Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

Expand Messages
  • Philip Timmons
    Sure.   I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)   So yes, we can go over that (Solar
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Sure.  

      I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

      So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.




      --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:

      From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

       
      I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?
       
      I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.
       
      BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.
       
      Andrea

      --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:

      From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

       

      Philip:

       

      Really interesting comments!

       

      Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

       

      Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

       

      And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

       

      Tyra

       


      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
      Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

       

      Good discussion, so far.

       

      Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

       

      Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

       

      But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

       

      As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

       

      But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

       



      --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


      From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

      Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

       

      I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

       

      Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

       

      Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

       

      Andrea

      --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


      From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

       

      I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

       

      I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

       

      Tyra

       


      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
      Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

       

       

      I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

       

      If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

       

      Tom Scarsella

      Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

       

      From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
      Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
      To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

       

       

      Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

      in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

      by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

      email the content itemprint the content item
      comments: 0


      The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

      These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

      Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

      Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

      A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

      Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

      "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

      SOURCE: Civil Society Institute


       

      Ralph Parrott

      President

      Alternative Power Solutions

      8181 Commerce Park #700

      Houston, Texas   77036

      O. 713-595-6375

      F. 713-595-6382

      C. 281-455-9083

       

      www.apowersolutions.com

      aps_logo_final

       

      President of the

      http://www.txses.org/hreg

       

      IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

       

       


    • Greg Tinkler
      Eventually we should reverse organic rankin technology where us south Texans can produce electricity by making a/c and using ground storage to level posting
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Eventually we should reverse organic rankin technology where us south Texans can produce electricity by making a/c and using ground storage to level posting parameters. 

        Sent from my Cell Phone

        On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:39 PM, "Philip Timmons" <philiptimmons@...> wrote:

        Sure.  

        I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

        So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.




        --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:

        From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

         
        I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?
         
        I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.
         
        BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.
         
        Andrea

        --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:

        From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

         

        Philip:

         

        Really interesting comments!

         

        Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

         

        Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

         

        And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

         

        Tyra

         


        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
        Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

         

        Good discussion, so far.

         

        Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

         

        Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

         

        But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

         

        As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

         

        But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         

         



        --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


        From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

        Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

         

        I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

         

        Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

         

        Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

         

        Andrea

        --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


        From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

         

        I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

         

        I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

         

        Tyra

         


        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
        Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

         

         

        I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

         

        If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

         

        Tom Scarsella

        Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

         

        From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
        Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
        To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

         

         

        Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

        in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

        by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

        <image001.gif><image002.gif>
        comments: 0


        The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

        These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

        Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

        Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

        A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

        Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

        "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

        SOURCE: Civil Society Institute


         

        Ralph Parrott

        President

        Alternative Power Solutions

        8181 Commerce Park #700

        Houston, Texas   77036

        O. 713-595-6375

        F. 713-595-6382

        C. 281-455-9083

         

        www.apowersolutions.com

        <image003.jpg>

         

        President of the

        <image004.jpg>

        http://www.txses.org/hreg

         

        IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

         

         



        This email is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete it. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not keep, use, disclose, copy or distribute this email without the author's prior permission. We have taken precautions to minimize the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise you to carry out your own virus checks on any attachments to this message. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software viruses. The information contained in this communication may be confidential and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege. If you are the intended recipient and you do not wish to receive similar electronic messages from us in the future then please respond to the sender to this effect.

          ­­  
      • Andrea Wisner
        Thanks. I look forward to hearing more about the solar thermal option.   Also, why not solar thermal heating in the winter? I haven t looked into it much yet,
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 29, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks. I look forward to hearing more about the solar thermal option.
           
          Also, why not solar thermal heating in the winter? I haven't looked into it much yet, but I think a simple DIY system of circulating heated water through a radiator should work. The Houston heating season may be short, but heat is not free.
           
          Andrea

          --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...> wrote:

          From: Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 8:39 PM

          Sure.  

          I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

          So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.




