Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Page 5 of 16  
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

As empty and bogus an argument by the anti-nuke propagandists as there is. Development of nuclear weapons by a "rogue state" in no way depends on the presence of civilian nuclear power plants.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, it doesn't depend on civilian facilities. However, as you are now well aware, fuel from civilian plants can (and has been) turned into fuel suitable for nuclear weapons. The presence of a "legal" civilian facility eliminates the need to shop around for a fuel source.
Please don't continue to dispute these facts. You are about to look silly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Moreover, that presence *also* provides a convenient cover story.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

It can be, but with substantial reprocessing. Suitable material can also be made from raw materials with similar extensive processing. Kind of like trying to ban automobiles because they can be reprocessed into guns.
Civilian nuclear power plants have more than enough positive value, particularly in these days of "climate change" to justify the very low risk of them providing any advantage to a "rogue state" trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Nuclear weapons apparently aren't a major concern anyway. If they were, A.Q. Khan would not be a free man right now. But, he works for one of our so-called "allies", so we haven't arranged an accident for him, even though his activities continue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just to mention it in passing, the original suggestion of the use of nukes for electricity was in the US. I would doubt that one or two more legal civilian facilities within those borders woudl have a big impact on proliferation. The original discussion was supposed to be about the US using more nuclear power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Yep, cheap, clean, safe, non polluting, non greenhouse gas releasing nuclear power - power that could be used to replace a good deal of our current oil use and bring us a lot closer to energy self sufficiency. With the additional side benefit of eliminating all the daily pollution from coal and nat gas fired power plants *now*, instead of 30 years from now when we might have some of the renewable energy sources improved enough to make a real impact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think now is not likely. Even if we magically licensed a nuke plant tomorrow, it would still take 2-3 years to build it and bring it online. We would probably be hard pressed to take a current plant off line because of growth in demand in the interim. And that 2-3 year thing ain't gonna happen since we aren't going to magically license nuke plants any time soon. Heck just the enviornmental impact statement can take a year or so to put together, let alone argue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

We certainly won't get there with the status quo. Something like an executive order that we'll be energy independent in 5 years with the weight to quash all the NIMBY and Eco-Loon attempts to prevent it.
What I want to see is a comprehensive push starting with new nukes to allow the shutdown of the coal and NG plants and stop all that pollution, provide cheap electricity for electric and plug in hybrid cars and electric commuter rail and busses and home heating and cooling. Use the freed up US NG and US oil to keep other transportation going without foreign oil. Improve conservation as much as possible. Get realistic renewable sources, including distributed solar and wind generation online (again quashing NIBMY and Eco-Loon nonsense) over a reasonable period of time so that in 30 years when those nukes are reaching retirement they can be retires and we can by on entirely renewables.
Something sensible like that will never happen of course...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good luck. Little of that would be constitutionally valid to overturn as an EO since it is based on laws passed by Congress, at the minimum bringing up sepatation of powers.

cars where they look at tailpipe admissions and studiously ignore the extra electricity that has to be generated.
But I digress (g)

as a viable major contributor. The solar cells have to too big and wind generation takes too much space and both are fairly polluting on the making of the cells or turbines. Might be useful at the margins, but I am not all that sold for large scale applications. Although even the marginal stuff would keep the growing part of the demand at bay, as it were.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Well, since something like that will never happen, the exact logistics don't really matter.

On my various business visits to San Francisco, I've note the fraudulent claim of "Zero emissions vehicle" on the electric busses, which are in fact "Remote emissions vehicles".

This is why I specified "distributed solar" (and wind where applicable), i.e. panels installed on existing rooftops. Basically something like a utility supplied and maintained battery less grid tie system. Trying to do utility scale solar any other way just isn't practical and has huge environmental impact. Distributed across customer's rooftops it uses no new space and also greatly extends the service life of the already overtaxed grid by producing a good portion of the power locally.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

how do you supply power when the sun goes down,if there are no batteries to store the excess power generated by the solar panels? Wind generators typically go quiet at night,too.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

The (continental) US spans a few time zones so that gives some spread, and hydro and tidal should go a long way towards filling in the night. Add in locally viable items like biomass in big farm / ranch areas, geothermal in the few areas where that works, some storage such as pumped hydro and CAS to store surplus production during peak times and you'll be in better shape. Some time of day rate breaks can also help encourage utilization during off peak times and local energy storage as appropriate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

BTW, I just looked at the Gray County (KS) wind farm production data. Since initial startup mid-2001 thru mid-2007, they have averaged only 40% capacity factor w/ a high month of less than 60% and several months of only 20%. That implies from 2.5X to 5X the required generation even to get the output which still would be awfully expensive to have such excess installed capacity. Wind has some benefits, but it can't replace baseload generation in large quantites w/o very high excess capacity at other times. This facility is in W KS, one of the highest wind energy potential areas in the US.

It's still dark where it's dark when it's dark and those folks need lights when it's dark, not while the sun's shining... :)
I understand what you think you would be doing there, but while haven't done actual calculations, one problem is that you're adding even more requirements for transmission during those dark times or still require other generation facilities.

Certainly hydro, tidal and pumped storage have very limited geographical constraints. I don't recognize "CAS".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I've driven past some relatively huge wind turbine farms in west TX and they sure didn't seem to be anywhere near full production either. Wind certainly isn't the answer by itself, but it can certainly contribute to the total.

No single solution, a lot of different sources need to be adding power to the grid in a lot of different places. If we can get better storage technology than current batteries that will solve a lot of problems, including EV range or lack thereof.

Hydro and tidal generation are geographically limited, but a have a lot of energy available and should be significant contributors to the total. CAS is compressed air storage, same basic idea as pumped hydro storage, compress air with off peak excess and run back through a turbine on peak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

There are very few significant hydro locations undeveloped in the US. OK, I know of CAS now that you remind me -- it's small potatoes kind of solution.
Wind is a "fill-in" but I don't see it ever being practical as a large-scale replacement as it is simply too costly to build the required alternate source since it isn't reliable (enough).
The fundamental answer to electrical generation is nuclear.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Nuke is certainly the short term solution. Hopefully in the few decades of breathing room nukes would provide storage technology would improve enough to solve the problem of the intermittent nature of most RE sources.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

For central station large-scale electrical generation, there's no reason in the world to consider anything _BUT_ nuclear for as far forward as one cares to project. _IF_ fusion ever turns out to be practical for large application(*), one can progress from fission to fusion, but the there is no practical limit on fission reactors for fuel since one can always close the fuel cycle and recycle roughly 90% of conventional fuel and w/ the incorporation of some breeding, one could (at higher cost) even divorce from fresh sources of U if absolutely required although that would entail a higher cost since U is quite plentiful and therefore relatively inexpensive.
(*) My personal opinion from 30+ yrs as NucE in power generation area in watching the fusion folks is it is a technology that will remain "20 years in the future" for the next 50-100 years at least. Perhaps there will be the fundamental materials breakthrough to solve the containment problems in a practical manner, but so far, nothing anybody has conceived or tried seems, imo at least, to have a chance of ever making for a cost-effective way to build commercial generating stations.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why bother with biomass when nuclear power works so well?

All this adds unneeded complexity to our power generation,while nuclear power simplifies it greatly. Use modern,modular reactors,not the old cusotm-built light-water reactors.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Nuclear energy is "green" energy, but it is not renewable. We should certainly be using nuclear *now* to eliminate all the environmental damage from the current coal/NG/oil energy sources, but we should still be working towards all renewable sources for the future.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.