Click here to read this mailing online.
"Next Big Future" - 9 new articles
Spent Fuel Cooling Pools Should not be a problemSome news sources and internet sources(Christian Science Monitor) are trying to make an issue of spent fuel cooling pools now that the Japanese reactors are on the way to cold shutdown.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Status of the Japanese reactorsThe status of the Japanese reactorsIf you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Current Japan Earthquake damage costs range from 35 to 171 billionJapan's earthquake damage costs are ranging from $35 billion to $171 billionestimates from different companies saying the losses could be about a $171 billion in total in the earthquake zone alone. That's not just for the clean up, but the economic losses too. Other people saying, probably much lower -- about $35 billion. But that would still make it one of the most expensive disasters ever. Second only, in fact, when you take inflation into account, to Hurricane Katrina. Here are some more photos of the damage of the earthquake in Japan. The Largest Earthquakes Wikipedia lists of earthquakes by magnitude Rank Date Location Name Magnitude 1 May 22, 1960 Valdivia, Chile 1960 Valdivia earthquake 9.5 2 Mar 27, 1964 Prince William Sound,Alaska, USA 1964 Alaska earthquake 9.2 3 Dec 26, 2004 Sumatra, Indonesia 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake 9.1 4 Nov 4, 1952 Kamchatka, Russia 1952 Kamchatka earthquakes 9.0 5 Mar 11, 2011 Sendai, Japan 2011 Sendai earthquake 9.0 6 Nov 25, 1833 Sumatra, Indonesia 1833 Sumatra earthquake 8.8–9.2 (est.) Jan 31, 1906 Ecuador – Colombia 1906 Ecuador-Colombia earthquake 8.8 Feb 27, 2010 Maule, Chile 2010 Chile earthquake 8.8 9 Jan 26, 1700 Pacific Ocean, USA/Canada 1700 Cascadia earthquake 8.7–9.2 (est.) July 8, 1730 Valparaiso, Chile 1730 Valparaiso earthquake 8.7–9.0 (est.) Nov 1, 1755 Lisbon, Portugal 1755 Lisbon earthquake 9.0 (est.) Feb 4, 1965 Rat Islands, Alaska 1965 Rat Islands earthquake 8.7 13 Aug 15, 1950 Assam, India, China 1950 Medog earthquake 8.6 Mar 9, 1957 Andreanof Islands,Al 1957 Andreanof Islands earthquake 8.6 Mar 28, 2005 Sumatra, Indonesia 2005 Sumatra earthquake 8.6 If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks What happened at Fukushima and the Levels of Containment of a Boiler Water ReactorBrave New Climate has a description of what happened at FukushimaThe earthquake that hit Japan was 7 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9 that happened is 7 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese engineering, everything held up. When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called “Defense of Depth”. That means that you first build everything to withstand the worst catastrophe you can imagine, and then design the plant in such a way that it can still handle one system failure (that you thought could never happen) after the other. A tsunami taking out all backup power in one swift strike is such a scenario. The last line of defense is putting everything into the third containment (see above), that will keep everything, whatever the mess, control rods in our out, core molten or not, inside the reactor. Further Reading More technical information on Fukushima at Brave New Climate March 14 updates If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Radiation and risksGoatguy adjusted the scale of the EPA radiation chart. Original chart is below.EPA radiation facts The average person in the United States receives about 360 mrem every year whole body equivalent dose At low doses, such as what we receive every day from background radiation, the cells repair the damage rapidly. At higher doses (up to 100 rem), the cells might not be able to repair the damage, and the cells may either be changed permanently or die. At even higher doses, the cells cannot be replaced fast enough and tissues fail to function. An example of this would be "radiation sickness." This is a condition that results after high doses to the whole body (over 100 rem), where the intestinal lining is damaged to the point that it cannot perform its functions of intake of water and nutrients, and protecting the body against infection. This leads to nausea, diarrhea and general weakness. With higher whole body doses (over 300 rem), the body's immune system is damaged and cannot fight off infection and disease. At whole body doses near 400 rem, if no medical attention is given, about 50% of the people are expected to die within 60 days of the exposure, due mostly from infections. Health Risk Est. life expectancy lost Smoking 20 cigs a day 6 years Overweight (15%) 2 years Alcohol (US Ave) 1 year All