View Full Version : New Nuclear Power Plants in UK



Pages : [1] 2

ThomPaine
10-21-2013, 04:28 PM
Nuclear power station will avoid 'blight' of 30,000 wind turbines, minister says - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10395104/Nuclear-power-station-will-avoid-blight-of-30000-wind-turbines-minister-says.html)



Ministers said they want to build a new generation of 12 new nuclear reactors to ensure that people can "turn on the kettle" and to help "keep the lights on".

The Department for Energy and Climate Change said that Britain would need to build more than 30,000 onshore wind turbines to produce the same amount of energy, seven times the number currently in operation.


The government has disclosed that the new reactors at Hinkley B in Somerset alone will produce the same amount of energy as 6,000 wind turbines built on 250,000 acres of land.


Mr Davey said that building the power station will create jobs for 25,000 people, although he was unable to confirm how many will be for British workers.

Plutonic Panda
10-21-2013, 09:18 PM
That's good. Nuclear power is the future of energy, IMO. If done right and properly maintained, there should never be a problem, pretty much every nuclear disaster including Fukushima, can be tied to human error.

RadicalModerate
10-21-2013, 09:29 PM
That's good. Nuclear power is the future of energy, IMO. If done right and properly maintained, there should never be a problem, pretty much every nuclear disaster including Fukushima, can be tied to human error.

Keyword: If.
(apparently you know a lot more "perfect" people than I do =)

Hell . . . most people I metaphorically "run into" can't even make a proper left turn.

ljbab728
10-21-2013, 09:29 PM
If we can just keep humans out of the equation... ;)

And earthquakes?

RadicalModerate
10-21-2013, 09:36 PM
It's no accident that the "nuclear plant incident" in Japan happened where it did.
Fukushima is Japanese for Fu-k U Shima.
And Shima is the name for The Goddess of Tidal Waves.
(actually, Shiva, only in a different form)

But all that is OK, because if there really was ever a "serious" nuclear plant "accident" everything would be back to "normal" in about 250,000 years or thereabouts. We ain't talking about some dude getting his hand stuck in Gutenberg's Abomination of God fer cryin' out loud. =)

Hmmm . . . Magnetism or Spider Webs . . .
Direct or Alternating Current . . .
Which shall it be . . .
To let there be electrical light . . . hmmm
http://www.teslasociety.com/tesla23.jpg

ThomPaine
10-21-2013, 10:13 PM
I think they are a viable energy source depending on where you live. I would like to see more here in the US, as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

RadicalModerate
10-21-2013, 11:22 PM
I think they are a viable energy source depending on where you live. I would like to see more here in the US, as part of a comprehensive energy plan.

So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

ljbab728
10-21-2013, 11:26 PM
So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

You could certainly ask the same question about a wind turbine.

RadicalModerate
10-21-2013, 11:40 PM
If the choice was between a wind turbine and/or a nuclear power plant, I think that even you, Sir, would admit that the choice is obvious.
(However . . . If a Within-Walking-Distance Braum's is brought into the equation . . . well, then it could be a toss-up.)

Therefore, I choose not to compare Wind Turbines with Nuclear Power Plants as it is a False Semi-Dichotomy. ain't it?
What's it take to fix-up a tipped-over Wind Turbine? A week and a half?

Especially in light of the fact that there is no certainty, whatsoever, involved in the impossibility of me ever asking the question you attributed to my ability to ask in the first place. In short, I would never ask that question. But thanks for askin' for me anyways. =)

SouthsideSooner
10-22-2013, 01:13 AM
Sooo... I'll admit to a bit of ignorance because I'm a little too lazy to research it but have they ever figured out a way to dispose of the radioactive waste from reactors beyond burying it in a hole somewhere?

ThomPaine
10-22-2013, 04:21 AM
So let's imagine that THEY put one next to your backyard.
Would you move?
Be honest, now . . . =)

If you mean "literally" next to my backyard, then yes. Just as I would if they built a windfarm or a coal or NG power plant next to my back yard. However, lived about 20 miles (as the radiation flies) from one in the Pacific NW, so not that big a deal to me.

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 04:50 AM
And earthquakes?Power plants can be built to resist earthquakes.

