Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps

Page 8 of 16  
Pete C. wrote:

It's not illegal to discriminate based on income - unless you're a politician and are talking about taxes.
And a golf course would be a good use for a superfund site.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Golf courses ARE superfund sites by design.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course then everyone would be all pissed about using tax funds for the rich golfers. Generally politicians can't win (g).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

earlier in this thread.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

2-3 years? Heck, that would be barely enough time to litigate the environmentalists into submission.
Try 10-15 years. Sad.
--
:(
JR

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

As slow as litigation goes when parties are motivated to keep up the fight, I would at least double that 2-3 years. I also see new litigation battles being sprung up by the luddites as things move along.
At least those who do construction are better at pushing to stay on a schedule and getting actual work done than litigating luddites, so I think 15 years still sounds realistic.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Note the magically licensed part. (g)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hehehehe! Yeah, I saw that. Then we could hope for magically passive environmentalists when it came to breaking ground.
--
:)
JR

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

I wonder if we could somehow use nuclear power plants to make the coal- gasoline conversion process more economical and practical? Then we could employ our vast coal deposits to run our autos.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

It would be better if we could utilize the nuclear generated electricity in a more environmentally friendly way such as providing charging power for electric cars and plug in hybrids, and producing hydrogen for the combustion side of the hybrids and for non hybrid vehicles. And of course eventually transition from nuclear generated electricity and onto renewable generated electricity once the renewable are viable in large scale.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would be great,EXCEPT that battery storage is not good enough to be really practical yet. Although I've read Toshiba has come out with a new Li-ion battery that recharges to 90% in 10 minutes. That could make a difference.
Also,hydrogen storage for autos is in even worse shape. So far,nothing beats gasoline/diesel for autos,and that's where our vulnerability is,WRT the Middle East;petroleum.
using nuclear power for our electric generation is a no-brainer.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

That's sort of my point, if you provide free electricity from those nukes for charging EVs / PIHs *everywhere* so you can drive your PIH 10 miles to the store and plug it in in the parking space while you shop, replacing much of the electricity used on the trip there, then the range issues would be less of a problem and more people would be able to effectively use EVs or PIHs.

Battery technology continues to improve, but just not fast enough. If batteries improved at the rate that hard drives do, we'd all be driving electric SUVs with 500+ mile range, great performance and 10 minute recharges.

It's hard to beat the hydrocarbons for energy density, but if there were hydrogen fueling stations at even 1/4 of the density of current gas stations it would be pretty viable for general use. I recall seeing a piece on TV about a relatively compact and efficient hydrogen production unit that combined with cheap power from the nukes (and eventually RE when it catches up) would make hydrogen a viable replacement for a large percentage of vehicles. Commercial vehicles are particularly good for a hydrogen alternative since they travel pretty well defined routes making it easy to insure they stay within range of a fueling station. City busses and UPS trucks commonly use CNG currently and do just fine.

Certainly it is the only technology that is a viable replacement for all our coal and NG electric generation currently. It can eliminate a huge amount of emissions now and provide a few decades breathing room to improve and deploy RE technologies to eventually replace it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many if not most states that developed nuclear weapons did it with government-owned reactors;there's no such animal as a "civilian" nuclear power plant in Russia,China or North Korea.I suspect Israel's Dimona reactor is gov't owned,too.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh fer crissake....you know exactly what I meant when I used the word "civilian".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Given that, I guess we'll just have to live, warm and illuminated, in a more dangerous world since we'll not be giving-up nuclear power plants.
As TMI (a few cubic yards of irradiated steam do NOT a disaster make) and Chernobyl fade from memory, we will build more nukes.

I disagree.
Most benefits do NOT come with such dire consequences.
However, it is indeed refreshing, and surprising, that you declare nuclear electric power a "benefit". It is, in many ways.
--
:)
JR

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

Oh, it's definitely a benefit. My concerns about it stem from seeing so much homeland security cash spent for fire trucks and not enough for things like chemical plant security. If I recall, that industry purchased the right to take care of security without government intervention. I'm not encouraged by that, and I wonder about nuclear plant security as well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can stop wondering. You can probably even relax a bit.
There is a nuke operating perhaps 25 miles from where I am typing. It's along the Missouri river. Security there is ridiculously tight. Also, my son-in-law is an engineer at a nuke perhaps 40 miles east of his home. The (generic) stories he tells about security are impressive.
Besides, any terrorist strike on a U.S. nuclear-powered, electricity generating station will not be a ground-based assault. It will come from the air - and will be a dismal failure as core containment here is extremely OVER built. FWIW: There was NO containment structure at Chernobyl.
--
:)
JR

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

If these features are present everywhere, I'll be happy. Actually, though, security is pretty tight at the Ginna plant east of here (Rochester). Fishing boats occasionally drift too close to the security zone, and it raises holy hell. The containment structure is another issue - I have no idea what it's like.
My other concern is whether it would be possible for a bunch of idiots to plan another joke like the Shoreham plant (Long Island). It eventually died an appropriate death because the evacuation plan was also conceived by idiots who never bothered to look at a map of Long Island.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

Those features _ARE_ present everywhere as it is a standard part of NRC licensing rules.
As for containment, it'll stand anything up to a direct hit from a bunker-buster or similar ordinance. If there were anywhere I'd choose to be in an earthquake or such, inside containment would be one real safe choice... :)
In reality, any external assault is extremely unlikely to do any damage to anything other than secondary equipment outside containment such as the turbine-generators or the switchyard. The most likely way for a real incident to occur would be as an "inside job" where an employee became a mole.

In reality, there would never be a need for a massive evacuation in a panic mode--the requirement for one is simply a current licensing stipulation inserted as a pacifier to the anti-nuke crowd. A LWR fuel assembly simply is not highly enriched enough to make a nuclear explosion--the worst that can happen is a core melt incident similar to TMI which takes on the order of hours even if the operators make essentially every possible wrong decision as they did there in the early stages of the accident(*).
(*) If they had simply left the situation alone and let the HPI and RC pump systems on, all would have been over within a couple hours and they could have restarted in a few weeks at the outside after reworking the HP relief valve on the pressurizer that stuck open after the reactor trip.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Although I don't know for sure, I suspect they are. Obviously, I hope they are.

The typical core containment makes, by comparison, the Pentagon appear to have been built of straw.
Especially after 9/11, if a flight strays too close to a nuke, all hell breaks loose. If the flight doesn't deviate from its apparent collision path, the nuke operator can do an emergency shutdown, ramming the control rods back into the core pretty quickly. Even if the containment were seriously breached by a direct hit, the reactor vessel would probably survive intact.

What was THAT all about?
--
:)
JR

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

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.