Range clock - Disconnect it!

[Rod Speed]

dpb wrote

Thats not what being a green source is about.

[dpb]

And why not, pray tell? Being less intrusive on the environment of the _OVERALL_ process from manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and disposal is the epitome of "green". Granted that's not what the shortsighted politically active "greenies" consider but for the most part they have very myopic viewpoints and wish a lot instead of making considered evaluations of the whole process and end results including, of course, reliability and economic considerations.

Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will provide that much (on a monthly basis, the multipliers get even larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that backup generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed. That, unfortunately, means investment in some other generation capacity that most often now is gas turbine which drives up demand for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO. There are similar issues w/ solar albeit not quite as variable but the night time shutdown is absolute--at least it is predictable. The point is, while these sources are of value and have low direct input fuel costs, they definitely have other costs in their deployment that cannot be ignored in a global analysis of what is or isn't "green".

--

[dpb]

alternative technology on a per MWe

In any rational definition of "green" as being the minimal _TOTAL_ impact it does. (See other response)

including installation, and the monthly savings

backwards and you'll be selling power back to

That is the only way I know of it being so, yes. I was curious if there were something other than that model although I suspect I know the answer.

--

[max]

This is the most bullshit pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever seen.

[Rod Speed]

dpb wrote

enough to not just encase it in

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.

We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

consider but for the most part they have very

the whole process and end results

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

time shutdown is absolute--at least it is

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.

[Rod Speed]

dpb wrote

Wrong. Thats not what green is about.

See my comments on that.

low density population, actually lends

panels for $70 per

something other than that model although

Yeah, it someone had fixed the economics, there would be plenty yapping about it.

[dpb]

In what way? I'll be glad to share the data (again) and discuss it any way you please...

[dpb]

stupid enough to not just encase it in

manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and

consider but for the most part they have very

the whole process and end results

time shutdown is absolute--at least it is

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...

I suspect we'll find they're still only obstructionists at heart... :(

[Rod Speed]

dpb wrote

coal, and even if we stop doing that

instead, not 'various green sources'

stupid enough to not just encase it in

manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and

and wish a lot instead of making

course, reliability and economic

areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X

provide that much (on a

shorter), there has to be that backup

unfortunately, means investment in some other

is, while these sources are of value and

be ignored in a global analysis of what

shortly as the present 20+ license

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

Or that they just mindlessly hate nukes.

[Mark Lloyd]

[snip]

Current ones (at least should) turn off the video output(s) too. This allows you to use an automatic audio/video switch.

I would expect motors to be off as well.

[Doug Miller]

Not much point in continuing to argue with someone who denies having written his own words.

Bye.

[terry]

..- Hide quoted text -

And sometimes has to be reset if/when a power glitch occurs. Darn it! Up til now, and noting that 'modern stoves' are almost impossible to buy without an 'electronic-digital clock/timer' have been able to survive, from 1956 to the present, using a series of new and used (usually donated free) kitchen cooking stoves. However have kept a couple of old-fashioned electromechanical clocks from scrapped stoves so as to have on hand if/when it becomes necessary to acquire an electronic clock model! Advantage of the older clocks is even if the power goes off for a few minutes, the clock restarts by itself and the roast is not left uncooked or the cake in the oven is not spoiled. Then when next one notices just adjust the clock time if using it as a time piece is important. And yes; in a school and church hall cafeteria the stove clock timer was frequently being bumped by cooking pots on the top of the stove, oven stopped working causing frequent calls for assistance. Usually myself! So disconnected it!

[dpb]

...

shortly as the present 20+ license

Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by switching away from combustion it's going to take more than your definition of green; hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to be any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level) as there simply aren't going to be enough alternative generation sources available in time.

You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional definition for accomplishing anything.

--

[dpb]

...

I didn't see all this bs earlier so final comments...

That we don't currently is only owing to the shortsightedness of a former administration that decreed the NRC would not process the licensing application for the reprocessing facility GE was planning to build in Barnwell, SC, area.

The same administration followed that gem w/ the cancellation of the CRBRP demonstration project outside Oak Ridge, TN.

At my former employer, we were designing for Pu and Th reload fuel cycles in conventional PWRs in the early to mid-'70s. Needless to say, the above two actions precluded going further.

So, that we don't currently use breeders in commercial power generation in the US is only a political decision, not a technical one. Also note I didn't say we currently were breeding only that it is feasible; hence renewable.

manufacturing, fuel supply, operation and

The discussion is of power generation, not population control so the comparison is of no value.

--

[Don Klipstein]

On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.

The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel" electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed. But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Don Klipstein]

My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old. I got it the same day I got a "3200+" processor. The battery is removable and replaceable. I have that computer on a power strip that I often turn off.

- Don Klipstein ( [e-mail])

[Rod Speed]

Doug Miller wrote

No point in bothering with a terminal f****it that selectively quotes what I actually did say in a desperate and flagrantly dishonest attempt to bullshit its way out of its predicament.

Dont let the door hit you on the arse on the way out, liar.

[salty]

Those who claim you are a fool are apparently correct.

[Rod Speed]

dpb wrote

shortly as the present 20+ license

away from combustion it's going to take

Its not my definition, its the generally accepted use of that term.

gases, specifically CO, if there is going to

there simply aren't going to be enough

Sure, but that doesnt mean that the US system will have a clue on that basic stuff.

for accomplishing anything.

It doesnt have to be called green to be able to accomplish something useful.

[salty]

That doesn't make a BIT of difference.