Sign up | Login with →

Comments by Daniel Rirdan Subscribe

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

Willem, that has not been my meaning.

Within the context of my plan, cost is irrelevant because (1) none of those plans have a snowball's chance in hell of materializing under our existing economic setup--whether they cost 50 billion dollars or 500 billion dollars. (2) I propose an entirely different economic setup, which is conducive of getting us out of the mess we have dug ourselves into, where the only thing that matters is the actual labor and raw materials involved. 

Yet, I assume that in this forum no one has a great interest to hear about either of those two points.

July 11, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

I would be happy to provide some of the figures. And in truth most, if not all are available and displayed in my book. In any rate, let me do it in a few days.

However, let me say something about cost: in the unique context of the broader plan I propose in my book, cost is not a factor--only its underlying fundamentals, which is to say, the amounts of raw material and the labor hours involved.

And no, I am afraid the party cannot and should not continue. We need to change our consumption habits, even if I did assume the consumption of over 10,000 TWh annually for USA and southern Canada. However, all of these points are beyond the scope of my paper here and probably would be of no great interest in this forum.

 

regards,

 

Daniel

July 10, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

yes, I stand corrected about the 24/7./65. Thank you.

 

It is apple and oranges. My moduled plants produce far more power than indicated. But many times it is more than acontinental grid of needs in a given hour. Think about it for a second... We have to have overcapacity in the summer if we want to provide for all our winter needs.

 

July 8, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

I do account for the fact that the salt cannot stay in the pipes and storage unit more than a few days. It was incorporated into the model.

 

In any rate, it does sound reasonable to have a secondary source of power--for the reasons you listed. I concur on that one.   :)

July 8, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

But my numbers do have a support--and far more in depth that the back-of-the-napkin calculation you have made here. And it is not 65 hourly points, but 8,760 points for five separate locations (43,800 data points in all).Tthe number 65 refers to the number of different weather parameters that went into it. Incidentally, you reckon 4,000 TWh. I don't. I reckon 10,000 TWh for a future, thoroughly electrified transportation and industrial sector.

 

Once again, we can do far better than just using solar power towers. The introduction of wind farms in tandem with underground storage caverns can trim the land footprint by about half. I just was not interested to get into it in this one post.

July 8, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

well, Robert, you are not off the mark about superconducting insallations. See below the ironic quote from my book:

 

Our claim to fame is a measly 660-meter long superconducting AC cable at the Holbrook substation in Long Island, New York, which has been in service since 2008. In addition to the 660 meters we already have, we will need 182,000,000 meters of superconducting cable for North America.

 

July 6, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

I can't decide if we are in full agreement on the issue of cables or not. I also maintain that cables are the way to go--and for the reasons you listed.

 

I interviewed the people who work on the superconducting, I read their peer reviewed articles, and the consensus among them is that we do not need any breakthrough. It can be done. I examined HVDC and found it to be inferior. In fact the chief engineer of ABB told me as much; he is the one who brought high temp superconducting to my attention in the first place...

 

Daniel Rirdan

July 6, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

I beg to differ on all counts--but mostly because you make some assumptions about my broader plan that off the mark.

In all fairness, you need to see the other pieces of the broad energy scheme before reaching conclusions. This is always a problem when presenting a slice of a plan.

 

for one, I call for transcontinental grid of superconducting cables and for hydrogen stored in our existing salt caverns and depleted natural gas fields. I worked out their total capacity...

 

cheers,

Daniel

July 6, 2012    View Comment    

On 24/7/365 Power for North America from Solar Towers

we have, for a fact, hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of degraded land, currently dedicated for ethanol production and for cattle feed. Neither are needed, as I demonstrate elsewhere. Both type of lands can be used for the above scheme.

Let's keep in mind that we can trim, as I wrote, the land footprint way down with the introduction of other technologies. But I was just trying to make a point...

July 6, 2012    View Comment    

On The Right Carbon Concentration Target

Thank you, Ron.  I have spent an entire chapter in my recent book on various technologies that will allow us to draw massive amounts of carbon from the air. My conclusions have been that to draw, what i concluded is the needed 30 billion tons of CO2 a year, only one technology has the potential to scale: direct air carbon capture machines. Well, 8 millions of them. The rest, such as biochar are more of sidekicks--at least until we can slow down the rate of capture. I worked out the numbers and....well, I don't see any other way. --Daniel

 

July 4, 2012    View Comment