Posted by bradguth on April 8, 2007, 9:30 pm
At the 40 kw/m2 footprint, you don't hardly need all that much land.
A composite tower of wind, solar PV and solar stirling, as such
where's the need for all that much land?
40 kw/m2 is typically far better than 10 fold over that of whatever
can be birth to grave accomplished via nuclear. In some cases it's 20
fold better birth to grave energy density than the honest reality of
Posted by Bill Ghrist on April 9, 2007, 3:35 pm
Given that insolation in sunny regions is around 250 *Watts* (not kW)
per square meter, a practical solar footprint would be more like 40
W/m2, not 40 kW/m2, and that is assuming extremely generous efficiencies
Also, given that a four-unit nuclear generating station (using, for
example, AP1000 reactors) can easily be sited on 2,000,000 m2 of land,
the nuclear footprint can be something like 2,000 W/m2. If you don't
believe this, use MapQuest to check out an aerial view of the North Anna
site. It is on the North Anna River near Mineral, Virginia. It
presently has two older units and has applied for an early site permit
to add two AP1000 units to the site (the site was originally intended
for four units). The plant site is well under 1.5 km2, based upon the
Posted by bradguth on April 9, 2007, 4:22 pm
You really do need to get yourself out of that silly box of naysayism
What about the word "tower" is way over your silly head?
Are the words "surface footprint" of something birth to grave taboo/
Once again, if we'ew looking at merely the heart and soul of the
energy density footprint as being the one and only factor, whereas
then I'll provide 400 kw/m2.
Obviously your gutter sucking minset is keeping the likes of yourself
from seeing the light of truth (sort of speak).
Posted by bradguth on April 9, 2007, 5:18 pm
Your 2 kw/m2 nuclear footprint simply isn't including the birth to
grave takings of surface area, much less accounting for all the
institutional infrastructure that's all pretty much focused upon
nuclear related factors, including more than a few dedicated rail
takings of land and not to discount those multiple layers upon layers
of surrounding security that makes most such nuclear reservations look
fairly energy density pathetic. You're not even taking into account
the vast numbers of open pit and other excavations of mining required
on behalf of obtaining the necessary yellowcake that'll soon enough be
costing us $000/kg on the world spot energy market that china is soon
enough going to be out-bidding us in most every case, as well as the
entire global processing fiasco having been leaving the likes of
radium in their surface and downwind dust to boot.
Your hocus-pocus ENRON/Exxon (aka Arthur Andersen) accounting is thus
bogus from the get go, just like your boss being our resident LLPOF
warlord(GW Bush) actions having been more Third Reich global energy
domination than not.
I've already stipulated 10% global energy via nuclear, therefore you
can't possibly call me anti-nuclear or any other kind of green village
At best nuclear might honestly claim 400 w/m2, although many of our
existing operations might prove hard pressed at exceeding 200 w/m2 and
remaining TBI toxic as hell for thousands of years past their end-of-
France might actually claim a nuclear birth to grave footprint worth
of possibly one kw/m2, but then those tricky French have been so much
smarter than most of us to start with.
Posted by Bill Ghrist on April 9, 2007, 5:53 pm
Bill Ghrist wrote:
Correction: The 250 W/m2 figure for insolation is average; I was
misreading it as peak (see: http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/ ).
That means that the solar footprint might be more like 100 W/m2,
assuming a very generous 40% conversion efficiency.