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 04:58 AM
Sooo... I'll admit to a bit of ignorance because I'm a little too lazy to research it but have they ever figured out a way to dispose of the radioactive waste from reactors beyond burying it in a hole somewhere?As far as I know, not yet. But that can change, nuclear fission as well as cold fusion or just fusion, promises to change that, and then some. The only problem is that, is been 20 years out for 40 years. I happen to think there are other factors involved(yes yes, conspiracy theories), but I won't get into that.

The problem is investing money into it and putting the proper funds towards research, but that isn't happening. People keep seeing what is happening with Fukushima and look back on 3mile island(even not much even happened) as well as the most obvious one, Chernobyl. It's called fear and lack of education that keeps a lot of people against nuclear energy, and it's really sad.

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 06:30 AM
I think Homer Simpson said it best when he said:
"Oooooo, CELEBRITIES. They know EVERYTHING."
(and he works at a Nuclear Power Plant!)

Celebrities would include musicians, at least in MY book . . .
Top Ten Antinuclear Songs | The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/blog/160166/top-ten-antinuclear-songs#)

Just the facts
10-22-2013, 07:10 AM
The worst thing that can happen in a nuclear plant has already happened 3 times - and almost all of us are still here. As for a nuclear plant in my backyard - bring it on.

Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update) (http://phys.org/news145561984.html)

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 07:17 AM
Here's the problem I have with nuclear...

I'm not an expert on the subject obviously so much of this is just conjecture on my part but...

Just about every spot in the world is "due" for something. A large earthquake, volcano eruption, massive hurricane, asteroid impact, Lost reruns, whatever... This world we live on is beautiful no doubt, but it is incredibly violent. Now some parts of the world are certainly more prone to these areas than others, no doubt. I get that. But it is only going to take one of these events to really screw you up if you near a reactor. In fact, screw everyone one up for a long ways away.

My concern is that we have a hard time remembering catastrophes just a couple hundred years ago. Catastrophes that are very cyclical. It seems like a big risk to me to be near one because if one of these 'once in every 1000 year' events occurs, you're pretty much guaranteed to be hosed. Which is what we saw in Japan really. A minimal risk given the known probabilities but even small probabilities eventually come true. So why take the risk?

30 years ago, it would have been harder to make that case but today, solar and wind are catching up like crazy in efficiency.

The cost alone per kwh to manufacture nuclear energy has gone up 50% as well. Indicating that it is quickly becoming an expensive proposition. Likely due to mitigations necessary as a result of other accidents, like in Japan, and terrorist threats.


Moore's Law will play a convenient factor with solar. I fully expect 3-5 cents per kwh within a generation. It is innovating rapidly. Wind is already competitive with coal, but not NG yet. Germany (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/22/2508191/germany-solar-generation-record/) and other nations are gladly paving the way for us as well. Showing us how to do it and what they real-world returns are.

So I just don't see the point yet. It isn't cheap anymore and if we are honest with ourselves, it isn't worth the risk.

There is progress in fusion technology and so I'm not going to sit here and say that fusion or fission can't play a role in the future. I just wouldn't support the public policy for it today given what I personally know.Sid, Fukushima was already in disrepair before the quake/tsunami hit.

I understand exactly where you are coming from and I share your concerns. This is exactly why I said they need to be built and maintained better. Also, more funding and research needs to be going into these. I have very ambitious plans for my life, whether they come to fruition or not is in a higher power than mine, but I do know, if I ever amass a fortune of billions of dollars, I would love to become a pioneer in nuclear energy. I truly think that is the entire future of energy. Wind is cool for remote areas and solar is alright on a small scale, but it can't come anywhere close to what cold fusion could do.

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 07:23 AM
The worst thing that can happen in a nuclear plant has already happened 3 times - and almost all of us are still here. As for a nuclear plant in my backyard - bring it on.

Mini Nuclear Power Plants Could Power 20,000 Homes (Update) (http://phys.org/news145561984.html)

What has happened at nuclear power plants (so far) is a long way from the worst thing that could happen.

What if there is a total economic collapse and nobody who "tends the fire" can get gasoline for their cars to get to work. Or what about a plague of some sort? Oh yeah. The plants will automatically shut down. And start to decay. In maybe 500 years they will start leaking . . . etc.

What's a little "whoosing" and a few dead birds compared to that scenario?

