OT: Making bigger wind-turbines 5.6MW now, 12MW soon.

[Phil Allison]

upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

-----------------------------

These are far too small, the blades spend most if not all in the
turbulent zone, thus the wind speed varies during blade travel and the
wind could even flow in opposite directions at different highs. This
will also create uneven torque on the blades during the blade travel.

The hub highs should be at about 600 m, with about current size
blades. Thus, the blades would remain all times above turbulent air
flow in constant wind speed range.

** All this "tilting at windmills" stuff if getting nowhere.

The stupid things are boring as batshit.

---------------------------------------

However, there is another use for big propellers which this short vid explains in an entertaining way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSfrOsubuk


Shows the development of the Bell 47 helicopter, the first of its kind.



...... Phil

 

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:4beed7a3-0e52-45fc-b34e-7e5e30477860@googlegroups.com:

** Only Green lunatics think we should have left leave any of the
incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Only an idiot thinks that it is suddenly going to rot.

 

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:6beb8b0a-c783-4053-
ab91-1f0dda80e996@googlegroups.com:

DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

----------------------------------

** " Never give up = never lose".

The fuckwit troll's motto.

You are mumbling again. Must be your motto, because I do not have
one, and if I did it would not be that. Nice try though, putz.

** The stuff itself is free - you fucking moron.


Putting a ton of coal into a generator's boiler is NOT 'free',


** See above you illiterate fucking nut case.


The stuff itself is not free and neither is oil.


** Crude oil is there in the ground for the taking.

ONLY if you own the ground. You one of those anarchist retards?
watchin' too much Road Warrior crap. Your position pegs your IQ at a
firm 20 points.

> ( Rest of your putrid Green insanity snipped.)

Better than the putrid shit between your ears, especially the parts
you spew into this group.

I never said anything "green" you stupid fuck.

> The Commie bastards have certainly brainwashed you - pal.

You are also likely too goddamned self retarded to even know what a
commie is, much less a communist. And all of my observations in life
are my own. I do not need to follow fanatical web pages to see what
the big picture looks like. I have been watching since the sixties
and have a pretty good handle.

You cannot even cost raw goods. Big difference.

> Was obviously not a big job.

Particularly since it never happened, fantasy boy.

..... Phil


You are an asswipe, Phil. A real putz.

>

Nice try, you retarded dipshit.

I mentioned oil deliberately because I knew what you would respond
with. You are so easily manipulated. Bwuahahahaha!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 4:34:28 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:
------------------------


** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

** Bill - hello - thatain't one tiny bit relevant.

In your dreams.

The fossil carbon extraction industry makes a lot of money out
of digging up coal and getting us to pay for it.

** All goes in various salaries for the worker involved.

Advanced industrial economies typically have 40%/60% labour/capital split, but mining is capital intensive, so the few workers they employ don't get all that much of what gets paid for product.

We dig it out the ground.

Sunlight stored for us by God, over millions of years.

He's not storing it anything like as fast as we are digging it up,

** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.

It will look more relevant when we have to start digging even deeper to get at it.

You faith in your own capacity to work out what god had in mind is touching,

** Only Green lunatics think we should leave any of the incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Coal doesn't rot. It wouldn't still be hanging around from the Carboniferous if it did.

There's an argument for leaving enough of it the ground to let our descendants burn some of it to avoid the flip to the next ice age. It's not going to be needed for another 20,000 years or so.

> Describes you to a T.

The lunacy is all yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Michael Terrell]

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:08:13 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales with the square root of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four times taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. I found info on a 3.4 MW unit that is 809 feet tall (246 m). So we would be looking at a tower that would be something approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swept area could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would do. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.

I know some windmills produce low frequency vibrations people find objectionable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would need to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since the blades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile height.

Towers 200 feet or taller require lighting, per FAA regulations. It is even lower, near airports. (Original call of WIYE) WACX-TV was denied 130 feet AAT at their original site, near Leesburg, Florida. Their new transmitter site had a 1700 foot tower that would never stand the wind loading for a windmill cost over $1,000,000 to build in the mid '80s.

Calculate the wind loading for a tower for a tower capable of supporting a 12MW windmill at that height. Don't forget the additional physical strength requirements for hurricane winds, or tornadoes.

WMRX in Destin was limited to 130 feet, because of the nearby Air Force Base.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 31/10/19 02:46, Winfield Hill wrote:

Rick C wrote...

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales
with the square root of the power?