          --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:

          From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

           

          Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

           

          Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

           

          And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

           

          Tyra

           


          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
          Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

           

           
          I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?
           
          I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.
           
          BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.
           
          Andrea

          --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:

          From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

           

          Philip:

           

          Really interesting comments!

          Good discussion, so far.

           

          Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

           

          Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

           

          But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

           

          As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

           

          But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           



          --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


          From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

           

          I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

           

          Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

           

          Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

           

          Andrea

          --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


          From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

           

          I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

           

          I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

           

          Tyra

           


          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
          Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

           

           

          I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

           

          If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

           

          Tom Scarsella

          Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

           

          From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
          Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
          To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

           

           

          Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

          Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

          in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

          by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

          email the content itemprint the content item
          comments: 0


          The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

          These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

          Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

          Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

          A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

          Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

          "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

          SOURCE: Civil Society Institute


           

          Ralph Parrott

          President

          Alternative Power Solutions

          8181 Commerce Park #700

          Houston, Texas   77036

          O. 713-595-6375

          F. 713-595-6382

          C. 281-455-9083

           

          www.apowersolutions.com

          aps_logo_final

           

          President of the

          http://www.txses.org/hreg

           

          IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

           

           

        • Philip Timmons
          Works Great! Did a Solar Thermal greenhouse a couple of years ago. The Thermal Panels heated an 80 gallon hot water heater tank, and then PEX tubing was ran
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 29, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Works Great!

            Did a Solar Thermal greenhouse a couple of years ago.

            The Thermal Panels heated an 80 gallon hot water heater tank, and then PEX tubing was ran through the concrete floor.  It only took one sunny day to heat the floor and then it could "coast" through three cloudy days, staying warm from the residual heat.

            For existing buildings we are working with using "car radiator" type heating coils in the in-line air-ducts (for buildings with central heat and air conditioning).  The solar thermal warms the circulating water, the water warms the coil, the coil warms the blowing air  = warm building, mostly simple solar-thermal-powered except the blower fan motor. 

            --- On Tue, 3/29/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:

            From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 10:09 AM

            Thanks. I look forward to hearing more about the solar thermal option.
             
            Also, why not solar thermal heating in the winter? I haven't looked into it much yet, but I think a simple DIY system of circulating heated water through a radiator should work. The Houston heating season may be short, but heat is not free.
             
            Andrea

            --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...> wrote:

            From: Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...>
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 8:39 PM

            Sure.  

            I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

            So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.




            --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:

            From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

             
            I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?
             
            I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.
             
            BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.
             
            Andrea

            --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:

            From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

             

            Philip:

             

            Really interesting comments!

             

            Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

             

            Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

             

            And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

             

            Tyra

             


            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
            Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

             

            Good discussion, so far.

             

            Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

             

            Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

             

            But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

             

            As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

             

            But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             

             



            --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


            From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

            Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

             

            I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

             

            Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

             

            Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

             

            Andrea

            --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


            From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

             

            I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

             

            I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

             

            Tyra

             


            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
            Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

             

             

            I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

             

            If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

             

            Tom Scarsella

            Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

             

            From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
            Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
            To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

             

             

            Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

            in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

            by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

            email the content itemprint the content item
            comments: 0


            The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

            These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

            Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

            Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

            A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

            Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

            "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

            SOURCE: Civil Society Institute


             

            Ralph Parrott

            President

            Alternative Power Solutions

            8181 Commerce Park #700

            Houston, Texas   77036

            O. 713-595-6375

            F. 713-595-6382

            C. 281-455-9083

             

            www.apowersolutions.com

            aps_logo_final

             

            President of the

            http://www.txses.org/hreg

             

            IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

             

             



          • kevin conlin
            Andrea, it’s been my experience that a solar water heater in Houston will provide almost 100% of your hot water needs from March thru November. The winter
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 29, 2011
            • 0 Attachment

              Andrea, it’s been my experience that a solar water heater in Houston will provide almost 100% of your hot water needs from March thru November. The winter months are too cloudy, so the backup element has to be used.

