O/T: Nuclear Reactor Problems

Page 4 of 16  
On 6/3/2011 3:29 PM, Robatoy wrote: ...

Not sure what they're doing up north, Robatoy; what they're doing down here is making more bs rules and adding costs thereby.
My task (and I've chosen to accept it) is to try to throw fact in front of the train and make as much effort as possible to keep power affordable for our members.
I don't know of any way other than to try to counteract the agenda of the others than by refuting them, do you?
(Or, maybe I'm totally misreading...I will kill this thread in my reader so I'm no longer tempted, though, at least until Lew goes off again... :) )
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If your task is keeping costs down on distribution, then it doesn't matter where the MWs come from. If the decision to drain a lake through a turbine is 20 free MW's for a year and then the damn thing goes dry, the lake that is, then cooler heads must prevail. In that hypothetical scenario, you can't run lines to a community with a guarantee to supply them. So the supply has to have some robustness to it. Not only are we talking about base-load, we are also looking at sustainability. The steadiest, reliable base-load we have, here and below the border, is nuclear. Fact. So if we are going to blow a bezillion dollars on R&D, let it be to perfect that source we have become to trust. Nuclear is pretty darn green if managed and put in places where the risk factors are extremely low. Coal mines collapse, water runs out and artificial lakes causes all kinds of eco-problems.
We have spent a gazillion dollars working on all facets of nuclear power. THAT is money already invested. We have learned so much over the last 80 years. Let us put that to good use and be more careful.
We can't afford NOT to go nuclear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2011 4:03 PM, Robatoy wrote: ...

Well, basically the way we can do that is to control our power cost which is to say, try to maintain the most effective generation option possible.

Well, that sorta' thing is patently obvious--which is my rant against natural gas for central generation except for very unusual circumstances.
And B), yes. Only (or at least the major) problem there is politics and paranoia here (as I suspect it is there).
...

Amen, brother; preaching to choir there...
Altho I am not at all opposed to coal; mines don't _necessarily_ collapse and it's really other than nuclear by far the most plentiful and suitable fuel for the purpose. Certainly taking it off the table in the US isn't having nor will it have any effect on the Chinese and Indians nor most of the rest of the developing world so its a fools errand to think one is carrying the water for some other agenda by doing so.
Adios from south of the border ... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

Goddammit!!!!! ------------------------------------ That's already been done.
Renewable energy is the only viable option.
One thing is sure, it will require multiple types of renewable to get the job done.
Forget fossil fuels in the long term.
The global warming issues have already eliminated coal and oil as long term fuel sources.
If you can get a commercial insurance carrier to underwrite the next nuke you want to bring on line, get back to me, otherwise it is a dead issue.
The oil and coal lobbies have very deep pockets and it is proving to be a hell of a battle; however, in the end, they will lose configured as they are now.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

You mean, like whale oil?

Latest estimates of natural gas reserves show that we have six times the reserves we had a decade ago. At current consumption rates, the U.S. has sufficient natural gas for about 200 years. For coal, even longer.

No, global warming has just about been eliminated as a long-term anything. Global warming science has been thoroughly debunked as preposterous and the global warming scientists have been shown to be either dupes (being charitable) or out-and-out frauds. The whole thing has as much substance as crop circles and its practitioners, in the main, devotees of something resembling a cargo cult.

The amount of oil used for other than transportation is minuscule. Of the available renewable energy sources, only wind is possible for transportation (think sails).
I know, I know, you're thinking of electric, but can you even conceive of an electric 18-wheeler carrying 40,000 pounds of rebar? You can't put geothermal anything in the tanks of an airplane.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know it is difficult, but keep an open mind. Global warming is a fact. Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage is. Chatter among scientists as to how to account for datapoints that appear to be outliers is just that - chatter. Important for getting down to the nitty-gritty, but it isn't affecting the big picture.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Han wrote:

I stand corrected: When I said global warming is bunk I mean "man-made" global warming. Thank you for pointing out my shorthand could lead to the wrong conclusion.
However, I detect some ambivalence in YOUR comment:
"Exactly how much is man-made is not known, but an appreciable percentage is."
If the amount is unknown, how can one assert "an appreciable percentage" of global warming is man-made?
And what is this "appreciable" percentage? 50%? 90%? 5%?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ambivalence - no, I'm not ambivalent about it. On the other hand, as many have pointed out, Mother Nature has on occasion made things warmer and colder, and no one can be sure (yet) what She is doing all by herself right now. There is uncertainty in both the natural trend(s) and the trends caused by humankind.
What is unequivocal (IMNSHO) is that we are contributing to warming of the global climate. As the doomsday sayers have pointed out, a very high proportion of the people on earth live in coastal areas. If sealevel is indeed going to rise several feet, and maybe several tens of feet, there will be hell to pay in areas like, e.g. New York. I remember there was a storm, I believe in the 80s, that occurred at exactly the wrong time - socalled spring tides, when twice a month moon, earth and sun are aligned so that normal tides are already 1 or 2 feet higher than average. The long duration storm had pushed up waters in New York Bay so high that notonly the highways circling Manhattan were flooded, the parking lot behind the VA Hospital on 23rd Str was under water - cars up to their windows in seawater, subbasement flooded, elevators (18 stories) out of action, etc. I had to help rescue foodstuffs from the subbasement. A general emergency situation. Imagine patients who needed to be moved, carried by stretcher up and down the stairs. Also, I believe on this occasion, the subway pumps couldn't keep up and subways broke down because of the flooding.
This just to indicate that a few feet of sealevel will make a nasty and big difference.
My country of origin, Holland is of necessity busy with a really big and long duration program of water control, both from the sea and from the rivers entering Holland. Because of greater and longer periods of heat and lack of precipitation, that includes measures to conserve and preserve water supplies, both for people and for agriculture. All this idiotic denial of what is inevitably going to happen to some degree, has me concerned that some just have their heads in the sand. Preparing for what is going to happen in fifty or 150 years doesn't sound appealing, but you're going to face it some day. And it is going to cost a lot.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2011 3:05 PM, Han wrote: ...

