Car generator to power house

[ransley]

ll

Or we could do it all, wind solar, nukes, conservation, we have Ng but its all "dont drill here" Point is we import to much and things can be done as Germanys solar, Frances Nuclear prove.

[ransley]

.

I own a gen also, but at altprius its a discussed common use, and it will be with alot of hybrids comming out.

[ransley]

Wrong, it does Auto Restart when on, when the traction battery is low enough.

[trader4]

LOL. There goes your credibility. A joke of a newspaper runs an article about power distribution and you take that as an authority on the commerical viability of wide spread wind power and then somehow try to drag that into solar? And all that article said was that it would require $20bil investment in the DISTRIBUTION system to be able to get to the point where we could get 20% of our energy in 2030 from the wind.

And the second DOE piece says nothing about wind or solar period. And you have the gall to call Bub an idiot? But you did show how ignorant on the whole subject you are.

[hallerb]

yeah good soft shoe shuffle.........

put it on a rocket and send into outer space, a grand way to spread radiation over a wide area, when a rocket malfunctions

yucca may be called storage but the plan says the waste will be entombed forever

solve the waste problem safely and cost effective and come back for a approval of nuclear energy

[trader4]

Storing and managing it indefinitely at Yucca is safe and cost effective, except to fear mongering extremists. You complain about the alleged huge terrorism risk from all the spent nuclear fuel sitting at the existing reactors. What is YOUR plan for that? Bud and I would have had it safely secured at Yucca years ago, where there is plenty of room for that waste, plus decades more.

This "risk" thing is bizarre. There are risks to everything. You get in your car every day don't you? Yet 50,000 Americans die in car accidents every year. That's an order of magnitude more that even the deaths from the half-assed designed and run Chernobyl, which in 40 years of commercial nukes, is the only accident that released serious amounts of radiation that resulted in loss of life.

How about airplanes? They have crashed in major cities and killed hundreds, even thousands if you want to count 911. Should we shut them all down too? In other words, you can focus on some extremely remote probability scenarios and use that fear mongering to condemn just about anything. But when you look at the total picture and reasonably weight the risk/benefit scenario, you get a much different result.

[dpb]

"It" (a Chernobyl-style accident) can _NOT_ happen here owing to the fundamental difference in reactor design.

Chernobyl was a problem of the magnitude it was for two reasons -- first, the lack of any containment and second and fundamental difference the graphite-fueled fire, the plume from which was the dispersal mechanism. Both of those necessary features are not present in LWR designs.

LWR spent fuel is not in a form that would be conducive to such an accident, either.

One should at least have fear based on a rational scenario rather than making stuff up that isn't physically so.

--

[dpb]

...

... Certainly you're not one to be complain about "soft shoe" when you try to compare Chernobyl to LWR reactor designs.

That one I'll agree on as not practical...

It's "storage" because the Carter administration stopped consideration of recycling in its misguided nonproliferation policy; hence leading to the current situation. We went through this whole thing only a month ago and again a few months prior to that. It would be good if you would try to keep up and at least update your "facts" to conjoin w/ history.

Have to solve the political problem prior to there being a different technical direction. At present, MRS is the only authorized solution, unfortunately, but as noted it's the mandate under which the NRC and utilities are constrained.

[mkirsch1]

You do realize that it'll be 20 years before a single drop of oil is squeezed from these offshore sites, right?

The reason oil dropped by 2/3 is because the economy collapsed. The reason the economy collapsed is because banks were borrowing money to loan money for things that weren't worth anywhere near the amounts the loans were given for. They were loaning this borrowed money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back.

For the past several years I've been wondering how people I work with, do the same job as I do, earn the same money as I do, have a stay-at- home wife and kids, could afford these brand new lavish $250K-and-up mansions while I can barely afford payments on a $110K ranch... Turns out they couldn't.

[Van Chocstraw]

It works, just that it's not enough by a long shot.

[HeyBub]

No, some can come online in as little as a year. But you're right - it won't be immediately. Still, though, oil sales are based on future conditions. Most oil is sold on contracts and a negligible percentage on the "spot" market. The people who buy and sell futures contracts rightly concluded that a high likelihood exists that there will be a glut of oil in the three-to-ten year future.

Yep. People sell stuff for what others are willing to pay.

Another example of an upstream liberal program that went horribly wrong.

[Jeff Wisnia]

I'll defer to you on that one.

What put me off track was wondering what he would have had to use to meter the energy usage over time closely enough to be able to say "approximately 17 KWH", and thinking that there was no "easy" way to do that unless he had an old KWH meter lying around or maybe a few of those Kill A Watt electricity usage meters.

