News Reversing Global Warming: Individual vs Corporate Responsibility?

[hitssquad]

I would _never_ play that reactor

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

I once attended a talk by the late guitarist/music-instructor Howard Roberts wherein he related that he had once been teaching a class of guitar students some interesting chords. At least some of these chords apparently were pretty colorful because, as Howard reported to us his talk audience, after he showed the guitar class one of the chords in particular one of the students complained, "I would never play that chord." Howard admitted to us that it had been a thoroughly obnoxious-sounding chord. But he then pointed out that the aesthetic value of a chord might not best be judged by how it sounds alone, but by how it sounds in the context of a chord progression -- and that even the most dissonant chord, as that one was, can be revealed to be a thoroughly aesthetically-pleasing chord within the appropriate context.

To the aurally-offended guitar student, chords only made sense when their sounding cacophonous was physically impossible. But musical harmony is not a static sounding of stacked tones. Musical harmony is a dynamic shifting between consonance and dissonance. The judging of a power technology out of social context might be seen as simplistic as the judging of a chord out of musical context.

 

[hitssquad]

Are there any meltdown proof designs being considered?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=429651&highlight=pbmr#post429651

 

[hitssquad]

Management challenges in human enterprise

waste management is a huge issue.

I would suspect that management is a huge issue in all human enterprise. The waste streams associated with solar, hydro and wind power generation modes all pose considerable management challenges, yet that might not by itself be sufficient reason to rule them out as electrical generation options.

 

[hitssquad]

Reactor core meldowns in risk perspective

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

The Nuclear Energy Option. Chapter 6: The fearsome reactor meltdown accident.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter6.html

--
[...] the word meltdown has become a household word. We will use it here, although it is no longer used by risk analysis scientists. In the mind of the public, it refers to an accident in which all of the fuel becomes so hot that it forms a molten mass which melts its way through the reactor vessel. Let's use the word in that sense. The media frequently referred to it as "the ultimate disaster," evoking images of stacks of dead bodies amid a devastated landscape, much like the aftermath of a nuclear bomb attack.

On the other hand, the authors of the two principal reports on the Three Mile Island accident agree that even if there had been a complete meltdown in that reactor, there very probably would have been essentially no harm to human health and no environmental damage. I know of no technical reports that have claimed otherwise. Moreover, all scientific studies agree that in the great majority of meltdown accidents there would be no detectable effects on human health, immediately or in later years. According to the government estimate, a meltdown would have to occur every week or so somewhere in the United States before nuclear power would be as dangerous as coal burning.
--

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What you are referring to is the China Syndrome, not the meltdown scenario. You are confusing movies with real events like TMI and Chernobyl. As for the pbmr designs, either you are telling me that they are not safe, or you are telling me the the NRC is heavy with politics and making bad decisions. Which is it?

Oh yes, the resolution to the hydro issue is the flow. I was thinking in gps, but in fact I get flows as high as 100 cfs, and my creek is much smaller than his. I am pretty sure that the 30 feet of head was correct.

 

[hitssquad]

What you are referring to is the China Syndrome, not the meltdown scenario.

I was not aware of that. I thought a meltdown, unqualified, was an event that involved the accidental complete melting of the fuel core into a molten mass. What is a meltdown, then?

 

[russ_watters]

Incidently, after being promised that failures like TMI could not happen, as we seem to be hearing again, it was also claimed that nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter".

apro pos for the politics forum: the reason nuclear power isn't by far the cheapest form of power is the politics. The nimbyism and hippie anti-Nuke-anything-ism succeeded in destroying what was and is by far the best energy source available.

I'm not implicitly opposed to nuclear power, but I am opposed to those who ignore the risks or claim that they don't exist. This is why accidents happen.

Well, what annoys me the most is the problems created by overblowing the supposed risks (see the cost and politics above). Risks can be measured (unless they are too low...). What is the measured risk of nuclear power? With 40 years of operational data in the western world: zero fatalities for people not involved in its production. That's truly extrordinary.

We also must consider the risk of terror. A gravy train of nuclear material offers many opportunities for terrorists.

Does it? You could probably drop a cask of nuclear waste from orbit and it would survive. What could a terrorist possibly do? The things they do to those casks during testing are pretty brutal.

It has not be shown that safe methods of managing the waste can be implemented.