I don't think that's so "unequivocal" at all...and if it is indeed natural cycle, what we choose to do if done on large scale might just be the _wrong_ thing unless one really does know whether and precisely what effects are what.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
{schnipferized for brevitization]

Yup. Just like that saying: that men cannot create a simple worm, yet we create gods by the hundreds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 4 Jun 2011 15:16:18 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

And look where -that- took us. <sigh>
-- Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills. -- Minna Thomas Antrim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<...snipped...>

I'm not one to cry "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" but over the history of mankind there have been many who made similar statements about whales, passenger pigeons, now-depleted fisheries, forests, etc. Certainly there is much still to be learned about how and to what degree humans affect climate, but to think that the activities of 7 BILLION people have NO effect is not a reasonable conclusion. world climate
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/04/2011 09:13 PM, Larry W wrote:

Any idea how much the biomass of insects outweighs the biomass of mammals?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2011 11:35 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

Proving, once again, that we live in culture where just enough education to believe what seems a be a reasonable, logical conclusion is not necessarily so.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't really know, though I do recall reading somewhere that the biomass of ants alone, worldwide, is about the same as that of humans. BUT, those ants and other insects and animals are not burning 6 or 7 BILLION TONS of coal every year, 28 billion barrels of oil, etc.
--
Often wrong, never in doubt.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org says...

And how much change does that actually make every year?
There is supposed to be a temperature spike right now. Anybody who can read an oscilloscope who lookes at the ice core data sees this. So how does one determine with any certainty that what we are seeing is not that spike? Comparing that ice core data from Antarctica and from Greenland also tells us that during that spike in the previous glaciation the Greenland ice cap melted off, so again we see nothing unexpected, so again how do we determine with any certainty that what we are seeing is not that natural spike?
In previous cycles that spike was of very short duration and followed by a very rapid temperature drop, and increased glaciation, ultimately leading to sea levels dropping more than 300 feet and to glaciers large enough to move the whole of Long Island covering North America well south of the Great Lakes--if that happens again all of Canada is just plain swept clean, and all of New England, and Chicago and Seattle and a number of other northerm US cities. Europe will lose Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and most of the UK.
So with that prospect, it may turn out that in a short time we're trying to find ways to actually provide that "anthropogenic global warming" that the gloom and doom crowd is currently telling is is going to make the sky fall.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 5, 9:34am, snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

This planet we live on has been nailed by some serious events, some are speculated to be the reason the dinosaurs became extinct. It has always managed to right itself in spectacular fashion.
Even though I think the whole GW scare is grossly overblown (can you say, carbon tax, money grab?) it behooves us to apply good stewardship of SpaceShip Earth. When camping in the forest, take out what you brought in. Clean up after yourself. So when it became obvious that the smelters at Sudbury's nickel mines were causing acid rain. it was a measurable and verifiable problem. Very local, and with some basic intervention, those lakes around Sudbury have sprang back to life. But in a global perspective that problem was a mere pimple on an elephant's ass. Same goes for the 'repair' of Lake Erie. We DO need to be careful, but 'heating up the whole planet' ??? Waaay too much booga-booga, none of which is verifiable.
Just another bullshit method to extract money from the working stiffs.
The sunsabitches just keep trying to bend us over. How much of that 'carbon' tax is going to get used to 'cool off' our planet? Laughable, that's what it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote:

of SpaceShip Earth. When camping in the forest, take out what you brought in. Clean up after yourself. ------------------------------- You're shorts must be squeezing your balls so tight you have a severe case of analytis AKA: Shitty outlook on life.
"Cap & Trade" has been around for at least 25 years.
Much of it got started to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act.
For years Unocal (Union Oil Of California) would buy high polluting vehicles off the street, then scrap them out to gain the pollution tax credits here in SoCal.
Those pollution credits were then used to offset the pollution created by their refineries.
It was cheaper to scrap cars than upgrade the refinery.
BTW, Unocal sold the refineries so they quit buying cars.
At the same time there were businesses whose pollution tax credits were worth more than the rest of the business in total.
Like the cars, also got rid of some sick businesses.
To paraphrase your above comments, "you mess it up, you clean it up", seems like a good idea.
"Cap & Trade" is not new and it certainly is NBD.
It is just a simple straight forward way to implement a pollution reduction program.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 5, 12:13am, snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

BUT... you need to add us to all the other living organisms on the planet, from chickens, to plankton, to platypuses etc. This planet is so alive with gazillions of organisms that the effect we are having is seriously diluted. If 7 billion people all moved to the Province of Ontario, they would all have a piece of property big enough to build a house on it. That math gets really interesting if 4 people moved into that hypothetical house. Now the property would be 4 x bigger for those families.... discuss....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011 04:13:47 +0000 (UTC), snipped-for-privacy@sdf.lNoOnSePsAtMar.org (Larry W) wrote:

Mother Nature is a big girl now. She can handle slight changes like humans and volcanoes, eh?
That said, I firmly believe that man should rein in his extravagances (coal burning power production for a super biggie) and negligence so he treads more lightly on Mother Earth.
-- Experience is a good teacher, but she send in terrific bills. -- Minna Thomas Antrim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    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.