PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Solar interview in Cali! wish me luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Solar interview in Cali! wish me luck Best of luck You passion is one hell of an asset Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Best of luck You passion is one hell of an asset Terry Thanks Terry!! It went phenomenally well, I'm very confident I got the job. I'm looking forward in 4 weeks to joining the REC Solar team in Sunnyvale, CA! 2 weeks of testing, background check etc and 2 week notice for my current employer, very excited to say the least. I hope you are feeling better, we need people like you to help the green movement. Please keep fighting this aweful battle. BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I just wanted to say I got the Job!! I'm so incredibly excited. Finally finally finally I can start making the change I have been wanted to make for a while now! This is a huge step for me and now I can official say I will be apart of the green team! woooo thankyou REC Solar. Well San Francisco-San Jose, you are now my home. I start March 18th, and now my job for the 2 weeks notice is going to feel like senior itis lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I just wanted to say I got the Job!! I'm so incredibly excited. Finally finally finally I can start making the change I have been wanted to make for a while now! This is a huge step for me and now I can official say I will be apart of the green team! woooo thankyou REC Solar. Well San Francisco-San Jose, you are now my home. I start March 18th, and now my job for the 2 weeks notice is going to feel like senior itis lol. Congratulations! Can you tell us what sort of projects you'll be working on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Congrats Potter They made the right decision. Terry BTW California is a wonderful place to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 Congratulations! Can you tell us what sort of projects you'll be working on? I'm not quite sure what they have planned yet, but will let you know when I find out. I know this company is mainly residential, but they do some commerical installing as well I think. I will be helping with the planning and layout for the installation of the solar arrays, but will also be apart of the install team. Congrats Potter They made the right decision. Terry BTW California is a wonderful place to live. They will not regret the decision! I'm extremely driven and passionate. They asked why I wanted the job, and if I thought it was a good career choice. I told them this is more than a career for me, this is a way of life! and they smiled. Told them monetary reward isn't the sole motivator for me, as going green and zero emissions for the world is my primary life goal. I meant everything I said too. Renewable is the future and I'm glad I am now apart of it. Go Green Go! I love California as well. It fits my personality to a T. I'm politically liberal, environmentally conscious, love the outdoors and culture. Now all I need is a passionate women and I will be happy as a clam! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailMan06 Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 I just wanted to say I got the Job!! I'm so incredibly excited. Finally finally finally I can start making the change I have been wanted to make for a while now! This is a huge step for me and now I can official say I will be apart of the green team! woooo thankyou REC Solar. Well San Francisco-San Jose, you are now my home. start March 18th, and now my job for the 2 weeks notice is going to feel like senior itis lol.Congrats on your new job Potter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Congrats on your new job Potter! Thanks HailMan! I can't wait to start! I put in my 2 weeks in and my current company said don't bother working and to use up my vacation time, so I'm going to make an early trip out to California in the mean time, I plan on making a sight seeing trip through the Grand Canyon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted March 26, 2013 Author Share Posted March 26, 2013 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320095421.htm A Milestone for New Carbon-Dioxide Capture/Clean Coal TechnologyMar. 20, 2013 — An innovative new process that releases the energy in coal without burning -- while capturing carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas -- has passed a milestone on the route to possible commercial use, scientists are reporting. Their study in the ACS journal Energy & Fuels describes results of a successful 200-hour test on a sub-pilot scale version of the technology using two inexpensive but highly polluting forms of coal. Liang-Shih Fan and colleagues explain that carbon capture and sequestration ranks high among the approaches for reducing coal-related emissions of the carbon dioxide linked to global warming. This approach involves separating and collecting carbon dioxide before it leaves smokestacks. Fan's team has been working for more than a decade on two versions of carbon capture termed Syngas Chemical Looping (SCL) and Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). They involve oxidizing coal, syngas or natural gas in a sealed chamber in the absence of the atmospheric oxygen involved in conventional burning. Metal compounds containing oxygen are in the chamber. They provide the oxygen for oxidation, take up coal's energy, release it as heat in a second chamber and circulate back for another run in the first chamber. Their report describes the longest continuous operation of the CDCL test system. It operated successfully for 200 hours without an involuntary shutdown. The system used sub-bituminous and lignite coals, which are the main source of carbon dioxide emissions at U.S. coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide captured during operation had a purity of 99.5 percent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I haven't posted here in a while, but blizzard, you are a bit off on the statement that wind farms chop up large numbers of migrating birds "especially raptors". This is in fact not the case. The area that kills the largest number of