Catch-22: you can't demonstrate something is safe until you do it. But "environmentalists" won't allow it to be done. But at the same time, the same "environmentalists" tacitly support coal power, which has proven to kill people. This self-contradictory, hipocritical homicidal lunacy is why I put "environmentalist" in quotes for so many organizations (most environmentalist organizations).

(I really need to put this in my sig: "environmentalism" kills people)

But most importantly, it has certainly not be shown that supporters of nuclear power are willing to recognize the risks.

I recognize that the track record of nuclear power has given us data that shows zero risk. However, since you can't really have zero risk, the strongest statement that can really be given is that the risk is incaclulably low. So most importantly, it has certainly not been shown that the detractors of nuclear power are willing to recognize the [lack of] risks.

What matters is how it was sold; by lies.

Simply false: the anti-nuclear movement is fueld by lies.

Now you all seem to be in denial that nuclear power is dangerous. This is very concerning.

What concerns me is that 20,000 people in the US die every year due to air pollution and the so-called "environmentalists" harp on imagined risks to kill nuclear power. Who is really in denial?

To me, nuclear only makes sense when a meltdown is physically impossible.

I know you'll love this: I don't consider that important. Why? First, what I said before: risk can never technically be exactly zero, so requiring an exactly zero risk is unreasonable. But more importantly, what if a reactor did meltdown once every 10 years or so?(hittsquad - once a week? Considering we only have 100 plants...) You tell me: I live 20 miles from Limerick. If Limerick experienced a total failure (say, a meteor hit it and turned it into a 500 foot crater, tossing all the nuclear material into the air) - how many people would it likely kill? 1,000 (acute radiation sickness)? 10,000 (after 50 years of cancer studies)? What is an acceptable risk?

Right now environmentalists accept 10,000 deaths a year. That's not a risk, that's an actual death rate. Frankly, that's unacceptable to me. Why is 10,000 deaths a year acceptable to environmentalists? Who is really more concerned about safety?

hittsquad: outstanding analogy. The unreasonable views of environmentalists, while unreasonable enough on their own, are just plain homicidal into their lack of context.

Re: "China Syndrome" - its a movie, not a real technical scenario. It loosely described a meltdown, but with a twist: the molten mass melted through not just the reactor or the building, but through the earth as well. http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=565

 

[russ_watters]

So, the OP:

Why are we not doing more about the environment?

Two words: irrational environmentalism.

 

[SOS2008]

Personally I think it's a bit of a false dichotomy to speak of industry and consumers as if they are completely separate. Both are made up of individuals. The individual can innovate in both cases.

Because corporations are comprised of individuals does not mean corporate entities are the same as individuals. Industry does not think of it's health, or their children or grandchildren as much as profitability and answering to share holders each day. Furthermore, as stated, industry uses more energy and pollutes more than individuals, and at the same time has far more resources to make changes.

But at the same time, the same "environmentalists" tacitly support coal power, which has proven to kill people. This self-contradictory, hipocritical homicidal lunacy is why I put "environmentalist" in quotes for so many organizations (most environmentalist organizations).

Environmentalists can be extreme, however, I'm not sure what you base this comment on. The Sierra Club is one of the foremost environmentalist organization:

http://michigan.sierraclub.org/traverse/coalproblems.htm

Utility companies are the largest single polluters in the United States and more pollution is released from burning coal than any other fuel commonly used by utility companies. The Environmental Protection Agency has identified 67 separate hazardous compounds and chemicals in the flue gas emitted from power plant smokestacks (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1998). Over 55 of these are known neurotoxins or developmental toxins, which affect the development of a child’s brain, nervous system, or body, and 24 are also known, probably, or possible human carcinogens.

Personally I feel there has been good advancement in technology to prevent nuclear disaster. However, what to do with the waste remains a problem, and legitimate concern of environmentalists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So far as I have read the only problems with IFRs so far have been bad design which led to inefficiency and cooling system leaks which led to pollution and occasionally fires in the plants. As far as I know the IFR running in Russia is doing just fine and the American designs have never actually been implimented due to anti-nuclear lobbies.

Ivan, the reactor you mention that was tested was a small IFR produced by Argonne Labs. The project was halted shortly after that reactor was built.

