Massive solar project in Tennessee is all about Google A massive solar project is giving the Tennessee Valley Authority - and Google - a big boost of renewable energy. Skyhawk Solar, a joint project between the TVA, Origis Energy and Excelsior Energy Capital, has begun construction in northwest Tennessee, and by the time it's done late this year, it will span 700 acres and …
"Origis also said that Skyhawk will save 100,500 kilograms of carbon emissions over coal power." Per second? Per year? Oh, "estimated over the life of the project" ? How long is that?
PR announcements are exceeded in missing facts only by software project plans!
Parallel BTW: Later, halfway through the project, they'll ask you to reinstall the panels vertically. "It's just a simple change!"
This -> 100.5 tonnes is f-all.
And obviously wrong since 100T of carbon is ~10 truckloads of coal - not exactly going to run a power station for a year is it?
I roughly calculate that 100MW @4hrs/day average = 105,195 tonnes CO2/year for coal fired power.
At 2 years for construction energy and 25 year lifetime to 50% output, that's 1.8MT CO2
This post has been deleted by its author
The average human exhales around 250kg a year, so this is barely enough to offset AlphaGoo's staff emissions.
But it's your basic greenwash. Tax breaks and subsidies to build the subsidy farm, PR for going green to please the ESG mob. Can probably be positively spun to explain the lack of millions of green jobs created. Oh, and ignore what'll happen when it gets dark.
Congrats Jellied Eel, you've managed to cram in several specious arguments in quite a short post.
And congratulations to you. You've managed to add nothing to the debate, or elucidate on the points I made that you disagree with. Or perhaps you're trying to tell me you don't exhale CO2, and AlphaGoo is honest and virtuous..
https://xkcd.com/386/
Great to see that they're constructing such a large solar farm. However, usual energy industry BS in the report from the US Energy Industry Administration:
>> Between 2015 and April 2021, the US Energy Information Administration said 53 percent of the power generated by the TVA came from renewables. Most of that comes from nuclear power, which accounts for 48 percent of the TVA's generation
Nuclear is *not* renewable - nuclear fuel is used in a fission reaction, creating large amounts of (radioactive) pollution that will persist for many thousands of years. So in actual fact, at most 5% of the energy generated by the TVA came from renewables.
Nuclear is *not* renewable
Sure it is. Do a little research into breeder reactors and how to optimise your fuel cycle. Nuclear alchemy is FUN!
creating large amounts of (radioactive) pollution that will persist for many thousands of years
Extracting resources to turn into windmills and solar panels probably produces far more radioactive pollution. Just look at the amount of Thorium sitting in spoil heaps after other metals and minerals were extracted. Of course with the right kind of reactor, that's fuel, not waste.
Oh, and of course you trot out the stock meme to demonstrate ignorance of radioactivity. It's the short lived stuff that tends to be the most dangerous. Things that give off radiation for thousands of years tend to be mostly harmless, like granite counter tops. You should really go read up on what half-life actually means..
It's the short lived stuff that tends to be the most dangerous.
Define dangerous… if that were the case, then we wouldn't need to worry about long term storage for the hot concrete coffins that are dotted all over the place.
While you can increase the efficiency of nuclear power plants, they really are not renewable by any standard defintion. They are low carbon, if you ignore all the resources that go into making the power plants.
There are problems associated with resources required to make wind and solar farms but over their lifetime they have a generally positive balance and have seen far greater improvements in yield and efficiency over the last 20 years than nuclear has in the last 70. But storage remains a problem.
Define dangerous…
For external use only (except nuclear medicines), keep out of reach of small children and politicians. But basically much less dangerous than say, a Tesla. Or even a windmill. But danger can be extremely overrated by neo-luddites in the anti-nuclear industry. So it would be safe to juggle a couple of lumps of plutonium. You would be far more likely to die from lead poisoning attempting that than you would from radiation. A simple face mask and gloves would offer you more protection against plutonium than they would against Covid.
But the danger's pretty well defined-
Half-life (symbol t1⁄2) is the time required for a quantity to reduce to half of its initial value. The term is commonly used in nuclear physics to describe how quickly unstable atoms undergo radioactive decay or how long stable atoms survive.
and..
Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity, radioactive disintegration, or nuclear disintegration) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by radiation. A material containing unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Three of the most common types of decay are alpha decay (α-decay), beta decay (β-decay), and gamma decay (γ-decay), all of which involve emitting one or more particles.
Which then gets spun by Russian-backed propagandists like Greenpeace et al to help flog windmills, and force Westerners into energy poverty. Oh for countries other than say, India to sanction Greenpeace. But I digress. Something with a half-life of thousands of years is going to be less radioactive than say, the wrong kind of lead, like 178Pb, even though lead usually makes good radiation shielding. Unless you're looking to avoid Russian sanctions and making titanium from lead.