               

              If there isn’t enough sunshine to heat a tank of hot water, then there won’t be enough to heat your home.

               

              The cost and complexity of a solar thermal home heating system would likely never be paid back.

               

              Unfortunately the combination of a very short season combined with a very poor solar resource just doesn’t make it practical.

               

              Maybe others have a different perspective or experience, and I’d like to hear more about solar thermal air conditioning as well.

               

              Regards,  Kevin

               

              Heliosolar Design, Inc.

              Kevin Conlin

              PH: 281-202-9629

              kevin@...

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrea Wisner
              Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:09 AM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

               

              Thanks. I look forward to hearing more about the solar thermal option.

               

              Also, why not solar thermal heating in the winter? I haven't looked into it much yet, but I think a simple DIY system of circulating heated water through a radiator should work. The Houston heating season may be short, but heat is not free.

               

              Andrea

              --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...> wrote:


              From: Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...>
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 8:39 PM

              Sure.  

               

              I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

              So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.

               

               

               


              --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


              From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

               

              I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?

               

              I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.

               

              BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.

               

              Andrea

              --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:


              From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

               

              Philip:

               

              Really interesting comments!

               

              Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

               

              Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

               

              And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

               

              Tyra

               


              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
              Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

               

              Good discussion, so far.

               

              Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

               

              Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

               

              But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

               

              As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

               

              But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               



              --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


              From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

              Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

               

              I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

               

              Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

               

              Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

               

              Andrea

              --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


              From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

               

              I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

               

              I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

               

              Tyra

               


              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
              Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

               

               

              I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

               

              If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

               

              Tom Scarsella

              Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

               

              From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
              Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
              To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

               

               

              Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

              in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

              by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

              email the content itemprint the content item
              comments: 0


              The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

              These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

              Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

              Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

              A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

              Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

              "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

              SOURCE: Civil Society Institute

               

              Ralph Parrott

              President

              Alternative Power Solutions

              8181 Commerce Park #700

              Houston, Texas   77036

              O. 713-595-6375

              F. 713-595-6382

              C. 281-455-9083

               

              www.apowersolutions.com

              aps_logo_final

               

              President of the

              http://www.txses.org/hreg

               

              IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

               

               

               

            • Philip Timmons
              Back towards Tyra s observations . ... I guess for discussions I usually leave Solar Thermal to mean the broad genre of most of that which is Solar, but Not
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 29, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Back towards Tyra's observations . ...

                I guess for discussions I usually leave Solar Thermal to mean the broad genre of most of that which is Solar, but Not PV, but "Solar Non-PV" is not even a term.  I guess it is more of a mind-set.  Folks seem to have become stuck on Solar = PV (only).  

                I am not against PV -- presently it is paying my bills (I R a Solar / Electrical Engineer and Contractor), but when folks ask me how PV works, if in a joking mood, I say it works like this -- We design and install a system, and then we get .gov rebates and credits, along with utility rebates, and other grants and we call that a business.  Like I say, that is joking, but in practice, really PV is less powered by the Sun than it is powered by .gov and other folks' money.

                In full confession, not so long ago, I have also worked designing and building the HUGE Coal plants that power and pollute Texas and beyond, and will take the Solar, as funded or whatever it takes 10 days a week over Coal.

                Solar Thermal, contrasted with PV, can at least pay its own way, if one can drop out of the Electricity-Only Mind Set of PV.  Solar Thermal is not just about Electricity, but can be used more like Combined Heat and Power.  If you look at the loads of what a typical house or even a business uses in terms of overall energy use -- most of it is thermal.  Water Heater, Air Conditioning, Heating, on and on -- Heat (or for A/C the reduction of Heat) -- not really Electricity, per se -- is what typical building Energy use is mostly about.  With lighting loads dropping via the use of newer fluorescents and LEDs this is more likely to be the case into the future.

                PV on the other hand, is not all that great on things-thermal, and as you probably know, in practice, heat and thermal issues harm PV production, however, Solar Thermal loves the heat.
                 