Waste is definitely a problem, it already is one and we have nothing we can do about it but put it in a mountain where it will have to stay for over a thousand years. IFR utilizes reprocessing which will not only reduce the amount of waste but will also reduce the half life of that waste to only a few hundred years. The waste that already needs managing can also be reprocessed, used, and it's half life will be reduced as well. I'm not quite sure if it's just crackpot schemes but I have also read about work on methods for treating waste that will reduce the half life even further.

 

[hitssquad]

Tacit vs explit political thrust vectors

"environmentalists" tacitly support coal power

I'm not sure what you base this comment on.

Tacitly has the opposite meaning of explicitly. Russ's comment could be based partly upon environmentalist's (such as the Sierra Club corporation) explicit non-support of coal power.

It has been pointed out repeatedly by various observers over a period spanning several decades that claiming that solar, and solar-derivative, power can easily replace nuclear power is ultimately tacit support for coal power since it inevitably turns out to not be true.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that's correct. By actively working against nuclear power - to the point where it became impossible to build new plants - while paying only lip-service to the dangers of coal power - allowing coal plants to continue to be built - they have helped enable the last 20 years of air pollution. As a direct result of their own actions, they have achieved the exact opposite of their stated goals. They may honestly dislike coal power, but they are not doing what needs to be done to get rid of it.

Re: The Sierra Club:

Like virtually all "environmentalist" groups, the Sierra Club focuses on problems, not solutions. Nuclear power was a "problem" that needed to be stopped, and they succeeded it getting it stopped. But nuclear power isn't like saving the whales - with whales, the problem and the solution are the same: whales are becoming extinct, so if you stop killing them, they won't become extinct. With nuclear power, just stopping nuclear power does not address the nuclear plant's reason for existence: electricity. As a result, by stopping nuclear power, and not pushing a viable alternative, "environmentalist" groups open the door for utility companies to do the next-best thing, economically: which in virtually all cases means either coal or oil.

Now that nuclear power has been defeated and coal power expanded, "environmentalists" are poised to strike their next blow against the enviroment. The new issue is "The Hydrogen Economy". I have little doubt that within my lifetime, we will be well on the way to replacing gas in our cars with hydrogen. But the way "environmentalists" (and thus, the politicians) are approaching the issue now, they are again failing to address the root problem: electricity. As a result, there is a serious risk that "The Hydrogen Economy" will have a devistating impact on the environment and human health:

As it stands today, "The Hydrogen Economy" will be powered by FOSSIL FUEL.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-12.html is a 2 year old speech by Bush on the issue (Kerry's views were similar in the last election). In it he says:

And there's a lot of advantages that I want to explain to the American people about why this initiative makes sense. First, the hydrogen can be produced from domestic sources -- initially, natural gas; eventually, biomass, ethanol, clean coal, or nuclear energy.

Nuclear is not really on the table. All the rest are fossil fuels, and while you can reduce emissions quite a bit from today's levels (with or without the "Hydrogen Economy" part - so why even bother with that until you've already got "clean coal" and biomass?), they are all interim solutions. Nuclear power allows for the possibility of completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels and the associated pollution.

 

[hitssquad]

The challenges of 100% nuclear

Nuclear power allows for the possibility of completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels and the associated pollution.

It is expensive to use nuclear power to supply anything other than continuous 24/7 baseload electrical service, unless pumped storage is utilized. France has this problem, and that nation only uses 75-80% nuclear power in its mix. In other words, unlike how nuclear is done in the United States where the plants only provide 20% of the electricity mix and therefore can run 24 hours a day at full output, France modulates the power of, and/or turns on and off, some its nuclear power reactors. Since the plants aren't running continuously at or near their full capacities, their financing costs become relatively overwhelming and this ultimately gets reflected in the high cost per kwh of electricity in France.

Unless it became cheap to build nuclear power plants, or an energy storage option — such as one incorporating industrial-sized fuel cells — became cheap, 100% nuclear power would be a serious challenge to implement in either the United States or France.

 

[SOS2008]

So because environmentalists are concerned about hazardous waste from nuclear plants, one can conclude that they therefore are in favor of coal? Clearly one would deduce this.

 

[hitssquad]

Unintended results and tacit support of coal power

So because environmentalists are concerned about hazardous waste from nuclear plants, one can conclude that they therefore are in favor of coal?

No. It's like human slaying. One does not have to intend to kill someone in order to do it. Involuntary manslaughter is defined as killing without intent, as opposed to voluntary manslaughter and homocide which are defined as killing with intent.