Wind velocity and constancy improve at higher elevations.

I don't think wind constancy improves with height
(above ground), although it does with altitude
(above sea level). Hence (unless you build a small
rotor on a high tower!) I don't think constancy
will be improved by increased windmill diameter.


The key metric is power per unit land area.

A key issue is that as wind turbines in a wind farm increase
in diameter, they have to be spaced further apart.
Unfortunately the diameters cancel, so power per unit land
area remains constant as diameter is increased. The estimate
of available onshore wind power for the UK is around 3W/m2.
N.B. that "m2" is *land* area, not rotor area.

Then there is the issue of wind shear. As a rule of thumb,
doubling the height (above the surrounding countryside)
increases the windspeed by 10% and the power available
by 30%.

Source, and FFI: the TAoE of energy use and generation,
"Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air" p263-268
http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml

The (free) pdf is probably more readable.

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------

** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

** Bill - hello - thatain't one tiny bit relevant.

In your dreams.

** Bill, you are more intelligent than that.

The crucial matter of relevance needs to be made clear.

Not just any notion you care to silently assume.

Advanced industrial economies typically have 40%/60% labour/capital split, but mining is capital intensive, so the few workers they employ don't get all that much of what gets paid for product.

** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.

It will look more relevant when we have to start digging even
deeper to get at it.

** Maybe all the way to China ??

Runaway nuke plants will get there first for sure.

Never seen the " China Syndrome " ??

Hanoi Jane was great in that.

** Only Green lunatics think we should leave any of the incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Coal doesn't rot.

** How fucking literal of you.

Only by using every resource made available by the use of fossil fuel, fossil fuel based electrical power and planet wide mining we have now would it be even faintly possible to create a new, non fossil system.

Aside from nuclear, that is.

You are living in an absurd fantasy world.

Dreaming Martian fantasies.

All half baked, thoroughly discredited, Marxist ideology.

Stalin would love you.



..... Phil

 

[Winfield Hill]

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure,
install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in
the world.

Tell that to England, where "Renewables provide nearly a third
of power in the UK and half is generated from wind." And more
massive additional offshore wind farms are coming online soon.
"The cost of new offshore wind has fallen by 50% since 2015."


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons.
Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:06:21 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------


** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.

In your dreams.


** Bill, you are more intelligent than that.

The crucial matter of relevance needs to be made clear.

Not just any notion you care to silently assume.

Coal isn't free. Your claiming anything else is simply bizarre.

Advanced industrial economies typically have 40%/60% labour/capital split, but mining is capital intensive, so the few workers they employ don't get all that much of what gets paid for product.

** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.

You snipped the context that might have made it relevant, and didn't mark the snip.

It will look more relevant when we have to start digging even
deeper to get at it.

** Maybe all the way to China ??

Probably not. Geology makes it clear that coal deposits stop before the Mohorovic discontinuity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohorovi%C4%8Di%C4%87_discontinuity

Runaway nuke plants will get there first for sure.

Never seen the " China Syndrome " ??

I have. It's a neat - if fanciful - phrase, but even the most runaway nuclear reactor wouldn't sink all that far

> Hanoi Jane was great in that.

She was there for decoration. Jack Lemmon was the central character .

** Only Green lunatics think we should leave any of the incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Coal doesn't rot.

** How fucking literal of you.

But accurate.

> Only by using every resource made available by the use of fossil fuel, fossil fuel based electrical power and planet wide mining we have now would it be even faintly possible to create a new, non fossil system.

What on earth would make you think that?

Aside from nuclear, that is.

You are living in an absurd fantasy world.

Not half as absurd as yours. There's a great deal more solar power available than we use at the moment, and using it - rather than burning fossil carbon - to build more solar cells is entirely practical.

> Dreaming Martian fantasies.

Your ideas are merely half-baked.They don't make enough sense to qualify as fantasies.

> All half baked, thoroughly discredited, Marxist ideology.

Marxism isn't remotely relevant. Enlightened self-interest is all we need to motivate the transition from getting our energy from burning fossil carbon to getting in ways that don't change the climate for the worst.

You seem to be a trifle under-enlightened.

> Stalin would love you.

Who would care what Stalin might have thought?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:b8ec8a18-842d-45df-b1bc-19aef3ad7f62@googlegroups.com:

Bill Sloman wrote:

-----------------


** Coal is free here.

Try getting some delivered for free.

** Bill - hello - thatain't one tiny bit relevant.

In your dreams.