                And like you observed, the applications of Solar Thermal cover the range from small rooftop up to square mile(s) Central Plant (generally electricity only) Generation sites.

                I did the (electric) power designs for some of the Solar Thermal fields in California.  These things are measured in acres on the first ones, and now miles on the bigs ones -- but in that Central Plant model, the "vision" driving the cash register is, like PV, ONLY electricity.  There is so much surplus heat, we blow it off in Cooling Towers (think about how crazy THAT is) to get the final boost stage on the steam turbines.  

                And then it gets even crazier when folks go into "storage" like what Tyra sort of mentioned -- as it destroys the actual productive and profitable money part of the system. But the business folks like to keep storage in the system -- not for any practical use, but rather to keep the price up. The conversation usually goes like this . . .

                MBA:  We can store some the heat and make electricity all night.

                Phil:  Why do you want to do that?

                MBA:  (with snotty attitude) because people need their lights on at night. 

                Phil:  Maybe.  But have you looked at your customers usage? Most are asleep at night, with few or no lights on.  That is baseload power, and is already covered with all the surplus existing Coal and Nukes -- we only get a nickel a kWh for night-time power, but double or more for daytime.  

                MBA:  Grumbles . . . . well yes, but people expect us to have storage and it increases our gross pricing.

                The only thing I can see why anyone at the top wants to tie storage to Solar Thermal is to run up the costs.  Same as the EPC contractors Love It that nukes costs to so much.

                In practice, the Solar Thermal plants are so cheap and so much cheaper to operate (no plant shut-downs for re-builds, no fuel costs, and much less labor and operating costs), that to quickly expand them would cause a collapse of the Electricity price market.
                 
                That was why Sterling Energy Systems had to stop their project in Marfa -- No demand for the power.    

                The only Energy I see US short of in the near or long future is Oil. And most of that goes into transportation. Electricity could cover most of the ground transportation, and in doing so build out the renewable market at the same time.






















                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:

                From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 9:40 PM
















                 

















                Philip:

                 

                Really interesting comments!

                 

                Solar Thermal – don’t know
                if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice –
                and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base
                load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale. 
                If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed
                on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

                 

                Rice University has 2 spin off
                companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in
                states other than Texas
                because Texas
                has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped
                ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

                 

                And –
                EVs – only 3 million EV users
                needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for
                automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as
                demand collapses. 

                 

                Tyra

                 









                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ]
                On Behalf Of Philip Timmons

                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011
                3:38 PM

                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want
                National Focus On Renewable Energy



                 




                Good discussion, so far.

                 


                Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we
                could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground
                transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and
                Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of
                the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . .
                .  something(s) would have to die.  


                 


                Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal
                Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of
                taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries /
                distribution pipelines).


                 


                But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs
                them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC
                (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s)
                long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent
                to them.   


                 


                As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak
                Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat
                cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much
                electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some
                designs we are prepping tests for.


                 


                But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much
                surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that
                if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for
                decades.


                 


                 


                 


                 


                 


                 


                 


                 


                 






                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
                wrote:


                From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM





                Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.


                 


                I understand there is a strong contingent that
                still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue,
                which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There
                is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter
                is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's
                resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even
                solar power requires that solar collectors be built.


                 


                Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of
                power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is,
                best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal
                waste.


                 


                Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our
                problems in the US .
                I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a
                quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's
                necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For
                the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air
                gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)


                 


                Andrea



                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
                wrote:




                From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

                 



                I wonder why the
                choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about
                gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables
                due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal
                – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is
                low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on
                foreign sources for energy.

                 

                I do not know why
                nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas
                and renewables.

                 

                Tyra
                 





                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M.
                (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]

                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011
                1:52 PM

                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans
                Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                 
                 




                I’m
                not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be
                considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes
                out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future
                for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at
                Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude
                safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and
                do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power
                would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to
                transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor
                quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures
                and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your
                grandma’s nuclear plants.