One can bring about unintended results in other areas, as well. Claiming that solar and solar-derivative power can easily replace nuclear might advantage coal, without the speaker intending his words to have that effect. Hence the phrase, "Environmentalists who oppose nuclear in favor of solar tacitly support coal." As with involuntary manslaughter, it is in theory possible for energy activists to bring about unintended results.

 

[russ_watters]

It is expensive to use nuclear power to supply anything other than continuous 24/7 baseload electrical service, unless pumped storage is utilized.

Unless it became cheap to build nuclear power plants...

Well, a big part of that cost is in the red-tape that goes into building a plant. But your point is well taken. Regardless, however much you can reduce emissions from a coal plant, you can reduce emissions to zero by replacing that plant with a nuclear one.

So because environmentalists are concerned about hazardous waste from nuclear plants, one can conclude that they therefore are in favor of coal? Clearly one would deduce this.

That isn't what I said. Please reread.

SOS, you tell me: if an "environmentalist" group throws their effort into torpedoing a proposed nuclear plant and they succeed and a coal plant gets built instead, what have they accomplished? What's even more ironic is when "environmentalists" torpedo a proposed wind plant.

 

[GENIERE]

Frustrating ain't it?

 

[SOS2008]

Not to belabor the point further...

...But "environmentalists" won't allow it to be done. But at the same time, the same "environmentalists" tacitly support coal power, which has proven to kill people. This self-contradictory, hipocritical homicidal lunacy is why I put "environmentalist" in quotes for so many organizations (most environmentalist organizations)

Tacitly means implied. Implied means on purpose but not openly expressed. If you have proof that environmentalists purposefully support the use of coal, please source it. Otherwise, the majority of what is being posted is very informative and appreciated.

 

[hitssquad]

On a highway to coal, no stop signs or speed limits

Tacitly means implied.

And those coal-favoring implications of their advocacy of solar as a replacement for nuclear seem to be beyond their conscious awarenesses.


--
implicit

(2) : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed : POTENTIAL *the oak is implicit in the acorn* *a sculptor may see different figures implicit in a block of stone— John Dewey* *the drama implicit in an idea becomes explicit when it is shown as a point of view which a person holds and upon which he acts— F.J.Hoffman* b (1) : not appearing overtly : confined in the organism *implicit behavior* *implicit speech* (2) of a culture : capable of being derived only as an implication from behavior : not apparent or overt to the people it characterizes : tacit and underlying
--
(M-W Unabridged 3.0)


I don't think implicitness requires one to know what one is implying. For if one does not know what one is implying, implying it certainly cannot be purposeful. If you think that Mexico is the country to the north of the U.S. and that Canada is the country to the south, and you set out on a trip from the U.S. to what you think is to Mexico saying, "I'm off to Mexico, heading north 2,000 miles, and I know I'm going north because I can see the 9AM sun to my right," the implication of your statement is that you are going to end up in Canada.

Likewise, if you set out on that road trip more-simply saying, "I'm heading off north 2,000 miles, and I know I'm going north because I can see the 9AM sun to my right," the implication is again that you are going to Canada, regardless of whether you know that or not. So whether you are traveling to a certain given country purposely or not, your destination is implied.

The prototypical environmentalist in Russ's claim that environmentalists tacitly support coal by opposing nuclear in favor of solar claims to be traveling down the highway of solar-powered "sustainability," but an acute observer willing to do a few calculations on the back of an envelope can see that that highway leads straight to coal.

 

[SOS2008]

And those coal-favoring implications of their advocacy of solar as a replacement for nuclear seem to be beyond their conscious awarenesses.


--
implicit

(2) : involved in the nature or essence of something though not revealed, expressed, or developed : POTENTIAL *the oak is implicit in the acorn* *a sculptor may see different figures implicit in a block of stone— John Dewey* *the drama implicit in an idea becomes explicit when it is shown as a point of view which a person holds and upon which he acts— F.J.Hoffman* b (1) : not appearing overtly : confined in the organism *implicit behavior* *implicit speech* (2) of a culture : capable of being derived only as an implication from behavior : not apparent or overt to the people it characterizes : tacit and underlying
--
(M-W Unabridged 3.0)


I don't think implicitness requires one to know what one is implying. For if one does not know what one is implying, implying it certainly cannot be purposeful. If you think that Mexico is the country to the north of the U.S. and that Canada is the country to the south, and you set out on a trip from the U.S. to what you think is to Mexico saying, "I'm off to Mexico, heading north 2,000 miles, and I know I'm going north because I can see the 9AM sun to my right," the implication of your statement is that you are going to end up in Canada.