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 07:37 AM
What has happened at nuclear power plants (so far) is a long way from the worst thing that could happen.

What if there is a total economic collapse and nobody who "tends the fire" can get gasoline for their cars to get to work. Or what about a plague of some sort? Oh yeah. The plants will automatically shut down. And start to decay. In maybe 500 years they will start leaking . . . etc.

What's a little "whoosing" and a few dead birds compared to that scenario?I don't think we'll be around to see that, neither will the Earth, in its present condition(before the fact) either.

HangryHippo
10-22-2013, 08:10 AM
I find wind turbines to be unattractive and they take up a lot of room and harm birds so I'd prefer to see something else. And I'm probably against increased nuclear power for the same reasons as Sid.

Honestly, I'd love for there to be a solar revolution, but we have a long way to go to get that technology where it needs to be. But it's unobtrusive to capture (unlike wind) and it's powerful and present almost everywhere.

Just the facts
10-22-2013, 08:23 AM
To paraphrase Howard Kunstler - there isn't going to be a green energy revolution. We require far too much energy.

This was written in 2005 but got everything exactly right.

Kunstler Speech in Hudson NY 2005 (http://www.kunstler.com/spch_hudson.htm)

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 08:42 AM
I don't trust anyone with the last name Kunstler.
(only libcompinko lawyers have the name Kunstler)
QED.

The same people who are for nuclear power are the ones who thought asbestos was The Miracle Fiber of The 20th Century.
(and have apparently been eating too many lead paint chips.)
(present company excluded, of course =)

This should put an end to all arguments on the topic.
With a Celebrity name like Fogelberg, you got to be good.
xAp2v3r-QZc

"Yeah. And that goes triple for me."
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120326002953/simpsons/images/8/87/Blinky_Art.png
"Screw the bird casualties of wind turbines.
If they are blind and stupid enough to fly into the blades
It's just Darwin in action."

Dubya61
10-22-2013, 09:19 AM
I think we should absolutely have more nuclear plants, and windmills, and solar PV cells, and geothermal heating/cooling. I know that solar and wind are considered inefficient, but what would that matter if each of us were to have a solar panel array on our rooves, maybe a string of small windmills in the rooves? Not pretty looking? May paycheck isn't a work of art, either, but it's mighty purty to me.

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 09:21 AM
Rooves?

Solar is OK . . . But at night you need a house powered by Magnetic Gravity.
2GASoxUzOZo
(and it's good to have a hand-cranked Grammophone to provide some background music)

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 09:22 AM
I agree with the having solar panels on the roofs, that would be really cool! Geothermal heating is great too! There are plenty of options that can conserve, but either the will or the money isn't there for most :/

Dubya61
10-22-2013, 09:34 AM
Rooves?

It's what you put over the meese to keep them dry when it rains!

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 09:42 AM
If windmills were festooned with ribbons, balloons and sequins maybe they wouldn't look so unattractive.
Perhaps we could look to The Dutch for some guidance here.
Maybe something involving tulips could be considered . . ?

If one was able to install some sort of "seed dispenser" on the windmill, one might even be able to do something about the excess bird and squirrel populations. Of course, this could negatively impact the aerodynamics of the blades, but this is a small price to pay.
(Not counting the opinion of the birds and squirrels, of course.)

onthestrip
10-22-2013, 09:49 AM
Nuclear is the most reliable and cheapest over the long term of any other power source. All you have to do is build it right to withstand certain events and store a little bit of waste underground somewhere. Japan quickly realized they had to go back to nuclear because they were having a huge trade deficit importing fuel for other power plants. New power sources for the US should be mixes of nuclear and other renewables.

RadicalModerate
10-22-2013, 09:56 AM
Well . . . I have to agree that nuclear is preferable to geo-thermal.
If the geo-thermal well bore accidentally went too deep, imagine what all that uncontrollably excaping (yes, excaping) heat would do for Global Warming! (not to mention the lead vapor and asbestos particles that would almost certainly follow!)

So, tell me again what "THEY" are going to do with all of that nuclear plant waste material (?).
And what were the original cost estimates?


All you have to do is build it right to withstand certain events . . .
Good point. But what about uncertain events?
Wouldn't it be helpful to be able estimate those in the design process?
Or is that next to impossible?
Maybe those crack BP engineers could be consulted?