                 

                If
                we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well
                discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The
                immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more
                coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t
                believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next
                generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful. 
                We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated
                electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to
                start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

                 

                Tom
                Scarsella
                Any
                opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

                 



                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott

                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011
                11:09 AM

                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com

                Subject: [hreg] Americans Want
                National Focus On Renewable Energy


                 
                 




                Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable
                Energy, Not Nuclear




                in News Departments > New & Noteworthy




                by SI
                Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011


                comments: 0






                The nuclear disaster in Japan
                has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would
                freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan
                guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind
                and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power
                industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.



                These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC
                International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute
                (CSI).



                Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also
                found the following:



                Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new
                nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if
                "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn
                ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near
                term."



                A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on
                the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States
                through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees."
                Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal
                loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in
                favor of wind and solar power.



                Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more
                supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy
                resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as
                an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In
                fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much
                more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy
                efficiency than they were a month ago.



                "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about
                energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the
                problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the
                tragedy at Fukushima
                ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.



                SOURCE: Civil
                Society Institute









                 


                Ralph
                Parrott

                President

                Alternative
                Power Solutions
                8181 Commerce Park #700
                Houston, Texas   77036

                O.
                713-595-6375
                F.
                713-595-6382
                C.
                281-455-9083
                 
                www.apowersolutions.com


                 

                President
                of the

                http://www.txses.org/hreg
                 

                IMPORTANT
                NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only
                for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is
                privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a
                named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
                distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you
                have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and
                notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!





                 










                 
              • ralph parrott
                APS recently installed what I believe to be the first solar water space heating system of its kind in the Houston area. We basically had to triple the number
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 30, 2011

                APS recently installed what I believe to be the first solar water space heating system of its kind in the Houston area.  We basically had to triple the number of solar water heating collectors to account for the reduced heat that can be generated during the winter.

                 

                I have both pictures and diagrams of the systems. Solar water heating collectors amazingly produce a good deal of heat during cloudy days.  The calculations on payback are actually pretty good when comparing the cost of heating with electricity and the system can only be used with a forced air HVAC unit.

                 

                Ralph Parrott

                 

                President of the

                http://www.txses.org/hreg

                 

                IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kevin conlin
                Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 11:03 AM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hreg] solar home heating in Houston

                 

                 

                Andrea, it’s been my experience that a solar water heater in Houston will provide almost 100% of your hot water needs from March thru November. The winter months are too cloudy, so the backup element has to be used.

                 

                If there isn’t enough sunshine to heat a tank of hot water, then there won’t be enough to heat your home.

                 

                The cost and complexity of a solar thermal home heating system would likely never be paid back.

                 

                Unfortunately the combination of a very short season combined with a very poor solar resource just doesn’t make it practical.

                 

                Maybe others have a different perspective or experience, and I’d like to hear more about solar thermal air conditioning as well.

                 

                Regards,  Kevin

                 

                Heliosolar Design, Inc.

                Kevin Conlin

                PH: 281-202-9629

                kevin@...

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hreg@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrea Wisner
                Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 10:09 AM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                 

                Thanks. I look forward to hearing more about the solar thermal option.

                 

                Also, why not solar thermal heating in the winter? I haven't looked into it much yet, but I think a simple DIY system of circulating heated water through a radiator should work. The Houston heating season may be short, but heat is not free.

                 

                Andrea

                --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...> wrote:


                From: Philip Timmons <philiptimmons@...>
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 8:39 PM

                Sure.  

                 

                I was thinking Tyra was due a real answer, and it started getting long, and have not gotten it finished. :)  

                So yes, we can go over that (Solar Thermal for Air Conditioning/Cooling/Refrigeration), as I would like like to find some folks for test sites.

                 

                 

                 


                --- On Mon, 3/28/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


                From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Monday, March 28, 2011, 11:37 AM

                 

                I'm interested in solar thermal for cooling. Could someone post more detail on that?