Likewise, if you set out on that road trip more-simply saying, "I'm heading off north 2,000 miles, and I know I'm going north because I can see the 9AM sun to my right," the implication is again that you are going to Canada, regardless of whether you know that or not. So whether you are traveling to a certain given country purposely or not, your destination is implied.

The prototypical environmentalist in Russ's claim that environmentalists tacitly support coal by opposing nuclear in favor of solar claims to be traveling down the highway of solar-powered "sustainability," but an acute observer willing to do a few calculations on the back of an envelope can see that that highway leads straight to coal.

The real point for me is that environmentalists do not support the use of coal. To avoid further derailment of productive discussion, perhaps we should agree to disagree, and if anyone wants to PM me, please feel free to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

Sometimes people have to make tough choices between two things they don't want, or drop support for things they know they can't have, SOS. "Environmentalists" choose not to oppose coal with the vehemence with which they oppose nuclear and as a result, coal plants get built and nuclear plants do not. "Environmentalists" choose not to (or are unable to) make tough choices like: 'I know I can't have solar power, so I'll support nuclear power since it is better than coal.'

However, I will agree that this is slightly OT, since their opposition to nuclear power is irrational on its own. Its right up there with opposing immunizations because they hurt or because 1 in a million people get sick from them. As I said before, the solution to the question raised in the OP is simple in principle: be rational.

If you disagree, I would very much like to see a link from an environmentalist website that outlines a doable energy plan. And by "doable" I mean something we can start on right now and will have minimal impact economicallly.

 

[russ_watters]

YOU!: Fix the Environment!

My biggest criticism of "environmentalism", as I have said before is that it focuses on problems and not solutions. I'm a put-up-or-shut-up type of guy - I like fixing problems more than arguing over who'se fault it is. That's why I'm an engineer. So to parallel a thread I started in the engineering forum (YOU!: Fix the US Energy Crisis!), this is a thread about solutions to our environmental problems. The groundrules will be similar to that thread:

First, though most would agree there are issues, people won't necessarily agree on what they are/what the most important are. So define the problem as you see it before proposing the solution. As I see it, the biggest problem is air pollution, which conveniently, makes the pollution problem and the energy problem essentially the same.

Second, I want specific, coherent plans. Don't just say 'reduce CO2 emissions' - tell me how.

Third, economics and politics of course make this tricky. Try to give plans that would work (from an engineering standpoint) and would at least have a little chance of happening (from a political/economic standpoint). 'Build a solar array to cover the Mojave Desert' would work, but it would be so expensive that I don't think its viable (though if you disagree, please feel free to argue why). 'Build a 10 TW fusion plant' is completely unacceptable since we don't have a means to do it at all right now.

 

[russ_watters]

Figures depend on who you ask, but the first hit I got on google was http://www.enotes.com/air-pollution/ :

In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined.

To me, that makes air pollution a huge, "right now" priority. Screw global warming - it might be a problem 50 or 100 years from now, which means people are going to argue about it for the next 50 or 100 years without doing anything about it. Air pollution kills now.

Since, as I said, the pollution and energy issues are roughly the same to me, making explanation of my plan here pretty easy. My plan laid out in detail in post 2 of that other thread, but to summarize:

1. Immediately impose heavy restrictions on emissions from all sorts of fossil fuel use points - coal plants, oil plants, HVAC systems (oil, gas), cars, etc. And no 10 year phase-in crap - do it now. This means, primarily, coal power plants though. Technology exists to greatly reduce their pollution with little difficulty (just money, and not really that much) - require its immediate implimentation. Close other loopholes - trucks and ships aren't as well regulated as cars, for example. This cost would largely be absorbed by the economy, but my guess is it would be several tens of billions of dollars. I wouldn't retrofit consumer items, but I would require retrofitting all power plants. In ten years, we could drop our air pollution output by an order of magnitude.

