tomgamber
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 10,635
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Greensburg, PA
yeah, me too...as in opposite of left.
Windpower
- Thread starter osprey
- Start date
yeah, me too...as in opposite of left.
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
Brownout,
Marcellus is a dicey situation, but if its done right, water will not be "polluted indefinetly." While extraction is a big issue, actual pollution would occur only in an accidental spill situation (which could happen, of course). I suppose you could also get some siltation from the act of deforesting a site.
The tricky part is that the most environmentally friendly method for nuclear is the same method that will make you a bomb. The way we do it today is to separate power and bombs. We have special labs that make the bombs. For the rest of the plants, we've chosen to be less environmentally friendly (waste) so that that material cannot make a bomb. Then we complain about the waste.
There's plenty of good books about nuclear power. Get one thats scientifically based, like for a nuclear engineer, rather than a political one.
France does 80% or more through nuclear, and growing, with a tiny fraction of the waste that we produce, zero CO2 emissions (at least from the nuclear), and at a cost that is cheaper than coal produced power. Of course, they have to protect their plants, there's lots of potential bomb material there.
Marcellus is a dicey situation, but if its done right, water will not be "polluted indefinetly." While extraction is a big issue, actual pollution would occur only in an accidental spill situation (which could happen, of course). I suppose you could also get some siltation from the act of deforesting a site.
The tricky part is that the most environmentally friendly method for nuclear is the same method that will make you a bomb. The way we do it today is to separate power and bombs. We have special labs that make the bombs. For the rest of the plants, we've chosen to be less environmentally friendly (waste) so that that material cannot make a bomb. Then we complain about the waste.
There's plenty of good books about nuclear power. Get one thats scientifically based, like for a nuclear engineer, rather than a political one.
France does 80% or more through nuclear, and growing, with a tiny fraction of the waste that we produce, zero CO2 emissions (at least from the nuclear), and at a cost that is cheaper than coal produced power. Of course, they have to protect their plants, there's lots of potential bomb material there.
osprey
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 3,031
I started this post asking what you all thought of windmills , it's gotten off the track a little , maybe alot , but , that said has anyone ever checked out geo thermal energy , yes the initial investment is expensive but i've been to a home in Bedford with geo thermal heat system and it is truly awesome.....one time investment . pretty much zero maintenence. NO WASTE
Haha, yeah I was thinking that this got off your original topic, but I think in a good way. We all feel the need for power, and want to find the best solution, I think it was inevitable it was going to go here, with so many strong willed fly fisherman. I did take a look at a geothermal map of the US, and the whole western US has huge deposits, PA, however, doesn't look too "hot".
Any idea how much the geothermal cost for that house?
Any idea how much the geothermal cost for that house?
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
2 types of geothermal energy, really.
Geo can be cost-effective in good old PA for heat/cool systems. Basically you gotta dig up the yard and lay a lot of pipe. But once it's done, when its turned on it trends your house towards average yearly temperature, which here is around 55 degrees. So, in the winter, you're heating your house from a base temperature of 55, a lot warmer than ambient, and save energy that way. In the summer it reduces you're need for air conditioning by quite a bit. As far as reducing green house gas emissions the total savings, even if everyone did it, would be minimal. Again, much of the energy use goes to industry, so anything you do in you're home isn't going to have much of an effect globally, it can't be looked at as a power solution. However, it can indeed be cost effective. If you're looking at it as a way to save money for yourself, then by all means. Whether it is cost effective for you is going to depend on a lot of detailed factors, such as you're local landscaping. You may even need to have a consultant come in to give you a quote, gonna be different for everyone I'd think. But geo generally fits Pennsylvania better than wind or solar.
If you just did a search, though, you'll find a lot on geothermal energy that means something totally different. In some volcanically active areas, like Iceland, Hawaii, and even the west coast of the U.S., they can and do generate power from large centralized geothermal plants. Basically pump water down hole to above a lava field or into a generally geothermally heated area, let it boil, and use the steam to turn a turbine. Its cheap, easy, and underused. I never did a scale analysis of it personally, but the engineers who have claim a top-out share of about 25% in the U.S., which, if correct, is considerably more than the 5% realistically estimated for solar + wind combined. In other words, if we if we pursued it aggressively, we may actually be able to reverse the trend of increased fossil fuel consumption, and close a few plants. The best the other greens do is slow the increase of our consumption.
Geo can be cost-effective in good old PA for heat/cool systems. Basically you gotta dig up the yard and lay a lot of pipe. But once it's done, when its turned on it trends your house towards average yearly temperature, which here is around 55 degrees. So, in the winter, you're heating your house from a base temperature of 55, a lot warmer than ambient, and save energy that way. In the summer it reduces you're need for air conditioning by quite a bit. As far as reducing green house gas emissions the total savings, even if everyone did it, would be minimal. Again, much of the energy use goes to industry, so anything you do in you're home isn't going to have much of an effect globally, it can't be looked at as a power solution. However, it can indeed be cost effective. If you're looking at it as a way to save money for yourself, then by all means. Whether it is cost effective for you is going to depend on a lot of detailed factors, such as you're local landscaping. You may even need to have a consultant come in to give you a quote, gonna be different for everyone I'd think. But geo generally fits Pennsylvania better than wind or solar.
If you just did a search, though, you'll find a lot on geothermal energy that means something totally different. In some volcanically active areas, like Iceland, Hawaii, and even the west coast of the U.S., they can and do generate power from large centralized geothermal plants. Basically pump water down hole to above a lava field or into a generally geothermally heated area, let it boil, and use the steam to turn a turbine. Its cheap, easy, and underused. I never did a scale analysis of it personally, but the engineers who have claim a top-out share of about 25% in the U.S., which, if correct, is considerably more than the 5% realistically estimated for solar + wind combined. In other words, if we if we pursued it aggressively, we may actually be able to reverse the trend of increased fossil fuel consumption, and close a few plants. The best the other greens do is slow the increase of our consumption.
Ah, yeah, I knew my mind was having some dissonance here. Was just looking at this as you posted. So, two types as you said.
This from Wikipedia looks sort of promising
"In addition to heat emanating from deep within the Earth, the top 10 m of the ground accumulates solar energy (i.e. warms up) during the summer, and releases that energy (i.e. cools down) during the winter. The seasonal energy stored this way is much smaller in total scale and less dense, but the heat flow rates are much higher, more easily accessible, and evenly distributed around the world. A geothermal heat pump can extract enough heat from shallow ground anywhere in the world to provide winter time home heating."
Interestingly, I read that when they did some drilling in Germany to tap the deep geothermal, they were triggering seismic events of 3.4 on the Richter scale, and consequently suspended drilling.
This from Wikipedia looks sort of promising
"In addition to heat emanating from deep within the Earth, the top 10 m of the ground accumulates solar energy (i.e. warms up) during the summer, and releases that energy (i.e. cools down) during the winter. The seasonal energy stored this way is much smaller in total scale and less dense, but the heat flow rates are much higher, more easily accessible, and evenly distributed around the world. A geothermal heat pump can extract enough heat from shallow ground anywhere in the world to provide winter time home heating."
Interestingly, I read that when they did some drilling in Germany to tap the deep geothermal, they were triggering seismic events of 3.4 on the Richter scale, and consequently suspended drilling.
tomgamber
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 10,635
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Greensburg, PA
...the entire western slope of the Rockies to the Coast.