Accidents 207 days All Natural Hazards 7 days Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr) 15 days Occupational dose (1 rem/yr) 51 daysYou can also use the same approach to looking at risks on the job: Industry type Est. life expectancy lost All Industries 60 days Agriculture 320 days Construction 227 days Mining and quarrying 167 days Manufacturing 40 days Occupational dose (300 mrem/yr) 15 days Occupational dose (1 rem/yr) 51 days Sievert metric radiation unit at wikipedia * 1 Sv (Sievert) = 100 rem * 1 mSv = 100 mrem = 0.1 rem * 1 μSv = 0.1 mrem * 1 rem = 0.01 Sv = 10 mSv * 1 mrem = 0.00001 Sv = 0.01 mSv = 10 μSv Counts per minute at wikipedia * One becquerel (Bq) is equal to one disintegration per second, or 60 dpm. * One curie (Ci) is equal to 3.7 x 10 10 Bq or dps, which is equal to 2.22 x 10^12 dpm. The becquerel (symbol Bq) is the SI-derived unit of radioactivity. One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second. The curie (Ci) is an older, non-SI unit of radioactivity equal to the activity of 1 gram of radium-226. The conversion factors are: 1 Ci = 3.7×1010 Bq 1 Ci = 37 GBq 1 μCi = 37,000 Bq 1 Bq = 2.70×10−11 Ci 1 Bq = 2.70×10−5 μCi 1 GBq = 0.0270 Ci The original EPA chart Radiation health effects If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Other energy issues and nuclear power over reactions5 oil refineries in Japan are shutdown and two of them are on fire.
Less than a year ago, a drilling rig exploded off the coast of the United States, killing 11 workers and pouring 4 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. No natural disaster caused this tragedy. It was entirely man-made. President Obama halted deep-water drilling but lifted the moratorium less than six months later. On Friday, while fielding questions about Japan's nuclear reactors, he proudly noted that his administration, under new, stricter rules, had "approved more than 35 new offshore drilling permits." Fossil fuel deaths from 1969 to 2000 This is a count of the accidents and not the air pollution deaths or deaths from other pollution caused by fossil fuels Jerome a Paris is a wind farm investor Here are a few of his non-obvious facts about the incidents of the past few days: * earthquake kills people, nuke power plants don't kill people. Despite being hit by a very large natural event, damage seems limited to the nuclear plants themselves, with no real material consequences outside the plants. Even with an accumulation of adverse events (earthquake + tsunami), the overall safety design seems to have, ultimately, functioned; If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Researcher Hod Lipson discusses adaptive robotsIn an interview with Sander Olson, Cornell engineer and researcher Hod Lipson discusses adaptive, evolving robots. Lipson's robots compete and learn, and acquire new skills in movement. Lipson uses simulators to co-evolve both simulators and robots. Lipson's has already demonstrated a robot that can compensate for losing a limb by modifying its movement.
Hod Lipson Question: You have recently created a "robotic scientist". What do you mean by that?
Answer: The robotic scientist is a program that can discern the mathematical laws behind the data and derive an hypothesis. This machine isn't really a robot, it is more of an algorithm, and its effectiveness is determined by the quality of the data and the amount of computing power used. It is essentially a data mining tool for scientists, and it should accelerate scientific discovery.
Question: How does the automated scientist work?
Answer: The machine tries to find invariants in the data, and those invariants are key to finding the underlying physics. we are confident that it can substantially speed up the pace of scientific research in many fields.
Question: Your robots learn by evolutionary techniques. How do they accomplish this? Answer: The vast majority of robots today operate by programming rather than by learnt behavior. Self-modeling robotics involves having a robot internally create models of its operation based on its experience, and compare the efficacy of those models. We have already demonstrated a legged robot that can compensate for losing a limb by altering its movements. Question: How quickly can your evolvable robots adapt their behavior? Answer: The robots we demonstrated took a few days to generate their self-model. In general, it depends largely on how fast their CPUs are and how complex the experiences to be modeled are. Given the combination of faster machines and increasingly efficient algorithms, robots should be able to able to adapt to their surroundings and circumstances even faster in the future.