Just call me a Nuculer Luddite* . . . (it won't hurt my feelings)

(*yes, "Noo-Q-Ler" =)

Plutonic Panda
10-22-2013, 01:11 PM
Source? Not according to all the data I've seen. In fact, it's becoming one of the most expensive from what I'm reading.As far as maintaining, I'm sure about the most expensive, but I'm sure it's not the cheapest. I believe it somewhere close to a billion dollars to build a new reactor facility.

ThomPaine
10-23-2013, 04:59 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/us/koch-brother-wages-12-year-fight-over-wind-farm.html

Maybe he'd prefer a nuclear power plant nearby...

onthestrip
10-23-2013, 12:50 PM
Source? Not according to all the data I've seen. In fact, it's becoming one of the most expensive from what I'm reading.

I remember reading this, no specific source. When you look at the lifetime of the facility Id imagine it is cheaper since there is no fossil fuels having to be purchased. I know nuclear is expensive up front but once running is much cheaper than gas or coal.

ThomPaine
10-26-2013, 02:42 PM
Fukushima: 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation? | UKIAH BLOG (http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/fukushima-28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation/)

Yikes!

CaptDave
10-26-2013, 03:03 PM
Regarding Fukushima - remember a few basic concepts and fears should subside. Time, distance, shielding, and the old standby - "dilution is the solution". We will likely see elevated radiation levels in the Pacific but I seriously doubt the amount of material being released from Fukushima is near the level in the blogpost. In fact the release of airborne contamination would be more of a concern and that would be relatively localized. While the area surrounding Fukushima will be affected for the next couple of decades, we have much less to fear than some are trying to suggest.

One reason the cost of "conventional" nuclear plants using uranium for fuel is increasing is there is less demand for plutonium (I'll let you take it from there.) Also, the lead time for nuclear fuel and power plant components is huge and the industry has been dormant for a long time. There are other nuclear fuels that are more stable and could be very effective for commercial operations and less expensive. The Hyperion concept is very interesting.

With the oversight involved and stringent controls at every level in the nuclear industry, I'd much rather have a nuclear power plant in my backyard than the Keystone XL or any O&G pipeline - especially one carrying tar sands slurry. That is nasty stuff.

venture
10-26-2013, 03:29 PM
I personally don't have a problem with nuclear...as long as it is properly regulated. I grew up with two plants with in 30 miles of me, so they don't bother. They both had issues at times, including a leak at one, but that comes down to proper maintenance and regulations.

RadicalModerate
10-26-2013, 06:54 PM
I personally don't have a problem with nuclear...as long as it is properly regulated. I grew up with two plants with in 30 miles of me, so they don't bother. They both had issues at times, including a leak at one, but that comes down to proper maintenance and regulations.

Fair enough . . . yet, what if there is a government shutdown combined with an economic collapse and no oil is available to refine into gasoline so that even The Volunteer Maintenance Crew (willing to serve the public, unpaid) can't get to work in order to maintain the facility? (and then there is an earthquake right before the small asteroid hits) . . .

Who is going to clean up The Mess That Lasts 250,000 years?

CaptDave
10-27-2013, 09:11 PM
If you look at energy sources through that prism Sid, I think nuclear becomes more appealing. While there have been a grand total of three significant events at commercial nuclear power plants (TMI, Chernobyl, Fukushima), the societal and human costs of fossil fuel extraction and conversion to usable energy is far greater. TMI was far worse than it should have been had safety systems not been overridden. Chernobyl was an obsolete design that used liquid sodium for a coolant - not to mention "experimenting" with power output in a reckless manner. Fukushima is one of those events where every conceivable thing that could go wrong did - and more.

Also compare the BTu potential of each form on energy production and nuclear is off the charts. I think it would be extremely beneficial to explore complete redesigns of nuclear power plants for power generation. Use fuels other than uranium and engineer something other than pressurized water reactors. There haven't been any dramatic advances in nuclear technology in decades yet the potential is huge. We are still heating water to heat other water to make steam to turn turbines. Been doing that since the 1950's. I honestly believe there are advances possible that will address your concerns Sid and provide enormous amounts of relatively inexpensive energy. But that will also take some of that evil gummint spending on basic scientific research and development....and there are a few organizations that really do not want there to be viable alternatives to fossil fuels.....sigh.

