and late afternoon when the sun is lower in the sky. They also get a fair amount of light from reflection hence the reason it isn't pitch black underneath a solar panel that is mounted 1.5m off the ground. 

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 6/30/2021 at 7:03 PM, Eric Gagen said:

You put them as closely together as possible - it's not some sort of unusual thing - you don't need 10 ft/3 meter wide paths between panel rows to get maintenance access.  1.5 meters/5 ft is plenty of space between rows, and if you get creative you can knock it down to 1 meter/3ft

is it just me that cant see any grass for any animals to eat?

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

On 6/30/2021 at 6:38 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

It hardly matters what I think. I live closer to Yucca Mtn than any coal mine and the few people who live in Nevada wouldn't even accept it as a dump. But maybe Wyoming. What do you say @turbguy do you think your fellow citizens would like to use one of your obsolete coal mines for a radioactive waste dump?

Space isn't the issue for nuclear waste. All the waste the US has ever created would likely fit on three or four trains. The issue is a location which is geologically stable, without water flow and a long way from populations for when it fails. Not to mention the risk of a coal seam fire...

If the waste is managed properly then it isnt an issue. This is stored in specialist flasks that can withstand a high speed rail crash.

As you say the land mass whether its sub surface or not is irrelevant.

If the UK can manage it then surely the USA has enough land mass and desolate areas to store in a facility??

https://www.niauk.org/industry-issues/waste-management/

What about the badlands of South Dakota?

Edited July 2, 2021 by Rob Plant