** Bill, you are more intelligent than that.

The crucial matter of relevance needs to be made clear.

Not just any notion you care to silently assume.





Advanced industrial economies typically have 40%/60%
labour/capital split, but mining is capital intensive, so the few
workers they employ don't get all that much of what gets paid for
product.


** Bill - hello - that ain't one tiny bit relevant.



It will look more relevant when we have to start digging even
deeper to get at it.


** Maybe all the way to China ??

Runaway nuke plants will get there first for sure.

Never seen the " China Syndrome " ??

Hanoi Jane was great in that.




** Only Green lunatics think we should leave any of the
incredibly valuable stuff found in the ground to rot.

Coal doesn't rot.



** How fucking literal of you.

Only by using every resource made available by the use of fossil
fuel, fossil fuel based electrical power and planet wide mining we
have now would it be even faintly possible to create a new, non
fossil system.

Aside from nuclear, that is.

You are living in an absurd fantasy world.

Dreaming Martian fantasies.

All half baked, thoroughly discredited, Marxist ideology.

Stalin would love you.



.... Phil

Alien blood has a better chance of melting its way to China than a
runaway nuke plant does.

 

[Piotr Wyderski]

Bill Sloman wrote:

> Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

Unfortunately, when there is no wind, both variants are 0MW turbines. So
you need a backup power plant to fill the gap. Greta wouldn't enjoy a
sudden blackout, I'm afraid.

Best regards, Piotr

 

On 31 Oct 2019 06:31:34 -0700, Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com>
wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote...

Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure,
install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in
the world.

Tell that to England, where "Renewables provide nearly a third
of power in the UK and half is generated from wind." And more
massive additional offshore wind farms are coming online soon.
"The cost of new offshore wind has fallen by 50% since 2015."

I wonder what they will do when the wind doesn't blow. Either cut
loads, or have 100% fossil or nuclear capacity on hot standby. If the
latter, full capital costs and support have to be paid for the
windfarms and the conventional plants.

Solar has the same problem, just different timing.

I used to design gear for oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. That
environment will eat anything that's not 316 stainless, and a serious
hurricane will blow most anything away. An 800 foot high wind turbine
is a lot of wind surface, a lot of lever arm.

The Gulf has fleets of boats and helicopters to shuttle workers to the
rigs. Maintenance is very expensive offshore.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 3:48:32 AM UTC-4, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:08:13 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales with the square root of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four times taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. I found info on a 3.4 MW unit that is 809 feet tall (246 m). So we would be looking at a tower that would be something approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swept area could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would do. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.

I know some windmills produce low frequency vibrations people find objectionable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would need to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since the blades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile height.


Towers 200 feet or taller require lighting, per FAA regulations. It is even lower, near airports. (Original call of WIYE) WACX-TV was denied 130 feet AAT at their original site, near Leesburg, Florida. Their new transmitter site had a 1700 foot tower that would never stand the wind loading for a windmill cost over $1,000,000 to build in the mid '80s.

Calculate the wind loading for a tower for a tower capable of supporting a 12MW windmill at that height. Don't forget the additional physical strength requirements for hurricane winds, or tornadoes.

WMRX in Destin was limited to 130 feet, because of the nearby Air Force Base.

No one would put a 12 MW windmill on such a tall tower. We were discussing a 100 MW windmill. With 10 of these being 1 GW they would still be much, much cheaper than a nuclear power plant at $15-$20 billion each. No need to store nuclear waste or worry about the risk of nuclear proliferation.

Funny that you think the millions it costs to erect the tower is significant. Windmills cost $1 to $2 million per MW of capacity. So even a 12 MW windmill will almost certainly have tower costs in the millions since the total cost will be around $20 million.

I guess you would totally freak out if you knew what it costs to build a nuke plant... if it is ever finished.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:02:21 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons.
Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

You seem to be a bit confused. You stated the limitations of nuclear but use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind power, but you used the name 'Nuclear".

Your link is to one of the lamest rationalizations of using nuclear I've ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuclear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generation. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putting any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the past.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[amdx]

On 10/30/2019 10:15 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0856ac0b-404f-474a-96ed-a64053263c80@googlegroups.com:

Winfield Hill wrote:

--------------------

Two US windfarms are using GE's 12MW version: Ocean Wind,
off New Jersey’s coast, and Skipjack, off Maryland’s coa
st.



** So how many do we need operating off the coast of NSW to
eliminate coal power ?

Allowing for lots of battery capacity for windless days and
nights.