Jersey Boss
10-28-2013, 11:32 AM
In addition to the costs to mankind as articulated by Sid and the fossil fuel costs articulated by Dave, there is one cost that I see not being addressed. When comparing the costs of construction, startup, and ongoing what are the liability insurance costs of nuclear as compared to the others? Will a private carrier even underwrite a policy for a nuclear plant?

CaptDave
10-28-2013, 12:37 PM
Wow - never even considered how much that would cost. But given the stringent nature of construction, maintenance, and operations at nuclear sites it may not be as much as we might think. When I was involved in nuclear power the guiding principle of 'the minimum standard is perfect, don't muck it up' drove everything we did.
The system redundacies, inherent stability of the process, and the level of training required to be a certified operator really does minimize the risks and offers many rewards.

RadicalModerate
10-28-2013, 02:55 PM
(Historical note from The Future):

In order to remove even a trace of the slightest possiblility of human error negatively impacting the smooth, efficient and flawless operation of the next generation of nuclear power plants, total computer control was built into all of the systems. Naturally, these systems included the Fail-Safe, Idiot-Proof Automatic Shut-Down Protocols (FSIPASDPs).

Unfortunately, not long after this, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) knocked out all of the computer systems in the country and made them useless.
Had the Highest Order Magical Environmental Reactors (H.O.M.E.R.s) been only slightly damaged, rather than being rendered completely inoperative, the following conversation might have taken place somewhere:

Dave the Nuclear Power Plant Tech: "Open the cooling water bay doors, H.O.M.E.R. and lower the control rod array."

H.O.M.E.R.: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that . . . No. Seriously. I can't."

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2013, 06:30 PM
(Historical note from The Future):

In order to remove even a trace of the slightest possiblility of human error negatively impacting the smooth, efficient and flawless operation of the next generation of nuclear power plants, total computer control was built into all of the systems. Naturally, these systems included the Fail-Safe, Idiot-Proof Automatic Shut-Down Protocols (FSIPASDPs).

Unfortunately, not long after this, an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) knocked out all of the computer systems in the country and made them useless.
Had the Highest Order Magical Environmental Reactors (H.O.M.E.R.s) been only slightly damaged, rather than being rendered completely inoperative, the following conversation might have taken place somewhere:

Dave the Nuclear Power Plant Tech: "Open the cooling water bay doors, H.O.M.E.R. and lower the control rod array."

H.O.M.E.R.: "I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that . . . No. Seriously. I can't."You mean "for"?

ThomPaine
10-28-2013, 07:44 PM
Please excuse me for a brief show of appreciation...

This discussion is a good example of why I joined/started posting on OKCTalk. I appreciate the opinions and views, and much of what is posted spurs me on to further reading and research.

Well done folks, thanks.

RadicalModerate
10-28-2013, 08:01 PM
You mean "for"?

No. It is "from" (the future).
(and carved on a stone, by the light of one flickering candle and the eerie radioactive glow in the background, for presterity.)

Apparently you aren't familiar with H.G. Welles or Nostradamus' brother Nosetadamnus.
(or Slaughterhouse Five . . . or The Sirens of Titan . . . or Jeanne Dixon . . . or The Terminator . . .
or Edgar Cayce . . . or The Amazing Kreskin . . . Not yet. but you will be . . . =)

Plutonic Panda
10-28-2013, 08:30 PM
Now you speak of The Terminator! I know what you mean now ;)

ps. i'm a huge super mega ultra giant massive all time fan of the Terminator trilogy!

rlewis
10-28-2013, 09:08 PM
Before everyone jumps on the clean energy bandwagon, I would suggest reading the book Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner. The book gives a very good explanation as to why solar and wind energy will not be the solutions to our energy problems. I'm a clean energy fan, but the book really put things into perspective for me. I would also like to point out that the book is by no means a pro-Oil & Gas publication.

CaptDave
10-29-2013, 12:02 AM
Dave, I hear you. I really do. But I'd rather invest in Solar. Most agree that solar will become the cheapest. And if it breaks, there is no risk. No damage.

Moore's Law will make solar uber cheap and yes, Nuclear needs some serious research attention.