Jeff

[hallerb]

the problem with nuke power is that long term waste issues have never been solved..... when nuke power began we were told it will be solved later, well guess what later never arrived.

so you want to recycle the spent fuel creating more enriched bomb grade material? carter stopped that.

or lets talk about moving all that waste thru urban areas, since most plants are near urban areas.

fortunately 3 mile island didnt fully melt down, but it was a close thing.

and a full meltdown would of breached the containment.

few things we do carry the risks of making a great part of our country uninhabitible, while raising cancer rates worldwide.

after awhile the mountain would close around the waste, making it hard to impossible to remove. buried in rock.

now its dangerous for a million years, the uS is just over 200 years old. at some point our country might not be here. some later inhabitants might come along and drill into the waste not knowing what it is.....

solve the waste problem permanetely and hey great build more plants.

incidently there was almost 2 three mile islands, if i remember correctly a new plant near detroit had a problem, and nearly melted down. the reactor had to be closed permanetely.

[Pete C.]

For the small amount of power in question, a single Kill-a-Watt would do just fine.

[dpb]

Carter only stopped closing the commercial nuclear fuel cycle thereby creating exactly the problem you're now complaining of--long term storage instead of alternative technologies. Meanwhile, he did nothing useful in stopping weapons proliferation--witness N Korea, Iran, etc., etc., ... It was well-intentioned but completely misguided policy based on a lack of understanding of the difference between commercial and military application of nuclear power.

Again, the relating of recycling commercial fuel and "enriched bomb grade" material in the same sentence as if they were somehow automagically connected is simply throwing words together that have no direct physical connection. The purification and enrichment to produce weapons-grade material is _far_ beyond that of commercial fuel (in the 90+% range as opposed to 3-5% _max_). And, as has been pointed out before, it doesn't take a reactor at all to enrich material to create a U-weapon and is, frankly, much easier technology for those who are less reliable in having such devices anyway.

The difficulty in reprocessing from simply the personnel radiological requirements makes that a very poor choice for the general "diy-er" as well as making detection so much simpler.

We did a month ago. There's no credible scenario there.

While a nasty event, neither scenario was actually so close as you would like (apparently) to think and specifically try to make others think. (Interestingly, colleagues who were on site during the "H bubble" and core stabilization phases said their most dangerous activities were avoiding being trampled by the newshounds around the site gates at shift change. I was at the office in contact w/ former colleagues at the reactor vendor and NRC personnel monitoring data being forwarded from plant instrumentation in my specific area of expertise as extra check of interpretations being made on site by plant personnel.)

Nor does LWR technology w/ any significant risk evaluated on a sensible playing field. Far higher risks come from ordinary activities we all partake of every day.

...

Remove the political barriers and the technological barriers won't be an issue of significance except for those who are primarily simply fear-mongers such as yourself.

It was not another TMI as it was not an LWR, either. It had as little relationship to TMI and LWR designs as did Chernobyl (although it was not a Chernobyl-style reactor, either).

--

[hallerb]

well hey if I were a nuke power worker, I would no doubt be a supporter too. you invested in it?

chernobyl, TMI and that event near detroit all had one thing in common, lack of cooling water caused near disaster........

truly nuke power isnt pollution free. what with mining etc, and those cooling towers, and warming of rivers and lakes near plants.

[clare]

The TRACTION battery - not the 12 volt accessory battery. READ and THINK

[dpb]

If you were you would undoubtedly have a far better understanding of the technology and a better appreciation for the risk/benefit analysis and be not nearly so susceptible to the emotional arguments.

Again, a month ago we went over this.

Directly invested in reactor vendors, no. Indirectly in a wide range of utilities and the companies which support them (conventional and nuclear both), yes. I would suspect if you have any diversified mutual funds in any IRA, 401k, SEP or other investments you are as well.

That's again such a gross over-simplification of each as to be a useless description.

As also was gone over a month ago, the overall comparative risk studies were done at length years ago. On any objective comparative output scale, the alternatives all lose. "There is no free lunch"

--

[ransley]

Point is it restarts automaticly to recharge when on, your not auto restart statement will mislead.

[hallerb]

shall I paste the causes? for all 3 events? they all boil down to cooling water too low core overheated......

the reactors were all different but the problem the same, and chernobyl lost only 3% of its core but made a wiode area uninhabitible for 100s of thousands if not millions of years.

worse chernobyl would be a excellent source of dirty bomb materials for terrorists, the truly hot zonmes are marked for easy digging