People, wisely or unwisely, are fearful of nuclear fission, even if it's from the thorium 232/uranium 233 fuel cycle. Perhaps this will change, perhaps magnetic or inertial confinement fusion will arrive on the scene in a commercial sense soon. Maybe. The climate change advocates are claiming that disaster is on its way, no matter what. If we don't buy into total pessimism (which I am disbelieving) then we must do solar and wind and to figure out a means to store the energy, overnight, and during cold weather. There is the possibility of Ocean Thermal power (to make electricity) becoming commercial finally, but it;s no certainty that this is true.
-----Original Message----- From: John Clark <[email protected]> To: everything-list <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Apr 7, 2014 1:54 pm Subject: Re: Climate models On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Chris de Morsella <[email protected]> wrote: > >>150GW * 8670 (hours/year) >> Actually 24 times 365 is 8760 not 8670; > Okay… get picky about very small details dude, You're the one who wanted to "do the math", and when I've been shown unambiguously to be wrong about something I don't make excuses, I just admit it and move on. > A GW of capacity is the nameplate measurement of capacity to produce power; Yes, a Gigawatt is a measure of power. > a GW-hour is a measurement of actual output. No, Gigawatt-hour is a measure of energy. The actual output power would be the capacity factor multiplied by rated output. And I don't understand why you keep emphasizing the capacity factor, it just makes your argument weaker, you say for solar it's 20%, so the the percentage of world wide energy needs provided by photovoltaic is just .00002%, assuming the numbers you proved are correct. > You multiply the capacity by a capacity factor, which for big thermo-electric > plants (both nuclear and coal) is around 80% and then multiply that by the > number of hours in a year to get the estimated annual output. That would give you the amount of energy the plant would produce in a year. And to operate all human technology on this planet would require 1.5*10^17 watts of POWER. To operate it for one hour would require 1.5*10^17 watt-hours of ENERGY. To find out how much energy would be required to operate it for one year you would take 1.5*10^17 watt-hours AND THEN MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS IN A YEAR. Therefore if you're interested in percentages, like the percentage of the energy required to run the world that photovoltaics provide, it doesn't matter how many hours there are in a day because the 2 terms would cancel out. So even if there were 6.02*10^23 hours in a year, the percentages would remain the same. > You really don’t get it do you. Are you dense or just argumentative? Chris, You have just vividly demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between energy and power, something that is taught during the first week of high school physics, and you can't seem to figure out how to multiply 24*365, so it makes we wonder if you are the one we should look to in deciding what our long term energy policy should be. > Capacity measures the nameplate potential to produce power – a solar panel > with a 1kw capacity can produce a kilowatt of power if the sun is shining on > it at full flux. Actual annual electric output is a very different Yeah it is very different, real solar panels are actually 5 times WORSE than what I originally said. You have gotten so confused you don't even know if what you're saying is helping your argument or hurting it. > I did my calculations correctly BULLSHIT. > you were off by 2000 times BULLSHIT. > The 8670 = 365*24 – that is the number of hours in a year. No, as I said before, 365*24= 8760 not 8670. I know this is a very very difficult calculation but I really feel I'm correct about this. > This is basic math dude. Indeed. >> As I've said several times nobody is going to bother with the Thorium in >> your garden dirt until ores of much much greater Thorium concentration have >> run out, and at current energy consumption that won't happen for over a >> billion years. And when dealing with technology a billion years in advance >> of ours it would be ridiculous to say what sort of ore is recoverable and >> what sort is not. > Nobody is going to resurface planet earth – ever. Why not? Not even in a billion years? Who did you determine that? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