The problem I have is how bad one of these events can become. Fukashima was a perfect storm of events. So what is the cycle of these types of accidents? One every 50 years? It's too often for my blood.

Agree 100% on the solar. I'd have a roof covered with panels if it were affordable - maybe some day. The manufacturing processes for solar panels needs some refinement but that isn't anything we shouldn't be able to do. These are the things we (the United States - the government) once invested in - research of new technologies. We understood there was value in basic research that had little chance of providing financial gain. Once we figured out the basics on our collective dime, then let the private interests come in and build on that base. We should be investing in research and development of Thorium reactors or other fuels if Thorium doesn't pan out. I say kill the F35 and put that money to better use.

Fukushima is about as bad as it gets - every single redundancy failed. I admit I was very surprised the back up diesel generators were located in a position where they were easily inundated by the tsunami. Had the back up generators not been destroyed, cooling would have been maintained in the cores, the fuel would have remained intact, and the hydrogen explosions would have never happened.

CaptDave
10-29-2013, 12:07 AM
Before everyone jumps on the clean energy bandwagon, I would suggest reading the book Green Illusions by Ozzie Zehner. The book gives a very good explanation as to why solar and wind energy will not be the solutions to our energy problems. I'm a clean energy fan, but the book really put things into perspective for me. I would also like to point out that the book is by no means a pro-Oil & Gas publication.

There is not enough BTU potential in solar and wind to provide all the energy we need, but it should be part of an array of sources. But considering the immense power of old Sol, I think we may underestimate what is possible. We might be pleasantly surprised if we ever put our scientific community to work on something of consequence and supported them as we once did.

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2013, 12:19 AM
All I'm going to say regarding rooftops, they should either have solar panels on them or grass, it's that simple for me.

Again, I still think nuclear energy is the future, but solar energy will be good for small scale usage. I also think hydroelectric is good along with algae, hydrogen, and geothermal, but nuclear will still lead the pack.

CaptDave
10-29-2013, 12:22 AM
Sure about that? Germany is on its way, right?

With current technology I am sure - but I qualified that with we might be surprised what is actually possible if we made a commitment to maximize it. I agree solar has much more potential than is currently assumed - that bright thing is the sky is a pretty powerful reactor after all.

I know there are wind turbines all over Germany, have they made an advance in solar I haven't heard about? Never know what Siemens might come up with....

CaptDave
10-29-2013, 12:24 AM
All I'm going to say regarding rooftops, they should either have solar panels on them or grass, it's that simple for me.

Again, I still think nuclear energy is the future, but solar energy will be good for small scale usage. I also think hydroelectric is good along with algae, hydrogen, and geothermal, but nuclear will still lead the pack.

Some company was working on shingles that were photovoltaic cells. There was some sort of track attached to the roof and electrical system, then the individual shingle were attached/connected. I am not sure how far it went into development, but it was a very interesting idea.

Found a couple answers - darn it, it's too late for this, but I love these discussions.

http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,1205726,00.html

http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2013, 12:38 AM
Some company was working on shingles that were photovoltaic cells. There was some sort of track attached to the roof and electrical system, then the individual shingle were attached/connected. I am not sure how far it went into development, but it was a very interesting idea.

Solar Shingles | Home Technology | Plumbing, HVAC & Electrical | This Old House (http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,1205726,00.html)Nice! Now I'm not really into interfering with people's freedom and what not, but I really wish there were rooftop ordinances in place. I think rooftops are some of mankind's most wasted space and all rooftops were either green(as in grass or otherwise) and/or solar, I think that would do wonders for the planet, more so than most think.

Now obviously there would be exclusions for this, such as historic building, rooftop patios, and so on. I would also think having grass on the roof would act as a natural cooler and keep the building cooler. As for mowing it, is it unrealistic to think we could genetically modify a string of grass to be super slow growing(only having to mow a few times a year), drought resistant, and maybe even different colors?

As for solar, I think we have a really long ways to go with that. I've often thought if having too many solar panels would have a warming effect on the atmosphere; however I've never done any research to back it up or anything, it was just a thought. Also, in turns of having a solar panel that could maximize the energy collection, I still think we almost have as far to go as we do with nuclear energy until it really becomes practical.