Question: Your research lab at Cornell has done has created printable ornithopters. What can these insectoid robots do?
Answer: We have created usable ornithopters using 3-d printing techniques. We recently published a paper that describes these printed ornithopters. The main advantage of crafting these devices from 3-d printing techniques is that we can quickly construct and analyze a wide variety of performance parameters in order to determine optimal design. These ornithopters currently can stay up for 80 seconds. These ornithopters are powered by lithium-polymer batteries, and we hope to have them fly for several minutes within a few years.
Question: You have also discussed "evolving simulators". What do you mean by that? Answer: Much of the exploratory evolution of our machines occurs in a simulator, sometimes through hundreds of iterations. But the simulators themselves aren't completely accurate, so we need the simulators themselves to improve. As these simulators evolve they become increasingly accurate and specific, able to predict machine behavior with increasing accuracy. Question: Do your robot learning algorithms reach a point of diminishing returns? Answer: The learning rate for the machines asymptotically slows down after a while. But there is much that can be done to improve the algorithms, and that is what our lab is focusing on with our research. Question: Is Cornell engaging in any pure AI research? Answer: Yes, Cornell has active AI programs underway. The AI researchers at Cornell are working on both robotics and non-robotics applications. Question: What is the first commercial application you see for your robots? Answer: Within the next several years, we could see commercial applications emerge that use our learning algorithms - mostly in the area of fault tolerance. Question: Your are an expert in the nascent field of 3-d printing. How does this work? Answer: The technology for 3-d printing has actually been around for a while. The scheme involves using an inkjet printer to deposit layer after layer of a material to create 3-d objects. This technique can be used to construct a wide variety of structural shapes. Non-structural components, such as batteries, wires, and motors, are considerably more difficult. That is where we are focusing our research. Question: How much progress do you anticipate in the field of robotics in the next decade? Answer: The fields of robotics and 3-d printing are both embryonic, but are experiencing exponential growth. This progress should continue for the next decade, leading both to a plethora of consumer products and to scientific advances. Question: What about 20 years? Answer: I see my research in terms of both the body - 3-d printing - and the brain - evolvable robots. In the next 20 years, we will see 3-d printing move from being a niche technology to the main method of manufacture for many products. 3-d printing is inherently more versatile and could be more cost-effective than traditional fabrication methods for "long tail" products. 20 years from now, robots will be using machine learning techniques to model the world and to learn on their own.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Sheparding Asteroids into desired formations and large space Igloo structuresThere have been papers written about having spacecraft near asteroids to generate a gravitational tow.There was the Asterants proposal to use solar sails to retrieve 500 kilogram asteroids. There may be as any as one million asteroids that are 1000 meters across or larger. There are over a quadrillion space rocks beyond the orbit of Neptune in the solar system In space it is relatively easy to move quite large space rocks using solar sails, ion drives and other means. There are a lot of space rocks and a survey could be done to select the rocks that would have to be moved with the least amount of effort. Then once each asteroid is moved into place they would be locked into place. It could be easier to gather asteroids to make desired shapes instead of digging out a larger asteroid. Different sized asteroids could be used from 500 kg, to tons up to asteroids that are 100 to 1000 meters across. Six large asteroids 9 (4 walls and a roof and a ceiling) could be brought together to enclose a very large cube like void. Pushing asteroids together easier than excavating a large asteroid There have been various imagined asteroid colonies in space art where a large asteroid has a colony inside it. It is far easier to push very large objects in space. Tiny ion engines or plasma rockets that can accelerate for years can move huge mountain size objects while digging out an asteroid is not much easier than digging out a very large hole on earth. It is far more near term to look at assembling asteroids into structures than it is to create or bring heavy construction equipment out to the asteroids. I had the idea for this when I was on a snow weekend in Tahoe and other people had created the base of snowmen and we pushed them together to create the beginnings of a wall for a larger fort. We also tunneled into the snow. Pushing things together gave a quick start to the effort. Holding the asteroids in place The engines that moved the asteroids might be left in place, or some other form of space cement or binding needs to be created. As noted smaller asteroids of 500 kilogram or less could be used as ready made bricks. The smaller asteroids could be used inside the voids where larger asteroids have been brought together. The smaller asteroids could be formed into walls and floors. How an Igloo is built If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks Deaths per TWH by energy source