And then there's the type of radiation emitted, and energy level. So the good'ol alpha/beta/gamma etc, some of which is trivial to block, ie it won't penetrate clothing or skin. Hence why it's safe(ish) to juggle plutonium, especially if you pay careful attention to the total mass, which can be critical to delivering a safe performance.
And then there's the biological stuff, ie what happens when we're exposed to radiation. Which we are all the time, thanks to the collosal nuclear fireballs in the sky. A lot of that danger estimation has been theoretical given we generally don't want to expose people to radiation unnecessarily and has frequently been revised downwards following accidental exposure. But that provides 'safe' exposure levels based on type, energy and exposure time.
then we wouldn't need to worry about long term storage for the hot concrete coffins that are dotted all over the place.
Pro-tip. Don't worry. There's a YT channel by Kyle Hill who covers a lot of the reasons why. Vitrify high-level waste, stick it into a suitable canister, stick that into a hole in the ground and cover it with concrete. Can even use additives in that concrete if you're especially cautious.
But this is also where neo-luddites like Greenpeace actually increase the dangers of radiation by blocking any attempt to store radioactive waste securely, long term. So it's often left laying around nuclear sites whilst lobbyists try to prevent it's safe disposal.
Greens are the danger, not radiation.
There are problems associated with resources required to make wind and solar farms but over their lifetime they have a generally positive balance and have seen far greater improvements in yield and efficiency over the last 20 years than nuclear has in the last 70
Err.. right. So-
On 12 December 1942, CP-1's power output was increased to 200 W, enough to power a light bulb.
And Hinkley/Sizewell will hopefully get Nx 1.2GW-ish reactors. Meanwhile, pre-industrial technology like windmills have grown from a few hundred Watts to a few Megawatts, mainly as they've increased in size and cost. And can't power a single lightbulb when there's no wind. In fact they'll drain power in that state because windmills need energy to run anti-brinelling motors to avoid flat spots on bearings & shafts. Or heating elements to stop ice buildup on blades.
It's rather ironic that when we get a winter version of our recent heat wave, ie extended blocking high and no wind, windmills end up consuming a lot of energy, and produce none. So they're exactly the worst solution to the 'climate crisis' because they're the most vulnerable to the vagueries of weather.
And if anyone's still reading. The most obvious fallacy around 'renewables' is that it's cheap. Ever since we've started investing in these scum sucking parasitic loads, our electricity bills have increased massively. But such is politics.
Some of the dams built 50 odd years ago make less sense now.
They still kinda make sense. Problem is situations like Lake Mead and the Hoover Dam. Designed to supply water & power to California, Nevada etc, but thanks to useless politicians, haven't been scaled up to meet increasing demands. Especially when combined with sheer genius moves, like growing soft fruits, salad veg and almonds in a desert.
UK's problem is geography, and where we'd put any new dams and hydro facilities. But for geo-engineering, 'renewables' may actually provide a partial solution. The massive windmills are pretty useless for power generation, but the towers could be recycled, filled with concrete and used as piles in other construction projects with greater economic benefits.
If it wasn't for the UN and their dislike of artificial nations, off-shore windfarms could still be useful. Keep the piles, fill the gaps with gabions, construct a stable surface, and voila, new land!
Nuclear is as renewable as solar as both harvest power from nuclear reactions (fission vs fusion)
As for the pollution of nuclear, it's a piffle compared to the single greatest source of radioactive waste: coal
All coal contains fissile materials, which is why coal country is also the land of radon gas, a breakdown product of uranium and thorium. Various studies have shown that if you could harvest all the uranium, plutonium and thorium in coal, nuclear reactors would produce as much power as you would get from the coal plant. (i.e. the coal to provide 100MW/yr contains enough fissile materials to produce 100MW-yr)
The net result is that all coal power plants produce far more nuclear waste than any nuclear power plant. If the radiation monitors that are installed downwind of nuclear plants were installed downwind of coal plants, they would constantly register elevated radiation levels. All that nuclear waste is "contained" in the coal fly ash. A substance which is known to be toxic due to the heavy metal content (including fissiles).
If you are fine with coal ash waste, the solution to nuclear is simple: build a wood fire power plant next door to the nuclear plant and then blend the spent nuclear fuel with the wood ash until you have something with the same toxicity/radioactivity as coal ash.
No problem. If the sun starts showing a bit of wear, we'll just send it a few subsidies so it can buy some more Hydrogen,
Actually, our current theories of stellar evolution -- which might well be correct -- say the sun is very slowly getting brighter and will continue to do so until it runs out of Hydrogen in about 5 billion years at which point there will be a rather eventful eon or two while the core collapses and various alternate nuclear reactions sputter. Eventually it'll become a red giant, then then a white dwarf. If intelligent life has evolved by then, they may want to consider leaving.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