                 

                I'm thinking it may nto make financial sense not to implement solar thermal in my house.

                 

                BTW, for now, is anyone aware of an electric company that doesn't use tiered billing, i.e. that doesn't charge an extra fee for using under 1000 kwh/mo? I've posted this a couple times before with no response, but figure I could try again. "Power to choose" doesn't seem to address that issue in their search engine.

                 

                Andrea

                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin <tyra@...> wrote:


                From: Tyra Rankin <tyra@...>
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 10:40 PM

                 

                Philip:

                 

                Really interesting comments!

                 

                Solar Thermal – don’t know if you mean Concentrated Solar Thermal - CSP would definitely be my choice – and we if need back up or if the thermal storage does not quite cover full base load, then use gas.  Of course CSP is mostly used at utility scale.  If we want to get off the grid then any one of many solar technologies installed on homes, commercial buildings would work. 

                 

                Rice University has 2 spin off companies, one Solterra – both now public companies – operating in states other than Texas because Texas has no policy support for solar – both producing room temperature doped ink jet solar with higher efficiencies than most PV at lower cost. 

                 

                And – EVs – only 3 million EV users needed to reach the tipping point beyond which the combustion engine for automobiles will become obsolete within 10 years.  Oil prices plummet as demand collapses. 

                 

                Tyra

                 


                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Philip Timmons
                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 3:38 PM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                 

                Good discussion, so far.

                 

                Going down this in no particular order -- the math says we could run not only most of the grid load but also most of the ground transportation on Solar, alone.  If we wanted it Good, Fast, and Cheap, do it Solar Thermal from 100% US products.  Be the end of the Great Recession in one stroke -- but . . .  but . . .  but . . .  something(s) would have to die.  

                 

                Namely big Oil would die, as well as, much of the Internal Combustion Engine industry, along with a major restructuring of taxes (the .gov runs the Cash Register on the back end of the refineries / distribution pipelines).

                 

                But the real question for new nukes is --  who needs them anyway?  Only folks I see really push them are the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, Construction) Contractors who love the decade(s) long multi-bizillion dollar taxpayer funded boon-doggle that Nukes represent to them.   

                 

                As far as Air Conditioning loads -- the Peak of the Peak Load for the Texas Grid . . . . Solar Thermal on that, too.  Summer Heat cancelling out Summer Heat.  Do we really even want or need much electricity involved in that, anyway?   Sopogy and others have some designs we are prepping tests for.

                 

                But back to the big picture -- there is already SO Much surplus base load and flex generation from existing Coal, Nukes, and Gas that if we only went forward with renewables, we will still have surplus for decades.

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 

                 



                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...> wrote:


                From: Andrea Wisner <amwisner@...>
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 2:15 PM

                Getting rid of the grid sounds good to me.

                 

                I understand there is a strong contingent that still believes in nuclear power. It ignores what to me is the true issue, which is whether we should be using so much power in the first place. There is going to be a price to pay, no matter what kind of power it is. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. We're going to be using the earth's resources no matter what type of power, thus depleting those resouces. Even solar power requires that solar collectors be built.

                 

                Has anyone ever calculated what the best source of power is, considering use of resources and generation of waste? That is, best would be the source that uses minimal resources and generates minimal waste.

                 

                Again, conservation would help a lot to solve our problems in the US . I'm guessing consumption could be cut by a huge percentage, maybe a quarter, if people would set their ACs to no lower than 82 F. Who said it's necessary to be 100% comfortable? We are spoiled by what we have had. (For the record, I keep the AC at 85 and lower it only at night and when the air gets too humid to breate comfortably, and then just by a couple degrees.)