raptors by a huge margin is Altamont Pass in CA. That area is composed of numerous older turbines (including lattice turbines) and is an area raptors use for forgaing. Thus the reason for the large numbers of raptor takes. These are resident raptors being killed. Migrating raptors are honestly at very little risk. In the east (including the spine of the Aps where nearly all eastern raptors funnel for their migration) the raptor take numbers are much lower. The main concern in the east are the large number of tree bats that are being killed by turbines with passerines next in line. In fact, the numbers of raptors being taken at PA projects for instance are so low that the Game Commission is proposing to no longer require pre construction raptor surveys as the numbers being seen during those surveys do not equate to high levels of take at operating projects. To date, not a single bald or golden eagle take has be found at an operating eastern US wind farm while in the west (in places like Altamont) eagles take has been documented numerous times. Moral of the story, everywhere is different and using NIMBY data to state there is a problem everywhere is disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320095421.htm A Milestone for New Carbon-Dioxide Capture/Clean Coal TechnologyMar. 20, 2013 — An innovative new process that releases the energy in coal without burning -- while capturing carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas -- has passed a milestone on the route to possible commercial use, scientists are reporting. Their study in the ACS journal Energy & Fuels describes results of a successful 200-hour test on a sub-pilot scale version of the technology using two inexpensive but highly polluting forms of coal. Liang-Shih Fan and colleagues explain that carbon capture and sequestration ranks high among the approaches for reducing coal-related emissions of the carbon dioxide linked to global warming. This approach involves separating and collecting carbon dioxide before it leaves smokestacks. Fan's team has been working for more than a decade on two versions of carbon capture termed Syngas Chemical Looping (SCL) and Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL). They involve oxidizing coal, syngas or natural gas in a sealed chamber in the absence of the atmospheric oxygen involved in conventional burning. Metal compounds containing oxygen are in the chamber. They provide the oxygen for oxidation, take up coal's energy, release it as heat in a second chamber and circulate back for another run in the first chamber. Their report describes the longest continuous operation of the CDCL test system. It operated successfully for 200 hours without an involuntary shutdown. The system used sub-bituminous and lignite coals, which are the main source of carbon dioxide emissions at U.S. coal-fired power plants. Carbon dioxide captured during operation had a purity of 99.5 percent. Had dinner with one of the lead engineers at Babcock Wilcox last evening & he was explaining the problems they're having selling the system. It totally removes NOx as a combustion produce, but the coal has to be purified to remove metallic contaminants. The costs of separating oxygen, then compressing the CO2 for sequestration are the drawbacks & lower the efficiency considerably. So far they've had no takers. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted July 24, 2013 Share Posted July 24, 2013 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es3051197 ■ INTRODUCTION It has become increasingly clear that impacts of unchecked anthropogenic climate change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from burning of fossil fuels could be catastrophic for both human society and natural ecosystems (in ref 1, see Figures SPM.2 and 4.4) and that the key time frame for mitigating the climate crisis is the next decade or so.2,3 Likewise, during the past decade, outdoor air pollution due largely to fossil fuel burning is estimated to have caused over 1 million deaths annually worldwide.4 Nuclear energy (and other low-carbon/carbon-free energy sources) could help to mitigate and the five countries with the highest annual CO2 emissions in the last several years. In order, these top five CO2 emitters are China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan, accounting for 56% of global emissions from 2009 to 2011.11 To estimate historically prevented deaths and GHG emissions, we start with data for global annual electricity generation by energy source from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 1). We then apply mortality and GHG emissions factors, defined respectively as deaths and emissions per unit electric energy generated, for relevant electricity sources (Table 1). For the projection period 2010− 2050, we base our estimates on recent (post-Fukushima) nuclear power trajectories given by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).6 ABSTRACT: In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420 000−7.04 million deaths and 80−240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Don't build on fault lines and its a no-brain source or power. Are we beginning to run out of the required nuclear materials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 i'm fine with nuclear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/better-cladding-for-nuclear-reactors-0726.html Improved nuclear fuel-rod cladding might prevent future Fukushimas A substitute for traditional zircaloy could greatly reduce the danger of hydrogen explosions. Build out nuclear worldwide to 100% power needs, electrify transit, heating, cooling.... Game over on fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 Build out nuclear worldwide to 100% power needs, electrify transit, heating, cooling.... Game over on fossil fuels. If nuclear were just competing with fossil fuels, you'd have a point. But wind power is already cheaper than nuclear and solar will be as well as costs continue to go down. Fission is a non-starter because of cost. Maybe fusion some day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 If nuclear were just competing with fossil fuels, you'd have a point. But wind power is already cheaper than nuclear and solar will be as well as costs continue to go down. Fission is a non-starter because of cost. Maybe fusion some day... The cost of building new nuclear plants combined with the fear of the older technology plants in service now pretty much make it a non-starter anytime soon. Germany is replacing their aging nuclear plants with cheap and dirty coal. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-28/merkel-s-green-shift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html Germany’s air pollution is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal. The nation, which is seeking to lead European climate-protection efforts, probably will produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions in 2013 on top of a 1.5 percent gain last year, according to the DIW economic institute, which acts as an adviser to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted July 29, 2013 Share Posted July 29, 2013 The cost of building new nuclear plants combined with the fear of the older technology plants in service now pretty much make it a non-starter anytime soon. Germany is replacing their aging nuclear plants with cheap and dirty coal. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-28/merkel-s-green-shift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html Germany’s air pollution is set to worsen for a second year, the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal. The nation, which is seeking to lead European climate-protection efforts, probably will produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions in 2013 on top of a 1.5 percent gain last year, according to the DIW economic institute, which acts as an adviser to the government. Isn't Germany installing big wind-farms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluewave Posted July 30, 2013 Share Posted July 30, 2013 Isn't Germany installing big wind-farms? They have made it to almost 10% on wind, but coal is grabbing share as the nuclear plants get phased out. 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted July 30, 2013 Author Share Posted July 30, 2013 Don't build on fault lines and its a no-brain source or power. Are we beginning to run out of the required nuclear materials? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/cars/vw-xl1-worlds-most-efficient-production-car-debuts-us-261-mpg/page/5/#slide-top VW XL1: The world's most efficient 'production' car debuts in the U.S. (261 MPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 http://www.treehugger.com/slideshows/cars/vw-xl1-worlds-most-efficient-production-car-debuts-us-261-mpg/page/5/#slide-top VW XL1: The world's most efficient 'production' car debuts in the U.S. (261 MPG) Interesting. I wonder if it will be sold here in the US or if it will be Europe only. It reminds me a lot of a Series 1 Honda Insight. But about ten years more advanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 HUGE breakthrough. This issue might be gone soon. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24429621 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 FWIW just seen an article that says US carbon emissions dropped 3.8 percent in 2012 bringing us to the lowest level since 1994. But we all know that doesn't mean much until other countries do as well but it's a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Interesting youtube video about risk/reward ratios regarding renewable energies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 Interesting youtube video about risk/reward ratios regarding renewable energies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ That's an interesting video - thanks for posting it. It's essentially an illustration of the Precautionary Principle as applied to combating AGW. We all apply this sort of analysis and decision making daily (though on a more informal basis) on such things as wearing seal belts while driving, texting while driving, or buying home/car/life insurance. We don't wear seat belts because they're comfortable or because we expect to have a collision - we wear them because the consequences of not having a seat belt on in the unlikely event of a collision are greater than any inconvenience. It's really just common sense and 'reckless' is the kindest description for those people who ignore it. The Precautionary Principle has been discussed in the context of climate change at least since Hansen's 1988 testimony to Congress. The Stern report was an analytical attempt to bound the potential costs of AGW. Typically denialists and pseudo-skeptics have two responses to the Precautionary Principle: (a) Nope, nope, nope - the Precautionary Principle doesn't apply to policy making for combating AGW because they don't like the results. (b ) Juggle the numbers to make it appear that the potential negative outcomes from the two decision paths are comparable. We see a lot of this taking place today with pieces claiming that the worst case climate change wouldn't be so bad, or that AGW actually has a net benefit, or that extreme events (droughts, wildfires, floods, storms, etc) can't be influenced by, or attributed to, AGW so their costs don't matter. The state of North Carolina even passed a law that the reality of today's sea-level rise can't be used of policy making - only century old data is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 Nuke Power getting some media coverage. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html?sr=fb110313nuclear8p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted November 5, 2013 Author Share Posted November 5, 2013 Nuke Power getting some media coverage. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html?sr=fb110313nuclear8p I don't see why people would be against nuclear today's facility's are much safer then in the past and will only continue to be as time goes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I don't see why people would be against nuclear today's facility's are much safer then in the past and will only continue to be as time goes on. You could just build a couple hundred plants and gradually decommission the old ones as they are replaced with wind/solar/hydro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.