2. Build 100 new nuclear plants, right now. Yes, it would be expensive - though it doesn't have to be that expensive if the irrational environmentalism doesn't get in the way (but that's a topic for another thread...). I figure in 20 years, building 100 new plants would allow for closing roughly half our coal plants (while still increasing production).

3. Increase funding for fusion by an order of magnitude or more. In 10 years or so, we should have a good idea of how close we are to making it viable. If it doesn't appear imminent in 10 years, start building the next 100 fission plants. If it looks viable, start building fusion plants.

4. Reward sensible conservation (ie, make the cost of compact fluorescents, heat recovery systems, hybrid cars, etc. tax deductable).

5. Twenty years from now, after a good 100 new fission plants are in operation, another 100 are close behind them, and half of our coal plants are gone, start the transition to the hydrogen economy. And start production on the 3rd 100 new fission plants. Hittsquad - you mentioned how nuclear can't be throttled. Well, as you mentioned, hydrogen production is the perfect off-peak use for nuclear power.

I'm backing off my support of solar - after some of the things I've learned from discussions here, I have my doubts that it will ever be viable. I think a nuclear-hydrogen economy is the key.

edit: Oh yeah...

Politically, what needs to happen for this to work? Simple - people need to get serious about it. Yeah, ok, I know - that's simple in principle but not in practice. But think about it: how much political capital is there for a politician to lose by proposing these things? Is the coal lobby really that strong that it makes more sense to not clean up our coal plants than to gain a million votes by doing it? Is the "environmentalist" lobby really that strong (yeah, I'll get to that in another thread...) that you can't get people to be rational about nuclear power? I really don't think there is much to lose politically - politicians just need to get the cajones to ignore their lobbyists and do what the public really wants/needs.

Some of what I propose will be extremely expensive - some of it will not. At the very least, the inexpensive things should not have a problem passing if the public would just start caring a little bit. Green Mountain Energy has proven that even a fraud can sell clean energy for a higher price. There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to get real clean energy to sell for the same price.

 

[Pengwuino]

Is the "environmentalist" lobby really that strong (yeah, I'll get to that in another thread...) that you can't get people to be rational about nuclear power?

Yes, yes it is lol. Run a few ads and show Chernobyl and Hiroshima and you'll scare a few million idiots back into line. Then of course you'll immediately invoke the "liberal" organizationsl ike moveon.org or the green party that'll do the political trashing that'll move the ideologs into place and you've pretty much got the stone wall setup against it.

What exactly are the theoretical $ figures for implimenting the huge solar arrays needed to power the US? (across the mojave as you said hehe).

My professor made a joke yesterday that whenever he wants to talk to someone and they ask about his profession, he says he's an astrophysicist and if he doesn't want to talk to someone, he'll say he's a nuclear physicist "or better yet, an atomic physicist".

 

[russ_watters]

What exactly are the theoretical $ figures for implimenting the huge solar arrays needed to power the US? (across the mojave as you said hehe).

We discussed it in detail in a thread I can't find, but off the top of my google... (and some good info in THIS thread)

-The US's current total generation capacity is 750,000MW.
-A decent solar panel generates about 10 watts per square foot.
-An inexpensive solar panel costs about $5 per watt.

So... (check my math):

To cover the US demand of 750,000MW would require about 2,700 square miles of solar panels at a cost of $3.75 trillion.

This does not include other equipment (probably about equal to the cost of the panels themselves), inefficiencies (night time), or government bureacracy. Realistically, these things would increase the actual cost by as much as an order of magnitude - so its probably more like $30 trillion. (The US annual GDP is $10 trillion and the federal budget is about $2.6 trillion)

If you want the array to handle a "hydrogen economy", double its size.

 

[Informal Logic]

As I said before, the solution to the question raised in the OP is simple in principle: be rational.

If you disagree, I would very much like to see a link from an environmentalist website that outlines a doable energy plan. And by "doable" I mean something we can start on right now and will have minimal impact economicallly.

A little boy pulls a little girl's hair, and the little girl says she doesn't like her hair to be pulled. So the little boy starts poking her. By your logic, the little girl prefers to be poked.

You can go to web sites such as the Sierra Club's and see nothing but anti-coal information. The request was made of you to support your claim and find a source showing that environmentalists support the use of coal.

Now, can we get off the inane debate of semantics, etc. and move on?