Currently installed coal generation is about 10,000 MW.

Lets see you get the math even slightly right.



..... Phil



Let's see. Wind is free, coal is not, and wind does not pollute
and coal does. So 100 100MW turbines would have a better impact on
the planet than hunreds of tons of polutants in the air.

The wind is here. We should use it.

Oh the 'birds'

 

On Thu, 31 Oct 2019 00:48:26 -0700 (PDT), Michael Terrell
<terrell.michael.a@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 10:08:13 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

I assume the blade length and so the tower height scales with the square root of the power? That means 100 MW turbines would need to be over four times taller than a 5.6 MW turbine. I found info on a 3.4 MW unit that is 809 feet tall (246 m). So we would be looking at a tower that would be something approaching a mile in height to collect 100 MW? I suppose the swept area could be less by finding more wind which I expect added height would do. So maybe half a mile tall? I have no concept of what that would imply in terms of visual impact or other problems.

I know some windmills produce low frequency vibrations people find objectionable. I'm pretty sure even at half a mile tall such a windmill would need to appear on maps for airplanes. It wouldn't just be a tower since the blades would be sweeping nearly a half a mile wide at the quarter mile height.


Towers 200 feet or taller require lighting, per FAA regulations. It is even lower, near airports. (Original call of WIYE) WACX-TV was denied 130 feet AAT at their original site, near Leesburg, Florida. Their new transmitter site had a 1700 foot tower that would never stand the wind loading for a windmill cost over $1,000,000 to build in the mid '80s.

Calculate the wind loading for a tower for a tower capable of supporting a 12MW windmill at that height. Don't forget the additional physical strength requirements for hurricane winds, or tornadoes.

WMRX in Destin was limited to 130 feet, because of the nearby Air Force Base.

We used to drive from New Orleans to Destin for vacation breaks.
Gorgeous dunes, warm water, and sugar-sand beaches, hardly anyone else
there. We'd never make a reservation, just drive up to some motel
across the highway from the beach. It was cheap.



--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:07:59 AM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The Gulf has fleets of boats and helicopters to shuttle workers to the
rigs. Maintenance is very expensive offshore.

Yes, it will be great when we don't need them anymore. I guess some of them can work on the windmills.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:11:18 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 10/30/2019 10:15 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in
news:0856ac0b-404f-474a-96ed-a64053263c80@googlegroups.com:

Winfield Hill wrote:

--------------------

Two US windfarms are using GE's 12MW version: Ocean Wind,
off New Jersey’s coast, and Skipjack, off Maryland’s coa
st.



** So how many do we need operating off the coast of NSW to
eliminate coal power ?

Allowing for lots of battery capacity for windless days and
nights.

Currently installed coal generation is about 10,000 MW.

Lets see you get the math even slightly right.



..... Phil



Let's see. Wind is free, coal is not, and wind does not pollute
and coal does. So 100 100MW turbines would have a better impact on
the planet than hunreds of tons of polutants in the air.

The wind is here. We should use it.

Oh the 'birds'

So the choices are, let the coal rot, let the wind rot, or let the birds rot.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 11:03:41 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 9:02:21 AM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, October 30, 2019 at 7:31:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
IEEE Spectrum published this piece recently

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-turbines-just-keep-getting-bigger-but-theres-a-limit

Individual wind turbines go up to 5.6MW at the moment, should hit 10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.

The article contemplates what a 100MW wind turbine would look like, but thinks that it is some way off.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

So what if Spectrum publishes an article on it, it's for simpletons.
Wind power is out, too wasteful and very expensive to procure, install and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .

Nuclear is one answer but it's pretty much being ignored.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-problems-you-didn-t-know-nuclear-could-solve

Another answer is massive reduction of the population. Since people have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way.

You seem to be a bit confused. You stated the limitations of nuclear but use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind power, but you used the name 'Nuclear".

Your link is to one of the lamest rationalizations of using nuclear I've ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuclear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generation.. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putting any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the past..

You're completely out of touch. The applications listed on the DoE page are there because 1) these are critically important applications requiring lots of energy, and 2) DoE has invested billions into R&D transitioning all of these tasks into mature technologies.

Hydrogen powered transportation, automotive and rail, is well developed worldwide, no research required. Laying down some refilling stations is not a big deal for the U.S. It's something that can nearly be done overnight. Hydrogen power has a presence on the west coast powering fleet vehicles.

https://www.reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=139544

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209