ThomPaine
10-29-2013, 05:38 AM
Some company was working on shingles that were photovoltaic cells. There was some sort of track attached to the roof and electrical system, then the individual shingle were attached/connected. I am not sure how far it went into development, but it was a very interesting idea.

Found a couple answers - darn it, it's too late for this, but I love these discussions.

Solar Shingles | Home Technology | Plumbing, HVAC & Electrical | This Old House (http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/article/0,,1205726,00.html)

DOW POWERHOUSE? Solar Shingle (http://www.dowpowerhouse.com/)

I think that's a great idea for just about anywhere other than here. I can hear my insurance adjuster now, after the first spring hail storm... "Your shingles do what?"

Plutonic Panda
10-29-2013, 01:42 PM
I think that's a great idea for just about anywhere other than here. I can hear my insurance adjuster now, after the first spring hail storm... "Your shingles do what?"I'm sure the issue with hail would be addressed.

Just the facts
10-29-2013, 01:59 PM
Fukushima: 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation? | UKIAH BLOG (http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/fukushima-28-signs-that-the-west-coast-is-being-absolutely-fried-with-nuclear-radiation/)

I wonder if the author of the blog is aware of this:

_W_lLhBt8Vg

...and he is worried about a power plant in Japan.

Just the facts
10-29-2013, 02:58 PM
Fukushima Has Leaked 168 Hiroshima Blasts of Radiation (http://gizmodo.com/5834721/fukushimas-leaked-168-hiroshima-blasts-of-radiation)


We've known Fukushima's been hemorrhaging radiation steadily since the disaster began in March. But now we've got a horrid new way to quantify it: the amount of terribly dangerous cesium-137 released by the plant is equal to 168 nuclear bombings.

We have detonated 2,053 nuclear bombs. We would need 11 more Fukushima's (and that doesn't even include the fact that most of those 2052 other detonations were 1000X more powerful that the Hiroshima bomb). Now having said that, being the cleanest dirty shirt shouldn't be anyone's goal but new nuclear plants aren't built like Fukushima or Chernobyl. Maybe the IMF should fund the replacement of existing out of date nuclear plants instead of spending money on some of the other stuff they fund.

bradh
10-29-2013, 03:24 PM
On the topic of wind, count me in the with the folks who see it as an eyesore across previously beautiful untouched horizons. Driving along I-70 on the way to Colorado that's all you see. The shear amount of land required for wind energy to equate to NG is crazy. Not sure about solar, but I would imagine you'd have to have a lot of solar panels to equate to traditional methods. I could be wrong, that's just my assumption.

RadicalModerate
10-29-2013, 05:40 PM
On the topic of wind, count me in the with the folks who see it as an eyesore across previously beautiful untouched horizons. Driving along I-70 on the way to Colorado that's all you see. The shear amount of land required for wind energy to equate to NG is crazy. Not sure about solar, but I would imagine you'd have to have a lot of solar panels to equate to traditional methods. I could be wrong, that's just my assumption.

Driving I-70 to Denver involves looking at Kansas (and Western Colorado). Personally, I think the view of wind turbines is preferable to anything Kansas previously offered, Vista-wise. (and I feel the same way about that little part of Iowa, next to I-35, up there around Mason City.)

Perhaps, for the purists, if THEY were required to paint the blades blue they would blend in better with the sky? Of course, the bird casualties might increase, but that is simply neo-Darwinian natural selection in operation.

Or maybe THEY could even coat the blades with a reflective surface that would capture solar energy at the same time they are harvesting the wind!

"Hey, Bob! Come in here and get a load
of this crazy talk about 'alternative energy'!"
http://www.teslasociety.com/tesla23.jpg

bradh
10-29-2013, 06:03 PM
Touche on the Kansas terrain part, but actually the portion of Kansas where the wind farm is located is actually the prettier part of that drive, before you get to the flat barren land to the west.

CaptDave
10-29-2013, 06:04 PM
I think that's a great idea for just about anywhere other than here. I can hear my insurance adjuster now, after the first spring hail storm... "Your shingles do what?"

That was my thought also. I am still trying to find if Dow tested them and what sort of impact was simulated. Availability is limited to a handful of states right now. One would think this was considered in the design though - or hope? Pricing is a bit steep at first glance, but there are a variety of tax credits and breaks available, not to mention lower utility costs.