typodupeerror
• Re:Wow, are u clueless or what (Score:1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:23PM (#23470632)
This weekend i am giving a tour of a residential roof top solar thermal system that has been in operation for 20+ years. It only went through one upgrade during that time.

There may have been problems with systems installed back in the 70s but few problems with modern systems.

In China and Europe there thousands of these systems installed and they have proven very reliable.

Not sure why these myths are so persistent.

• Effort actualy has to be put in (Score:4, Interesting)

on Monday May 19, 2008 @11:49PM (#23470780)
Nuclear always comes up in discussions like this. The answer for nuclear is to put as much effort into research as is going into solar research - instead the money has gone into lobbying to build antiquated plants. If more research was done pebble bed might be furthur along, accelerated thorium might be at the full prototype stage and synrock might have been developed in less than thirty years. Note that the three major developments come from South Africa, India and Australia on fairly small budgets from begrudging governments - think what the USA could have done on venture capital alone. There should be more to civilian nuclear energy than 1960s white elephants painted green.
• Re:Let me guess... (Score:4, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 20, 2008 @04:39AM (#23472522)

Why is it that in any conversation about alternative sources of energy someone will mention Nuclear power as "feasible", "sustainable" or any other optamistic decriptor that, based on a critical examination of nuclear power, clearly isn't the case?
I imagine it's because based on a critical examination of nuclear power, it clearly is the case.

long term isotope storage (or "waste")
The "waste" of breeder reactors consists of relatively harmless elements (like lead) and radioactive substances with short half lives that within days decay into relatively harmless elements. And if you want to argue about breeders generating plutonium then by all means describe a disposal method for the plutonium from decommissioned bombs that guarantees it will never in its 24,000 year half life find its way into another bomb. My way is "destroying" it by using it as fuel in a reactor, which is the same place plutonium generated by breeders can go -- and in that case it can be salted with Pu-240 to ensure it can't be used in bomb making.

considerable CO2 emmissions from the energy used in the production of U-235 for reactor cores
As opposed to the CO2 emissions from the energy used in the production of, well, everything? Solar/wind/whatever included? That is, unless that energy comes from non-fossil sources -- which is the whole point of this exercise in the first place.

CFC's leaked in the actual process are America's Number 1 source of CFC emmissions and are up to 20,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than C02.
What is this, the 80s? CFCs were banned more than a decade ago in the US. They were used as a refrigerant in uranium processing just like they were used as a refrigerant in other applications prior to the ban. Now they use non-CFC refrigerants. Welcome to 1995.

S.T.P is revealing itself to be completely viable alternatives to coal based on the capability to store thermal energy long after the sun goes down. That is the whole point of solar thermal power after all.
How is it that you're ignoring the gp's point that solar thermal is hosed when you have a cloudy month? It certainly can't store thermal energy for that long. Forget about "put it in the desert" for the northeastern US. How do you propose to power New York City without its nuclear plants?

Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid" -- the artificial person, from _Aliens_

Working...