                 

                Andrea

                --- On Thu, 3/24/11, Tyra Rankin < tyra@... > wrote:


                From: Tyra Rankin < tyra@... >
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Thursday, March 24, 2011, 3:09 PM

                 

                I wonder why the choices offered are always nuclear or coal.  Have we forgotten about gas?  Gas emits carbon, but less than coal and it is a perfect partner for intermittent renewables due to its flexibility.  Gas is a hell of a better option than coal – or nuclear for my money – and speaking of money – it is low priced.  Gas also is abundant in the US , decreasing our reliance on foreign sources for energy.

                 

                I do not know why nuclear or coal is even on the table any longer, given the abundance of gas and renewables.

                 

                Tyra

                 


                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Scarsella, Thomas M. (JSC-IS4)[DB Consulting Group, Inc.]
                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 1:52 PM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                 

                 

                I’m not sure that’s helpful.  The nuclear industry we should be considering is not one using 50 year old designs.  Who among us goes out and buys an automobile designed in the 1960s?  There is a future for nuclear power but for the boiling water reactors used at Fukishima.   There are new designs that are orders of magnitude safer, produce a fraction of the waste, produce less hazardous waste, and do not generate Pu239.   In some of these designs a loss of power would shut the reactor down and allow a molten salt, which was used to transfer heat for power generation, to drain away leaving the whole reactor quite inert.  Some of these designs operate at fairly low temperatures and 1 atmosphere of pressure.   These are not your grandma’s nuclear plants.

                 

                If we’re going to take nuclear completely off the table we might as well discuss abandoning the electric grid all together.   The immediate reaction to no nukes in this country will be green lighting more coal fired power plants if there is a reaction at all.  I don’t believe we will attain 100% renewable power in the short term and a next generation of well-designed nuclear plants could certainly be useful.  We could do far worse than to make a trade from coal to nuclear -generated electricity from a FLi reactor grid.  This would be a good time to start pushing old nuclear and coal out of the energy picture.

                 

                Tom Scarsella

                Any opinions expressed herein are my own and not those of my employer.

                 

                From: hreg@yahoogroups.com [mailto: hreg@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of ralph parrott
                Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 11:09 AM
                To: hreg@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [hreg] Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy

                 

                 

                Survey: Americans Want National Focus On Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear

                in News Departments > New & Noteworthy

                by SI Staff on Wednesday 23 March 2011

                email the content itemprint the content item
                comments: 0


                The nuclear disaster in Japan has triggered a strong response among Americans, a majority of whom would freeze new nuclear power construction, stop additional federal loan guarantees for reactors, shift away from nuclear power and toward wind and solar power, and eliminate the indemnification of the nuclear power industry from most post-disaster clean up costs.

                These findings were uncovered by a new survey conducted by ORC International for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).

                Conducted March 15-16, the national opinion survey of 814 Americans also found the following:

                Over half (53%) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off-the-shelf renewable techn ologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term."

                A total of 73% of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees." Additionally, 74% of Americans would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power.

                Over three out of four (76%) Americans say they are now "more supportive than … a month ago to using clean renewable energy resources - such as wind and solar - and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  In fact, nearly half (46%) of all Americans now say they are now "much more supportive" of relying on more clean energy and energy efficiency than they were a month ago.

                "The Japanese crisis is an op portunity for America to make smarter choices about energy, and that process should start with a recognition that the problems with nuclear power cannot simply be ignored in the wake of the tragedy at Fukushima ," says Pam Solo, founder and president of CSI.

                SOURCE: Civil Society Institute


                 

                Ralph Parrott

                President

                Alternative Power Solutions

                8181 Commerce Park #700

                Houston, Texas   77036

                O. 713-595-6375

                F. 713-595-6382

                C. 281-455-9083

                 

                www.apowersolutions.com

                aps_logo_final

                 

                President of the

                http://www.txses.org/hreg

                 

                IMPORTANT NOTICE: This transmission (including all attached pages) is intended only for the use of the named address(es), and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not a named addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distributing or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please destroy all copies and notify us immediately at this telephone number: (713) 595-6375. Thank you!

                 

                 

                 

              • Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.