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh) Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity) Coal – China 278 Coal – USA 15 Oil 36 (36% of world energy) Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy) Biofuel/Biomass 12 Peat 12 Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy) Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy) Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy) Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead) Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy) Update: A superior form of solar power would be the Coolearth concentrated solar power system which would be installed on the ground or wires over a ground installation. Rooftop solar is several times more dangerous than nuclear power and wind power. It is still much safer than coal and oil, because those have a lot of air pollution deaths. Rooftop solar can be safer [0.44 up to 0.83 death per twh each year). If the rooftop solar is part of the shingle so you do not put the roof up more than once and do not increase maintenance then that is ok too. Or if you had a robotic system of installation. World average for coal is about 161 deaths per TWh. In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh. In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh. Air pollution deaths from coal, oil and natural gas are from the analysis of the impact of particulate matter (10 micron and 2.5 micron). Other air pollutants also cause health impacts but the scientific cause and effect is the most clear with particulates. Ground level ozone and other pollutants also have health effects Here is an article with some pictures related to air pollution. Besides replacing coal burners with nuclear power, there are particulate control technology costs about $20 million to 50 million per 1 gigawatt coal plant to achieve 99-99.5% reduction in particulates. (electrostatic precipitators) A total of about $400 million for the more effective air pollution technologies for Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates. So it is perfectly feasible and economic to retrofit existing coal plants to prevent most of the air pollution and the damage that they cause. The costs is far less than what is required to deal with carbon dioxide (pipes to capture and put it all into large places underground). China has about 650 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would probably be cheaper for China to do the particulate retrofits (say $30 million per GWe). Therefore $20 billion would enable a 99.5% reduction in particulates. The United States has 315 GWe of coal power installed in 2011. It would cost about $16 billion for electrostatic precipitators on all coal plants in the United States. Controlling all particulates from coal plants, oil plants, natural gas plants, certain industrial facilities and retrofitting better control technology on cars and trucks would save 800,000 to 1.2 million lives per year. The cost would be in the range of $300 billion to $1 trillion (If phased in over ten years would be $30-100 billion per year worldwide.) The cost would be more than offset by improved health and lower medical costs. Calculated deaths per Terawatt hour Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996 Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh. The ExternE calculation of death/TWh from different energy sources (not including global warming effects and is the average for European nations). This draws on data from 4290 energy-related accidents, 1943 of them classified as severe, and compares different energy sources. It considers over 15,000 fatalities related to oil, over 8000 related to coal and 5000 from hydro. Deaths statistics from the fuel chain for coal and nuclear Higher level of deaths from coal in public health would be related to the increased deaths from particulates. The deaths totals are more from coal occupation are mining. The World Health Organization and other sources attribute about 1 million deaths/year to coal air pollution. Coal generates about 6200 TWh out of the world total of 15500 TWh of electricity. This would be 161 deaths per TWh. In the USA about 30,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 2000 TWh. 15 deaths per TWh. In China about 500,000 deaths/year from coal pollution from 1800 TWh. 278 deaths per TWh. The construction of existing 1970-vintage U.S. nuclear power plants required 40 metric tons (MT) of steel and 190 cubic meters (m3) of concrete per average megawatt of electricity (MW(e)) generating capacity. For comparison, a typical wind energy system operating with 6.5 meters-per-second average wind speed requires construction inputs of 460 MT of steel and 870 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e). Coal uses 98 MT of steel and 160 m**3 of concrete per average MW(e); & natural-gas combined cycle plants use 3.3 MT steel and 27 m**3 concrete. Wind power generation was 95 GW at the end of 2007. 