 

[russ_watters]

A little boy pulls a little girl's hair, and the little girl says she doesn't like her hair to be pulled. So the little boy starts poking her. By your logic, the little girl prefers to be poked.

Invalid analogy: The little girl can have neither - the Sierra Club can't. Grown-ups do sometimes have to choose between two things they don't want. Grown-ups are supposed to be mature enough to make tough choices - to make the best of the choices availabe. That's supposed to be what it means to be a grown-up.

Edit: here is an analogy perhaps democrats can get behind: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Its something democrats said a lot to try to get people to vote for Kerry (Gore) instead of Nader. How many Nader voters really preferred Bush to Kerry (or Gore)? Probably virtually none, right? Yet through their decisions, they helped Bush get elected twice.

You can go to web sites such as the Sierra Club's and see nothing but anti-coal information. The request was made of you to support your claim and find a source showing that environmentalists support the use of coal.

Again, not what I said. Please reread (with particular attention to the word "tacit").

 

[SOS2008]

http://www.waterfurnace.com/content.aspx?section=why&page=faqs2
--
Can a geothermal system also heat water?
Yes. Some geothermal heat pumps can provide all of your hot water needs on demand at the same high efficiencies as the heating/cooling cycles. An option called a desuperheater can be added to most heat pumps. It will provide significant savings by heating water before it enters your hot water tank.
--
A geothermal heating system uses electricity to run water pumps and refrigerant compressors to extract heat from (and, for house cooling, transmit heat to) the ground. The electrical power used is a fraction of the heating and cooling power harnessed. Check out Monolithic Dome home designer Jim Kaslik's geothermal system:
http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/kaslik/comfort/qhca-d-03.pdf

That link has the most information on Jim's geothermal system, but here is more on his very unique Dome house in general:
http://www.monolithic.com/gallery/homes/kaslik/

His Dome house has 5300 square feet of heated living space, and he says his maximum monthly HVAC cost would be $95 if he ran it 24/7 but that he never needs to run it that much to maintain comfortable temperature and a by-design relative humidity of 35-45%. And, yes, Jim has a fireplace, but I don't know if he ever uses it. You could ask him since he hangs out on the Monolithic Domes Institute BBS answering questions:
http://bbs.monolithic.com/

I've meant to reply to this. The desuperheater is a very interesting concept. My A/C Heat Pump unit is located on the side of the home, and the hot water tank is located in the garage. If I'm understanding this correctly, the two need to be hooked up in some way to work together. BTW - I have had plumbers/repairmen over the years tell me that placing extra insulation around the water tank isn't really worth it here in Phoenix. In fact, in the summer it can take a bit of time to get water to cool when you want cold water. But certainly winter is cold enough to get freezing temperatures on some nights. Anyway, I'll try to find a company that knows about desuperheaters.

 

[hitssquad]

My A/C Heat Pump unit is located on the side of the home, and the hot water tank is located in the garage. If I'm understanding this correctly, the two need to be hooked up in some way to work together.

Well, your heat pump can only heat your house to about 90 degrees, right? I don't have any experience with heat pumps, but I would assume that you would need a special one to be able to heat to the much higher temperatures of water heaters.

 

[russ_watters]

I've meant to reply to this. The desuperheater is a very interesting concept. My A/C Heat Pump unit is located on the side of the home, and the hot water tank is located in the garage. If I'm understanding this correctly, the two need to be hooked up in some way to work together. BTW - I have had plumbers/repairmen over the years tell me that placing extra insulation around the water tank isn't really worth it here in Phoenix. In fact, in the summer it can take a bit of time to get water to cool when you want cold water. But certainly winter is cold enough to get freezing temperatures on some nights. Anyway, I'll try to find a company that knows about desuperheaters.

You have an air source heat pump, don't you? Ie, there is a big (3 feet high/wide) cylindrical heat sink with a fan in the middle sitting next to your house? Water source heat pumps reject their heat into some water source (usually groundwater) - and they are relatively rare.

That said, the general concept (linking HVAC units and hot water heaters) is something I'm really in favor of. And it really shouldn't be that hard to clamp a heat exchanger onto the refrigerant piping of an a/c unit, for whatever purpose (I could see recovering some heat-of-rejection in the summer to heat water - the article is talking about using the heat pump cycle itself to heat water).

And yes, a house kinda needs to be designed with such forms of heat recovery in mind.