1 MW produces 3,066 MWh if 35% efficient. 20 GW in Germany generated 30 TWh in 2006. 95GW would be generating about 150TWh. 95000GW would have taken 43.7 million tons of steel and 82.7 million tons of concrete. 3% of one year of global steel production. 4% of one year of the world’s concrete production. Half of one year’s production in the US for steel. About 15 deaths if corresponded to half of one years metal/nonmetal mining fatalities. 0.1 deaths per TWh. If the metal and concrete had come from China about 2700 metal/nonmetal mining deaths per year for 5 times the amount of steel. 270 deaths to get the metal for the wind turbines. 1.9 deaths per TWh. These construction related deaths are amortized over the life of the wind turbines of 30 years. Other wind power deaths need to factor in dangers associated with working with very tall structures (50 stories tall) and with deep water work associated with building and anchoring offshore. Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation. By comparison, hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996. This includes the Banqiao Dam collapse in 1975 that killed thousands. Metal/Nonmetal fatalities in the USA (iron and concrete components mainly) (3.1 GWp generated 2TWh in Germany for solar) Coal and fossil fuel deaths usually do not include deaths caused during transportation. The more trucking and rail transport is used then the more deaths there are. The transportation deaths are a larger component of the deaths in the USA than direct industry deaths. Moving 1.2 billion tons of coal takes up 40% of the freight rail traffic and a few percent of the trucking in the USA. Uranium mining is a lot safer because insitu leaching (the main method of uranium mining) involves flushing acid down pipes. No workers are digging underground anymore. Only about 60,000 tons of uranium are needed each year so that is 200 times less material being moved than for coal plants. But what about Chernobyl ? The World Health Organization study in 2005 indicated that 50 people died to that point as a direct result of Chernobyl. 4000 people may eventually die earlier as a result of Chernobyl, but those deaths would be more than 20 years after the fact and the cause and effect becomes more tenuous. He explains that there have been 4000 cases of thyroid cancer, mainly in children, but that except for nine deaths, all of them have recovered. "Otherwise, the team of international experts found no evidence for any increases in the incidence of leukemia and cancer among affected residents." Averaging about 2100 TWh from 1985-2005 or a total of 42,000 TWh. So those 50 deaths would be 0.0012 deaths/TWh. If those possible 4000 deaths occur over the next 25 years, then with 2800 TWh being assumed average for 2005 through 2030, then it would be 4000 deaths over 112,000 TWh generated over 45 years or 0.037 deaths/TWh. There are no reactors in existence that are as unsafe as the Chernobyl reactor was. Even the eight of that type that exist have containment domes and operate with lower void co-efficients. The safety issues with Rooftop solar installations Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights. Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths. Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers. In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh. $4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007. The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents. Maintenance and Functional life of solar panels [Q26. Do they require any maintenance? A26: Only an occasional wipe to ensure optimal performance of the solar panel.] 15. How long will the panels last? Generally, systems last 20-30 years since the waterproof seals on the panels tend to deteriorate over time. 16. If I move home, can I take the solar panels with me? You could take your solar power system down and re-install it at your new house provided the roof of the new house is suitable. Or, you could include it in the selling price of your house. If your house is in a remote area and the solar power system is the sole source of power, the purchaser of your house would be wise to make sure the solar power system is included in the price, or they’ll be left without electricity. [Generally hail resistant but a storm big enough to damage a regular roof would also damage a rooftop solar panel system.] http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq24 http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/faqs/resid_sys.htm#faq28http://www.heatmyhome.co.uk/pv-solar-panels.htm The 10 most dangerous jobs Occupation Fatalities per 100,000 Timber cutters 117.8 Fishers 71.1 Pilots and navigators 69.8 Structural metal workers 58.2 Drivers-sales workers 37.9 Roofers 37 Electrical power installers 32.5 [also, solar power related] Farm occupations 28 Construction laborers 27.7 Truck drivers 25 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; survey of occupations with minimum 30 fatalities and 45,000 workers in 2002 Conclusion: Nothing is perfectly safe. Chasing perfection can cause us to ignore just improving and trading worse for a lot better. Non-roof installations of solar is safer than roof installation. Nuclear, wind, non-roof solar and hydro are a lot safer than coal and oil. Natural gas is safer but not as much as nuclear and those others. The focus needs to be on getting rid of the most dangerous energy sources which are coal and oil first. Then after that decades long project is done to look at the other energy sources. Safety and improvements for all energy sources should be made as we go. UPDATE: Rooftop solar is still a hundred times safer than coal and oil power because of air pollution deaths. Other ways to make solar power safer: 1. Increase safety for all rooftop work (can reduce deaths by half or more) 2. Rooftop solar tiles installed on new buildings might not have any more incremental deaths as opposed to panels that are separate from the roof tiles or systems installed that replace roof tiles before they would normally be replaced. 3. Create some new installation system where people stay on the ground using some forklift or crane to raise and place a solar power system onto a roof. Have to ensure that the heavy machinery system is safer than the roofing process being replaced. Some responders online are in denial that people who work on a roof can fall off regardless of the reason they went up there. If I go up there to replace roofing tiles or go up there to install solar panels, the risk of falling is pretty much the same especially when the number of times being compared heads to large numbers like millions of times for each. As I noted in the comments, statistics show that 70% of fatal construction falls occur at height of 3 stories or less. Some have also claimed that someone who went up onto a roof to install a solar panel but then fell is not a death associated with solar power. Similarly then if someone is killed in a coal mine then that is not a coal power death because the coal was not in the power plant yet or they might have some other reason for being underground and would have been crushed anyway. FURTHER READING 189 page pdf from the 1997 Externe analysis of energy sources and fuel cycles. RELATED NEWS Canada is increasing the planned number of nuclear reactors in Alberta to 4 plants generating 4 GW. The plan is to complete them by 2017. Southern California Edison (SCE) plans to spend $875 million over the next five years putting solar panels onto commercial roofs to generate 250 megawatts of solar capacity. The panels will be on 65 million square feet of roof. San Jose has a 15 year green vision to install 100,000 solar power roofs. San Jose was chosen a Solar America City by the U.S. Department of Energy and will share $2.4 million in funding with 11 other cities. Other cities designated as Solar America Cities include Sacramento, Santa Rosa, Seattle, Wash.; Houston, Texas; Knoxville, Tenn.; Milwaukee, Wis.; Minneapolis & St. Paul, Minn.; Orlando, Fla.; Philadelphia, Penn.; and San Antonio, Texas. Severin Borenstein, director of the U.C. Energy Institute and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's business school, called existing technology "a loser" in a research paper. "We are throwing money away by installing the current solar PV technology," he said. Borenstein calls for more state and federal money to be spent on research into better technology, rather than on subsidies for residential solar power systems. In his analysis, Borenstein found that a typical PV system costs between $86,000 and $91,000 to install, while the value of its power over its lifetime ranges from $19,000 to $51,000. Even assuming a 5 percent annual increase in electric costs and a 1 percent interest rate, the cost of a PV system is 80 percent greater than the value of the electricity it will produce. In his paper, Borenstein also factored in the value of greenhouse gas reductions into his calculations, and found that at current prices the PV technology still doesn't deliver. California's Million Solar Roofs Plan, signed into law in 2006, which will provide 3,000 megawatts of additional clean energy and reduce the output of greenhouse gases by 3 million tons. The 2.9-billion-dollar incentive plan for homeowners and building owners who install solar electric systems will lead to 1 million solar roofs in California by the year 2018. FURTHER READING Sample solar power installation instructions More rooftop solar panel installation instructions Solar thermal panels for hot water heating are typically 36-75kg in weight per panel. Solar PV panels are currently about 40-60 pounds (20-30kg). US energy use by source Advertising Trading Futures Nano Technology Netbook Technology News Computer Software Future Predictions If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks More Recent Articles
|
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |